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

Garvinator
16-07-2009, 07:26 AM
I am starting to think this global warming stuff is like a new cult that has appeared on the scene. If you do not believe in the cult or ask hard questions of it, you get vilified. Also, to be seen to be supporting the new cult is the 'in' thing at the moment.

I find it all quite ridiculous. Remember also that I usually vote green 1 at every election :uhoh:

Ian Murray
16-07-2009, 12:12 PM
The Myth of Economy versus Environment (http://newmatilda.com/2009/06/15/myth-economy-versus-environment)
by Ben McNeil
newmatilda.com


...
There's an age-old myth that doing good for the environment is bad for the economy. The twin goals of cutting pollution and growing the economy are dominated by this zero-sum game, in which environmental gain must take away from the economy. In Australian cities in the decade between 1991 and 2001, average levels of non-greenhouse pollution from cars, including carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide and sulphur dioxide, were reduced by up to 50 per cent. This cut in pollution occurred despite one-quarter more cars being on the road and Australians driving 30 billion more kilometres each year. Meanwhile, the Australian economy expanded over 40 per cent. There are many such examples of net economic benefits as a result of cleaning up the environment.
...
Prior to the Montreal Protocol, no replacement was considered possible for CFCs and the processes like refrigeration and air-conditioning in which they were used. Some politicians, commentators and industry groups predicted massive job losses and economic damage because of the Montreal Protocol, claims that continued after ratification. Somehow, they believed, phasing out CFCs would cause massive economic damage.

So what actually eventuated when the world embraced the Montreal Protocol and banned CFC production? The chemical industry quickly found an alternative compound to CFCs for use in refrigerators and air-conditioners that caused much less damage to the ozone layer. It's been estimated that by the year 2060, the CFC ban will result in 1.5 million fewer melanomas, 19 million fewer non-melanoma skin cancers and 130 million fewer cataracts. Many of those lives saved from skin cancer will be Australian.

Avoided ultraviolet radiation damage to agriculture, fisheries and materials is estimated to amount to US$460 billion. The direct cost of phasing out CFCs was US$235 billion between 1987 and 2006. So if you count just the financial costs of implementing the Montreal Protocol, it sounds like a lot. But even not allowing for the massive health and productivity benefits, there was a net $US230 billion saving to the global economy by introducing the Protocol. The cost of inaction exceeded the cost of action.
...
A similar question only just starting to be discussed in Australia is: what are the economic consequences for Australia if we don't slow climate change? How important to us is it for Kakadu and the Great Barrier Reef to exist in 50 years time? What are the economic implications of running the Murray-Darling basin completely dry and fitting every city with billion-dollar desalination plants? What are the climate impacts for our agriculture and exports?

Igor_Goldenberg
16-07-2009, 02:17 PM
There's an age-old myth that doing good for the environment is bad for the economy. The twin goals of cutting pollution and growing the economy are dominated by this zero-sum game, in which environmental gain must take away from the economy. In Australian cities in the decade between 1991 and 2001, average levels of non-greenhouse pollution from cars, including carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide and sulphur dioxide, were reduced by up to 50 per cent. This cut in pollution occurred despite one-quarter more cars being on the road and Australians driving 30 billion more kilometres each year. Meanwhile, the Australian economy expanded over 40 per cent. There are many such examples of net economic benefits as a result of cleaning up the environment.


Indeed, improving the environment does not have to be done in the way detrimental to the economy, as well as technological advance and economic prosperity does not necessarily lead to a detriment in the quality of out environment.
However, modern climate scaremongers are not interested in market driven solution, they only accept large scale government intervention (preferably on world wide scale).
Few weeks ago I accidently overheard Bob Brown interview, where he explicitly said that he is not interested with solutions on individual level, only on government level. That ideology underpins the whole green/global warming movement.

It's ironic how they are trying to re-brand themselves, talking about climate change instead of global warming. Indeed, global warming seems more and more like a joke every day.


A similar question only just starting to be discussed in Australia is: what are the economic consequences for Australia if we don't slow climate change? How important to us is it for Kakadu and the Great Barrier Reef to exist in 50 years time? What are the economic implications of running the Murray-Darling basin completely dry and fitting every city with billion-dollar desalination plants? What are the climate impacts for our agriculture and exports?

The latter does not follow from the former, it's a pure alarmist guff. There are three things to be proved:

1. The degree of climate changing is higher then normal fluctuation.
2. That change is androgenic
3. Benefits of altering the climate exceed the cost of proposed solution.

Before committing us, ordinary citizens, to any action, the government(s) (and, before that, the alarmists) must prove all three points.
So far they proved none of them.

morebeer
16-07-2009, 03:39 PM
2. That change is androgenic
[/QUOTE]

And estrogenic too!

Capablanca-Fan
18-07-2009, 03:42 PM
The latter does not follow from the former, it's a pure alarmist guff. There are three things to be proved:

1. The degree of climate changing is higher then normal fluctuation.
2. That change is an[throp]ogenic
3. Benefits of altering the climate exceed the cost of proposed solution.

Before committing us, ordinary citizens, to any action, the government(s) (and, before that, the alarmists) must prove all three points.
So far they proved none of them.
Exactly. #3 might be expanded as:

3a. Warming will do more harm than good.
3b. The benefits of preventing the allegedly harmful warming will exceed the cost of proposed solution.

Tony Dowden
18-07-2009, 04:50 PM
What is this thread actually about?

Am I correctly concluding that its a climate change skeptic thread?? :eek:

Kevin Bonham
18-07-2009, 06:02 PM
Am I correctly concluding that its a climate change skeptic thread?? :eek:

Yes; it started as a split-off from another thread and has basically become a thread for discussing whether climate change is happening, human-caused, a bad thing etc etc. I think the "sceptics" are more prone to activate it with fresh material than the other side but I could be wrong about that.

Garvinator
18-07-2009, 07:12 PM
What is this thread actually about?

Am I correctly concluding that its a climate change skeptic thread?? :eek:
Well for me it is not so much about believing if climate change is happening or not, or whether it is caused by human factors or not, but about discussing the proposed ideas of our politicians.

pappubahry
18-07-2009, 08:37 PM
It's ironic how they are trying to re-brand themselves, talking about climate change instead of global warming. Indeed, global warming seems more and more like a joke every day.
:lol: I am 95% sure that "climate change" was a term coined by right-wingers in an Orwellian attempt to make global warming not sound so bad.

Pretty miserable failure, in hindsight.

pappubahry
18-07-2009, 08:59 PM
Don't actually believe what I just wrote. I can't find a source for it with a quick Google. I know I've read something like it though.

Spiny Norman
19-07-2009, 10:54 AM
For me this thread is an opportunity to keep across interesting developments. I am mostly skeptical about any attempt by governments to be prescriptive about just about anything at all. When I first heard about "warming" I was skeptical, because most of the talk was coming from green extremists (not well known for their dispassionate communication of facts) and ex-politicians (of whom not much more need be said). Since then I have tracked the issue through several phases:

1. general agreement that mankind is causing the world to warm (common sense says we have some impact by burning fossil fuels, but how much?)

2. popularisation via the media (e.g. An Inconvenient Truth) and the usual gaggle of Hollywood types and ambitious politicians which trivialise very real scientific issues, thoroughly misrepresent basic factual information, and gloss over the problems with the thesis

3. a gradually increasing amount of contradictory opinion coming from very senior scientific figures (who think it is all about the science; unfortunately they are sadly mistaken, as global warming is a political and not a scientific issue)

4. shrill voices who proclaim, in the face of increasing scientific dissent at the highest levels, that "the science is settled" (to me, this is the smoking gun)

5. development of a new morality built around those brave souls who believe the world is warming and who stand against the eco-Nazis, those holocaust deniers, who suspect that its largely a put-up job (if you can't win the empirical debate, switch ground to a moral debate)

That's my take on it. I'm looking for empirical evidence to be shown. If the world is warming as a result of human activities, then if human activities (releasing CO2) continue unabated, then the world would continue to warm.

The facts are that temperature increases evident in past decades have levelled off and have begun to retreat. Empirical evidence indicates that, on the whole, a warmer earth would be better for life overall anyway. So I remain unconvinced about both the thesis and the proposed solutions.

I guess that makes me a skeptic.

Capablanca-Fan
19-07-2009, 01:42 PM
Same here: what convinces me most that globull warm-mongering is a crock is not so much the arguments of the "deniers" but the hysterical shrieking of its proponents to drown dissent.

Capablanca-Fan
19-07-2009, 01:45 PM
:lol: I am 95% sure that "climate change" was a term coined by right-wingers in an Orwellian attempt to make global warming not sound so bad.
I thought it was invented by the Greenstapo to hedge their bets. I.e. both warming and cooling are adduced as evidence for the need for massive government control of our lives.

Capablanca-Fan
19-07-2009, 01:48 PM
What is this thread actually about?

Am I correctly concluding that its a climate change skeptic thread?? :eek:
Not necessarily: as IG pointed out, it is skepticism of the conjunction of at least three premises. That is, one can accept that AGW is real and still oppose government preventive measures that would vastly impoverish the people as a cure worse than the disease (e.g. Bjørn Lomborg).

Capablanca-Fan
19-07-2009, 01:49 PM
I am starting to think this global warming stuff is like a new cult that has appeared on the scene. If you do not believe in the cult or ask hard questions of it, you get vilified. Also, to be seen to be supporting the new cult is the 'in' thing at the moment.

I find it all quite ridiculous. Remember also that I usually vote green 1 at every election :uhoh:
Now that is quite something: a Green voter who is skeptical of much of the warm-mongering hype. :hmm: :uhoh:

Axiom
02-08-2009, 12:20 AM
Global warming is the new religion of First World urban elites

Geologist Ian Plimer takes a contrary view, arguing that man-made climate change is a con trick perpetuated by environmentalists

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Global+warming+religion+First+World+urban+elites/1835847/story.html

Kevin Bonham
02-08-2009, 02:18 AM
Yes, we all already know what Plimer thinks about all this.

Axiom
02-08-2009, 02:31 AM
Yes, we all already know what Plimer thinks about all this.
that he thinks its a new religion ?

Axiom
02-08-2009, 03:35 AM
WORLD'S LARGEST SCIENCE GROUP REJECTING MAN-MADE CLIMATE FEARS



By Marc Morano
July 31, 2009
NewsWithViews.com

An outpouring of skeptical scientists who are members of the American Chemical Society (ACS) are revolting against the group's editor-in-chief -- with some demanding he be removed -- after an editorial appeared claiming “the science of anthropogenic climate change is becoming increasingly well established.”

http://www.newswithviews.com/Morano/marc104.htm

Anyone think AGW skeptics are given a fair hearing in the media ?

Kevin Bonham
02-08-2009, 04:23 PM
that he thinks its a new religion ?

Calling it a religion is a hackneyed analogy at best. A religion is a social institution involving rituals based in faith. Global warming belief has no ritual component. It is the same error as that made by religious types who wrongly claim atheism or evolution to be religions, and remains the same error even if global warming, unlike the other two, is wrong.

Axiom
02-08-2009, 04:38 PM
Calling it a religion is a hackneyed analogy at best. A religion is a social institution involving rituals based in faith. Global warming belief has no ritual component. It is the same error as that made by religious types who wrongly claim atheism or evolution to be religions, and remains the same error even if global warming, unlike the other two, is wrong.
i would say the large majority of agw proponents base their beliefs simply on faith , and faith alone . but agree that there is an absence of the ritual component of the definition of religion ........however , im sure those forest agw greenies probably perform odd rituals in the woods. ;)

Igor_Goldenberg
02-08-2009, 05:33 PM
Calling it a religion is a hackneyed analogy at best. A religion is a social institution involving rituals based in faith. Global warming belief has no ritual component. It is the same error as that made by religious types who wrongly claim atheism or evolution to be religions, and remains the same error even if global warming, unlike the other two, is wrong.

OK, atheism, evolution and global warming are not religion. They are just faith based delusions.
They also share one more distinction from most religions - they are much more militant.

Kevin Bonham
03-08-2009, 01:01 AM
OK, atheism, evolution and global warming are not religion. They are just faith based delusions.

I will be addressing this nonsense on a new thread shortly.

Kevin Bonham
03-08-2009, 01:51 AM
I am starting to think this global warming stuff is like a new cult that has appeared on the scene. If you do not believe in the cult or ask hard questions of it, you get vilified.

I have certainly encountered this from some of the zealots. I blocked one (ex Tasmanian Times) from emailing me because of his misrepresentations of my views.

Both extremes of the debate are intellectually shoddy.

Capablanca-Fan
12-08-2009, 08:32 PM
Questions showing the idiocy of Chairman Rudd's warm-mongering (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_yoiull_pay_for_this_panic/)

WOULD the world be ruined by more warming, anyway?

Unlikely. The world emerged from last century’s warming both richer and better fed. There has been no increase in cyclone power. Deaths by natural disaster have dropped sharply.

If some warming resumes, as may well happen, the world is predicted to actually get more rain, and deserts such as the Sahara will keep shrinking.

Human ingenuity, science and fast-increasing wealth is likely to deal easily with most other changes.

In fact, an exhaustive inquiry into the costs of climate change by Britain’s House of Lords concluded: “In terms of percentages of world GNP, damage (from warming) is relatively low, even for +2.5C. Some models suggest no real net damage to rich countries.”

Richard Lindzen, the famous Alfred P Sloan professor of atmospheric sciences at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, sighs: “The fact that the world went into hysterics over changes in global mean temperature anomaly of a few tenths of a degree will astound future generations.”

WILL Kevin Rudd’s CPRS scheme lower world temperatures?

No. Even Wong refuses to claim so. Do the sums: Australia emits just 1.4 per cent of the world’s emissions, and Rudd hopes to cut our gases by 5 per per cent of our 2000 levels by 2020.

The world’s climate will not blink at changes so small.

WILL Rudd’s CPRS at least cut the world’s greenhouse gases?

Not so anyone will notice.

Hear that from Resources Minister Martin Ferguson (one of Labor’s many secret warming sceptics), who this month warned: “Every four months, from now until 2020, China will build new coal-fired power stations possessing the same capacity as Australia’s entire coal-fired power sector.”

Repeat: China will build an entire Australian coal-fired power sector every four months for the next 11 years.

We could switch off every light, every business, every machine, and our sacrifice would be overwhelmed in a few months by booming China alone.

BUT won’t Rudd’s scheme inspire the rest of the world to make cuts, too?

No. Even Rudd admitted last month that the UN’s Copenhagen meeting in December was unlikely to reach any real deal to cut world emissions: “I don’t think we are on track to get an agreement at Copenhagen.”

No wonder. Both China (the world’s biggest emitter) and giant India flatly refuse to cut their own gases, because, as India’s own Action Plan on Climate Change says: “India needs to substantially increase its per capita energy consumption to provide a minimally acceptable level of wellbeing to its people.” Ditto for China.

Without them, and the rest of the developing world, the West cannot cut emissions by what alarmists say is needed to lower global temperatures.

Capablanca-Fan
12-08-2009, 08:37 PM
For me this thread is an opportunity to keep across interesting developments. I am mostly skeptical about any attempt by governments to be prescriptive about just about anything at all. When I first heard about "warming" I was skeptical, because most of the talk was coming from green extremists (not well known for their dispassionate communication of facts) and ex-politicians (of whom not much more need be said). Since then I have tracked the issue through several phases:

1. general agreement that mankind is causing the world to warm (common sense says we have some impact by burning fossil fuels, but how much?)

2. popularisation via the media (e.g. An Inconvenient Truth) and the usual gaggle of Hollywood types and ambitious politicians which trivialise very real scientific issues, thoroughly misrepresent basic factual information, and gloss over the problems with the thesis

3. a gradually increasing amount of contradictory opinion coming from very senior scientific figures (who think it is all about the science; unfortunately they are sadly mistaken, as global warming is a political and not a scientific issue)

4. shrill voices who proclaim, in the face of increasing scientific dissent at the highest levels, that "the science is settled" (to me, this is the smoking gun)

5. development of a new morality built around those brave souls who believe the world is warming and who stand against the eco-Nazis, those holocaust deniers, who suspect that its largely a put-up job (if you can't win the empirical debate, switch ground to a moral debate)

That's my take on it. I'm looking for empirical evidence to be shown. If the world is warming as a result of human activities, then if human activities (releasing CO2) continue unabated, then the world would continue to warm.

The facts are that temperature increases evident in past decades have levelled off and have begun to retreat. Empirical evidence indicates that, on the whole, a warmer earth would be better for life overall anyway. So I remain unconvinced about both the thesis and the proposed solutions.

I guess that makes me a skeptic.
A well worded summary.

Kevin Bonham
13-08-2009, 08:59 PM
Opinion polling is showing an increase in the number of Australians asserting (as I do) that concerns about the impact of climate change are most likely exaggerated. The Morgan polling result for this question was 13% in 2006 but 27% now. "If we don't act now it will be too late" is down nine points from 67 to 58 over the same time and "It is already too late" is down four from 15 to 11.

At the same time, 60% believe carbon emissions are a major contributor, 6% a contributor but can't say how major, 17% a minor contributor, 10% not a contributor at all and 7% are undecided.

Belief that carbon emissions are not a contributor at all, and uncertainty about the issue, both peak massively in the over-50 age group, but it's the 35-49 age group that is most likely to believe they are a major contributor.

Desmond
13-08-2009, 10:07 PM
The warming will mean people using their heaters less, which in turn will reduce electricity usage and lead to global cooling. The cooling will bring back the heaters, up the electricity usage and back comes global warming. And so it goes around and around. What we think will happen is that climate will get warmer for part of the year and cooler for the other part. What effect this will have we are unsure, but with some more money poured in, I'm sure we can make some guesses. We could probably even set up a department and give it a Fancy Name.

Igor_Goldenberg
14-08-2009, 09:58 AM
Belief that carbon emissions are not a contributor at all, and uncertainty about the issue, both peak massively in the over-50 age group, but it's the 35-49 age group that is most likely to believe they are a major contributor.
Does it mean I am aging too fast?

Spiny Norman
21-08-2009, 05:55 AM
According to Space Weather:

The sun is entering its 41st consecutive day without sunspots. This remarkable string of blank suns shows that we are still in the pits of the deepest solar minimum in a century. If the streak continues for 11 more days, it will match the longest blank spell of the current cycle.


Spotless Days
Current Stretch: 40 days
2009 total: 182 days (79%)
Since 2004: 693 days
Typical Solar Min: 485 days

and this interesting observation in Quadrant:


There are the numerous well meaning individuals who have allowed propagandists to convince them that in accepting the alarmist view of anthropogenic climate change, they are displaying intelligence and virtue.
For them, their psychic welfare is at stake...
For those committed to the more venal agendas, the need to act soon, before the public appreciates the situation, is real indeed. However, for more serious leaders, the need to courageously resist hysteria is clear. Wasting resources on symbolically fighting ever present climate change is no substitute for prudence.

Spiny Norman
23-08-2009, 07:53 AM
Wow ... more interesting science on sunspots ... there are some strange readings coming from the sun over the past 10 years or so:

http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009EO300001.pdf

This may help explain why CO2 levels are increasing, but our temps on earth are not.

Anyone want to take bets on a new Maunder Minimum over the next 40-50 years?

Capablanca-Fan
27-08-2009, 10:11 PM
Barnaby Joyce: Nationals must stand against the ETS rather than follow Talkbull's "me too but not yet" crap (http://barnabyjoyce.com.au/Issues/Thisweekinpolitics/tabid/56/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/949/Senator-Barnaby-Joyce-Transcript-of-Speech-Nationals-Fed-Council-2009.aspx):

We talked about the ETS. The National Party at a Federal level has been completely consistent on the ETS. It is the Employment Termination Scheme. It is the Extra Tax System and when that metaphor was working and cutting through the Labor Party got cunning and thought they would change it to the CPRS. Well the CP stands for cunning plan to get yourself to a double dissolution and RS stands for what the economy will look like if they ever get there.

This is just another tax. It is a tax that is going to come to you from the power points. Every electrical appliance in your house will have a tax on it. The ironing will be taxed, the vacuuming will be taxed, watching footy on a Sunday will be taxed, turning the lights on will be taxed. Who will they be taxing, working families. Then you’ll want to go shopping and what will happen? All your food will be taxed. If you are sick of it and want go on a plane and go away for the weekend, it’s on aviation fuel, you’ll be taxed. Everything in this new world under Kevin Rudd is taxed. Kevin in the shopping trolley, Kevin at the ironing board, Kevin in the kitchen, Kevin on the plane n the plane, too much Kevin makes me feel very sick.

And what is he going to do this for? Because Kevin is going to change the climate. It is amazing, he is going to make that out there different. He told us so, it must be true. The reality is the ETS Iis not going to change the climate one iota. Not one thing will change in the climate because of this new tax. Metaphorically speaking, the difference Australia will make is the equivalent of a the breadth of a hair on the length of about a one kilometre bridge.
It is so infinitesimally small. So ridiculous, so pointless, yet we are putting our economy out to dry.

I was talking to Brad and he said you have got to talk about jobs. If you want to talk about jobs, talk about the ETS. Just the other in Rockhampton, in my state, they are putting off people, working families out on the street because of the CPRS. That’s what Kevin has done for working families.

He’s put them out of a job and we are going forward with this scheme that will bring a 20% reduction in regional economies. We worry about two negative quarters which gives us a recession and they’re probably ¼% and ½%. Yet if we agree to this ETS, we sign our regions up to a 20% reduction in their economy.

Ian Murray
13-10-2009, 09:38 PM
http://newmatilda.com/files/images/KatauskasGlobalWarming.jpg

Kevin Bonham
14-10-2009, 12:22 AM
Both sides have very different forecasts. The Met Office says that warming is set to resume quickly and strongly.

It predicts that from 2010 to 2015 at least half the years will be hotter than the current hottest year on record (1998).

Sceptics disagree. They insist it is unlikely that temperatures will reach the dizzy heights of 1998 until 2030 at the earliest. It is possible, they say, that because of ocean and solar cycles a period of global cooling is more likely.

I'm putting this up here so we can come back to this thread in 5-6 years and see who is looking like being right.

Spiny Norman
14-10-2009, 05:02 AM
I was looking at satellite temperature data yesterday, and found that the spot temperature (i.e. measured daily) was about 1/2 a degree Fahrenheit ABOVE the previous maximum recorded in the past 20 years. This is for "channel 5" temperatures, measuring at a height of about 14,400 feet (which is where most CO2-induced global warming is predicted to be detected).

So these things depend on WHAT you measure, WHERE you measure it, and HOW your software processes the raw data.

I'm not sure who to believe. I am suspicious of the motives of both camps (pro- and anti- human-induced warming) ...

Capablanca-Fan
14-10-2009, 07:20 AM
Incandescent light bulbs to be banned from shops, in favour of bulbs containing mercury: see the precautions needed if one breaks (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/where_are_the_warnings_about_these_lamps/). Once more, Greenstapo policies are all about feelings of moral superiority, not about genuinely helping the environment.

This was a crappy idea from Talkbull in the first place (http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200702/s1851776.htm), another reason this me-too wannabe Layba man (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/malcolm-turnbull-in-bid-to-join-labor/story-e6frf7l6-1225765187638) is unfit to lead the opposition.

Desmond
14-10-2009, 08:40 AM
I'm putting this up here so we can come back to this thread in 5-6 years and see who is looking like being right.Or we could look at similar predicitons/forecasts from 10 years ago (if there are any).

Capablanca-Fan
14-10-2009, 07:16 PM
sHMOEVRysWE&

Professor Bob Carter reviews (http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2009/10/not-evil-just-wrong-reviewed) Not Evil Just Wrong — The True Cost of Global Warming, the documentary which premieres around the world on October 18:


This documentary film is an examination of the human effects of environmental alarmism, with especial reference to the still hypothetical “problem” of human-caused global warming. The film is not so much about the science of climate change as it is about explaining the sociology and politics of what is now perhaps the world’s greatest-ever scare campaign.

Not Evil, Just Wrong examines the issue by interweaving three story lines throughout: first, that of an Ugandan woman who loses her son to malaria; second, the story of workers in a small American town whose employment and wealth is largely generated from the location there of a coal-fired power station, with mines nearby, both of which potentially face closure; and third, the story of the post-Vice Presidential career of Mr Al Gore, and his failure to answer the heartfelt concerns of a young US woman regarding the damage that his policies, if implemented, will wreak on ordinary Americans....

After a relentless opening passage of environmental soothsayers intoning their messages of doom and catastrophe, the film settles into a description of how powerful has been the influence on the global warming debate of Mr Gore’s science-fiction documentary film, An Inconvenient Truth. Next is described the celebrated 2007 UK High Court case of Dimmock versus Her Majesty’s Secretary of State – in which a British truck driver challenged the government’s distribution of Mr Gore’s film for showing in all UK schools. The court found the film to be scientifically flawed, with 9 major errors, and ordered that if it was to be shown in schools then teachers were required to point out and discuss the errors that it contains.

Capablanca-Fan
15-10-2009, 12:15 PM
Leftist billionaire and climate change evangelist George Soros opposes KRudd-type ETS (http://www.corybernardi.com/2009/10/cprs-and-bankers-bonuses.html):


You see, the carbon permits available will be limited and as industry grows, demand for permits will grow too. This means that as industry scrambles to buy permits the price of each permit is likely to rise. After all, that is the whole point of having an ETS in the first place – to put a rising price on carbon.

Now imagine that the global emissions trading market is controlled by these aggressive investment bank traders with their tonnes of money effectively rationing the supply of permits available on the open market.

As George Soros said at a London School of Economics seminar “The system can be gamed; that’s why financial types like me like it -- because there are financial opportunities.”

Soros has said that he prefers a tax on carbon emissions rather than an ETS, because trading systems can be manipulated by investors.

Just in case you think it can't happen here, under Labor's scheme hoarding permits is only prohibited in the first year. After that, you watch the carbon frenzy as bankers scramble to get their slice of the action by controlling Australia's expected $20 billion carbon market.

Let me assure you it won't be about saving the planet but about saving their bonuses. The problem with this is that it will further disadvantage Australian industry by pushing up their costs.

The end result can only be higher costs for every Australian consumer.

This is just another reason that Kevin Rudd’s CPRS needs to be rejected.

Igor_Goldenberg
15-10-2009, 12:38 PM
Leftist billionaire and climate change evangelist George Soros opposes KRudd-type ETS (http://www.corybernardi.com/2009/10/cprs-and-bankers-bonuses.html):


You see, the carbon permits available will be limited and as industry grows, demand for permits will grow too. This means that as industry scrambles to buy permits the price of each permit is likely to rise. After all, that is the whole point of having an ETS in the first place – to put a rising price on carbon.


If ETS was going to solve a real and existing problem, the market mechanism of trading would make it more effective. After all, speculators are despised but they serve very important role of smoothing the price change.

However, ETS is going to stifle the economy. And the market mechanism will make it more effective at doing this.

TheJoker
15-10-2009, 05:51 PM
I doubt the increased costs will be sustained very long regardless of whether an ETS or a tax is used. The lack of cheap resources just creates an "entreprenuerial gap" which will act a s a catalyst for innovation. Industry and consumers will either become more energy efficient or clean energy will become cheaper.

Ian Murray
16-10-2009, 10:03 PM
I agree with Jono on this one. An ETS merely switches ownership around while doing nothing to reduce emissions. A carbon tax encourages reduction via the hip pocket

Spiny Norman
17-10-2009, 06:52 AM
An example of lies, damn lies, and statistics. The accompanying graph is of satellite temperature data taken at 14,400 feet ... I believe this is the height where global warming models predict the most warming to take place (i.e. where the human-caused CO2-driven global warming signature will show up most clearly).

Note that for a large part of of this year, this year's temp has been close to the 20-year average. So no global warming.

Note that for the last 3-4 months it has been significantly higher, even setting some "record highs" (compared to previous 20-year highs) in recent days. Clearly the world is warming.

That is why I believe that one cannot look at year-by-year (let along month-by-month) data to support or discredit the hypothesis. Perhaps decade-by-decade might be useful. Not sure.

Desmond
17-10-2009, 08:49 AM
Is it meaningful to compare a 20-year average with a single year? Would it not be better to compare it with the 20-year average prior to that?

Spiny Norman
17-10-2009, 12:24 PM
Is it meaningful to compare a 20-year average with a single year? Would it not be better to compare it with the 20-year average prior to that?
Probably. The point I was trying to make is that "lies, damn lies, and statistics" makes this whole scenario devilishly difficult to understand. Its easy enough to make a data set tell you what you want it to say. Selective use of data can make it look like its warming, or look like its not warming.

I don't know about others ... but I don't care to dispute whether or not the world is warming (it probably is, if you look at the past century worth of data). The question for me is whether that warming is or is NOT caused by human-induced factors such as increased CO2. I am fairly sure that it isn't, given the broader multi-century historical record that causes me to think that some warming was due anyway.

One thing I am certain about: there is a religious-like zeal to the debate that I find very disturbing. Purely on that basis I am inclined to push back and take the contrary position.

Garvinator
17-10-2009, 12:41 PM
I don't know about others ... but I don't care to dispute whether or not the world is warming (it probably is, if you look at the past century worth of data). The question for me is whether that warming is or is NOT caused by human-induced factors such as increased CO2. I am fairly sure that it isn't, given the broader multi-century historical record that causes me to think that some warming was due anyway.
I do not doubt that the earth is warming and as you say it is debatable how much, if any, is caused by human induced factors.

More of an issue I think is whether the 'solutions' being proposed will actually work, or at least make some difference.

I think the politicians have deliberately couched the debates into terms that are very difficult to understand and even harder to get accurate results as whether their solutions have worked. I also am of the opinion that this purpose has been to keep the 'debates' in airy fairy terms, instead of easy to understand, measureable terms.

It is much easier for politicians to play games and play politics when talking about climate change in world terms, rather than trying to reduce pollution in populated areas ie from car exhaust etc.

But if politicians had set their goal to reduce pollution as a way of reducing human induced climate change, then their efforts could be easily measurable, which as we know, politicians hate because they can not spin their way out of measurable results.

I think this ETS is just another tax that will only produce more 'income' for the governments while making no meaningful change to climate change. I also think that some governments do not want to do anything about reducing climate change as their countries could be advantaged by climate change ie with the arctic sea ice melting, Russia is able to increase trade by sea routes for at least part of the year because those sea routes are no longer blocked by sea ice ie north east passage. Same goes for Canada with the North West Passage.

Capablanca-Fan
20-10-2009, 05:19 PM
The “green jobs” furphy has been exposed for the complete disaster it's been in Germany and Spain—this could have been avoided if proponents had understood Bastiat's 160yo warning of costs "that are not seen" (http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss1.html), because the government has taken money away from productive industries.

A new report by the German think tank Rheinisch-Westfälisches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung (http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/10/024746.php) states:


Proponents of renewable energies often regard the requirement for more workers to produce a given amount of energy as a benefit, failing to recognize that this lowers the output potential of the economy and is hence counterproductive to net job creation. Significant research shows that initial employment benefits from renewable policies soon turn negative as additional costs are incurred.

...

In the end, Germany’s PV [solar energy] promotion has become a subsidization regime that, on a per-worker basis, has reached a level that far exceeds average wages, with per-worker subsidies as high as 175,000 € (US $ 240,000).

...

Although Germany’s promotion of renewable energies is commonly portrayed in the media as setting a “shining example in providing a harvest for the world” (The Guardian 2007), we would instead regard the country’s experience as a cautionary tale of massively expensive environmental and energy policy that is devoid of economic and environmental benefits.

And a recent study by Spain’s Universidad Rey Juan Carlos (http://www.juandemariana.org/pdf/090327-employment-public-aid-renewable.pdf) likewise warned of the huge costs its own mad green jobs scam by its socialist government:


The study calculates that since 2000 Spain spent €571,138 ($1.03 million) to create each “green job”, including subsidies of more than €1 million ($1.8 million) per wind industry job… The study calculates that the programs creating those jobs also resulted in the destruction of nearly 110,000 jobs elsewhere in the economy, or 2.2 jobs destroyed for every “green job” created....

Each “green” megawatt installed destroys 5.28 jobs on average elsewhere in the economy: 8.99 by photovoltaics (solar), 4.27 by wind energy, 5.05 by mini-hydro… These costs do not appear to be unique to Spain’s approach but instead are largely inherent in schemes to promote renewable energy sources…

The high cost of electricity due to the green job policy tends to drive the relatively most energy-intensive companies and industries away, seeking areas where costs are lower.

Tony Dowden
26-10-2009, 09:26 PM
"Superfreakenomics ..." as reviewed in the Australian ('Inquirer' section) this last weekend (Oct 24-25).

http://www.harpercollins.ca/books/9781554686087/SuperFreakonomics/index.aspx

:hmm: My initial impression is that their argument makes sense. I am a trained scientist but I only really have a 'lay' knowledge of that trendy multidisciplinary subject area variously called climate change or global warming. (Having said that I think I know when an opinion piece is or is not delivering a logical argument).

I also (mistakenly?) assumed the scepticism generally expressed here (unless, again, I'm mistaken) was tied to particular political/religious points of view (not very flattering of me, I know) but perhaps its more related to science - in which case I'd like to join in.

On the next rainy day I'll read the entire contents of this thread.

Adamski
26-10-2009, 09:30 PM
On the next rainy day I'll read the entire contents of this thread.1299 posts, Tony. It may not be worth it!

Tony Dowden
26-10-2009, 09:33 PM
Now 1300. Maybe it might rain for more than one day? ;)

OK, second thoughts: briefly skim the surface of the thread to avoid insanity but deep enough to get the general gist!

Spiny Norman
27-10-2009, 05:04 AM
I also (mistakenly?) assumed the scepticism generally expressed here (unless, again, I'm mistaken) was tied to particular political/religious points of view (not very flattering of me, I know) but perhaps its more related to science - in which case I'd like to join in.
There are a lot of very strange bedfellows in this discussion. One of the more notable is Prof. Ian Plimer, very well known for his attacks on (lawsuits against?) Christians in the past. Yet he is a sceptic.

I started out very sceptical, but have edged back ever somewhat towards the middle ground over the past year. I am trying to watch the evidence very closely, though its hard to keep up.

Capablanca-Fan
27-10-2009, 07:47 AM
Liberal Senator Cory Bernardi explains that the ETS is multibillion dollar tax on everything and will make no measurable difference to climate, but will destroy jobs and expand government. Talkbull would hardly be doing any worse than he is now by taking a stand like Bernardi, instead of me-tooing KRudd.

79s9y94s0wg

Clive James on daring to dissent from the warm-mongering (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8322513.stm):


(I)t’s notable how the issue of man-made global warming has lately been giving rise to a use of language hard to distinguish from heresy-hunting in the fine old style by which the cost of voicing a doubt was to fry in your own fat.

Whether or not you believe that the earth might have been getting warmer lately, if you are sceptical about whether mankind is the cause of it, the scepticism can be enough to get you called a denialist.

It’s a nasty word to be called, denialist, because it calls up the spectacle of a fanatic denying the Holocaust. In my homeland, Australia, there are some prominent intellectuals who are quite ready to say that any sceptic about man-made global warming is doing even worse than denying the Holocaust, because this time the whole of the human race stands to be obliterated.

Really they should know better, because the two events are not remotely comparable. The Holocaust actually happened…

In fact the number of scientists who voice scepticism has lately been increasing. But there were always some, and that’s the only thing I know about the subject. I know next to nothing about climate science. All I know is that many of the commentators in newspapers who are busy predicting catastrophe don’t know much about it either, because they keep saying that the science is settled and it isn’t.

Garvinator
27-10-2009, 01:30 PM
I also (mistakenly?) assumed the scepticism generally expressed here (unless, again, I'm mistaken) was tied to particular political/religious points of view (not very flattering of me, I know) but perhaps its more related to science - in which case I'd like to join in.
By here I think you mean, on chesschat, rather than, by here, being the topic of climate change. Is this correct?

If I have this right, then I think the disagreements with our governments approach can be broken down into three camps:

1) Climate change is not occurring
2) Climate change is occurring but is not caused by humans, therefore we can not stop it occurring
3) Climate change is occurring and we are the cause (at least in part) but our governments proposed solutions are meaningless.

I am certainly in camp number 3.

Igor_Goldenberg
27-10-2009, 01:57 PM
If I have this right, then I think the disagreements with our governments approach can be broken down into three camps:

1) Climate change is not occurring
2) Climate change is occurring but is not caused by humans, therefore we can not stop it occurring
3) Climate change is occurring and we are the cause (at least in part) but our governments proposed solutions are meaningless.

I only speak for myself, but I have to disagree.

My position is:
Before putting their hand into my pocket that global warmongerists have to prove that:
1. Climate change is occurring (in detrimental way).
and
2. Climate change is mostly caused by human activity.
and
3. Proposed changes will cause a net benefit.

So far I haven't seem conclusive evidences proving either.

Spiny Norman
27-10-2009, 05:17 PM
1) Climate change is not occurring
2) Climate change is occurring but is not caused by humans, therefore we can not stop it occurring
3) Climate change is occurring and we are the cause (at least in part) but our governments proposed solutions are meaningless.
4. Climage change is occuring, which is normal and natural. Humans have at least some level of impact on our environment, however its not yet certain whether that impact is significant or not.

I'm in camp #4.

Capablanca-Fan
27-10-2009, 05:46 PM
I only speak for myself, but I have to disagree.

My position is:
Before putting their hand into my pocket that global warmongerists have to prove that:
1. Climate change is occurring (in detrimental way).
and
2. Climate change is mostly caused by human activity.
and
3. Proposed changes will cause a net benefit.

So far I haven't seem conclusive evidences proving either.
That is important. Most of those that want their hands into our wallets think that proving only 1 and 2 are sufficient, and they have yet to prove even those.

Capablanca-Fan
29-10-2009, 04:01 PM
Senator Barnaby Joyce
Leader of the Nationals in the Senate

21st October 2009
THE HUNDRED BILLION DOLLAR QUESTION
In Senate Economics Estimates today, Senator Joyce asked the CSIRO the million dollar question, or should that be the hundred billion dollar question, “Will the Australian Emissions Trading Scheme change the temperature of the globe?”

The answer confirmed my worst fears in that I could not get the answer “Yes”. I was told it would depend on global factors of course! There will be no global factors if the rest of the world is not part of a global scheme.

...

The Australian Emissions Trading Scheme is merely a policy, a political statement, a gesture. The cost to the Australian citizen of this massive new tax associated with it, is very real however.

...

I have to query, is the purpose of the Emissions Trading Scheme to cool the planet, which clearly it will not do, or is it to prop up a parlous state of our Government finances? The more I hear, the more I am inclined to the latter.
Australians will deliver tens of billions of dollars to the Treasury by reason of this tax in the near future.

There is far more empirical evidence in what it will cost you, the resident of Australia, than any scientific evidence that an emissions scheme will do anything for the climate.

Capablanca-Fan
30-10-2009, 12:38 PM
IPCC Climatologist: “It would ruin the US economy and it wouldn’t save the climate either” (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/29/ipcc-climatologist-cap-and-trade-could-ruin-us-economy/#more-12249)


Dr Steve Running ... is a co-author of the Nobel Prize winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and founder of the Climate Change Studies program at the University of Montana.

A fortiori, how much sillier for Australia to screw its economy when it produces a bit over 1% of world emissions.

Capablanca-Fan
03-11-2009, 09:51 AM
The Seven Billion Dollar Question
Cory Bernardi

...

Unfortunately for us, the treaty includes a requirement for industrialised nations to commit 0.7% of their national economic output to a United Nations-controlled fund to compensate those in less developed nations.

With our trillion dollar economy, that means that we will be paying seven billion dollars every year to an unelected organisation that will redistribute the funds to those it deems ‘worthy’.

These ‘worthy’ nations include those in Africa who will be compensated for the impact of the western worlds carbon dioxide emissions on their nations.

As an interesting aside, the trustees of a multi-million dollar prize given for 'good governance' in Africa, found no suitable recipient this year.

This raises the question of how effective the application and administration of our seven billion dollar annual contribution will be.

...

Given that a large part of those borrowings came from China you can imagine my surprise that we were sending some of it back to China as foreign aid!

A cynic might ask "why not cut out the middle man and simply send the interest payments to China and allow them to keep a portion of the money they were lending us?"

This Government has already been running up big debts that future generations will be working to pay off. The Copenhagen treaty represents an extension of the financial burden we will be placing on our children.

...

Spiny Norman
03-11-2009, 10:44 AM
If this is true (that Australia will have to pay 0.7% of GDP in perpetuity) then I would be interested to know what this represents to me as John.Q.Taxpayer ... in other words, how much would my taxes have to rise in order to cover this amount?

One non-authoritative source I looked at (ref: http://blog.libertarian.org.au/2009/08/18/halve-income-tax-rates-by-2020/) suggests that Personal Income Tax contributes roughly about $120B of revenue to the Federal Government.

Thus, this $7B contribution towards climate change represents about 6% of personal income tax revenues. Now if anyone suggested an across-the-board personal income tax rise of 6% to pay for our international obligations for climate change, things would get very, very ugly and very quickly too.

Capablanca-Fan
05-11-2009, 04:26 PM
CSIRO censors dissent from warm-mongering (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/11/05/2733825.htm)

The last refuge of those who can't win the argument: suppress the opposition.


"Taking an emissions trading scheme approach is known to be the most efficient approach. My paper is criticising that."
Dr Spash says at first he was told by his supervisors that he should try to have the paper published in an international journal to boost its academic credibility.
He did that and the article was accepted for publication by the UK journal New Political Economy.
"After the article had been accepted for publication and I had informed the acting chief of the division, two weeks later he informed me that the article could not be published," he said.
Dr Spash offered to publish the paper under his own name, disclaiming his CSIRO affiliation but later he was told that was not an option.

Spiny Norman
05-11-2009, 05:00 PM
Can't these people publish somewhere else under an assumed name? Or is that Verboten too?

Kevin Bonham
05-11-2009, 05:04 PM
CSIRO has had problems like this with issues involving public statements by its employees for several years now.

Rincewind
05-11-2009, 05:11 PM
CSIRO has had problems like this with issues involving public statements by its employees for several years now.

I've never worked for CSIRO but I know people who do and it seems to me that the whole process of getting publications through the system of CSIRO approval takes much longer than you would expect. I assume this is generally to do with protecting intellectual property but if the approval system is also used to censor the work of employees that runs contrary to the approved position, then that is disappointing.

Publishing under a pseudonym would not be possible since as I understand it any IP created by an employee is the property of the CSIRO even if it was developed entirely on the employee's time and completely "off-site".

Spiny Norman
05-11-2009, 05:13 PM
... as I understand it any IP created by an employee is the property of the CSIRO even if it was developed entirely on the employee's time and completely "off-site".
I'd like to see them try to defend that in court ...

Igor_Goldenberg
06-11-2009, 09:32 AM
I recently saw a Russian version (not exact translation, but a very good adaptation).

Capablanca-Fan
06-11-2009, 12:22 PM
Commissar Obamov wants to "deal" with scientists who dissent from warm-mongering (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YmVjNDEyYWRlN2ZlMmY5Mzc2NjBlMGE5MzBlM2JlNDI):


Last month, President Obama gave a somewhat chilling, if somewhat ignored, speech on climate change at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He stated that any scientific debate about the magnitude of global warming is unscrupulous, decrying “those who . . . make cynical claims that contradict the overwhelming scientific evidence when it comes to climate change, whose only purpose is to defeat or delay the change that we know is necessary.”

Then, the president talked tough, saying, “We’ll just have to deal with those people,” language familiar to anyone who knows the vagaries of Chicago politics.

Rincewind
06-11-2009, 12:39 PM
I'd like to see them try to defend that in court ...

I think that employees would sign an ip assignment agreement to that effect when they begin employment. I've certainly seen similar agreements in the IT industry and that is how they managed it there.

Spiny Norman
06-11-2009, 05:20 PM
I think that employees would sign an ip assignment agreement to that effect when they begin employment. I've certainly seen similar agreements in the IT industry and that is how they managed it there.
Yeah, I know it happens. However I would never work for an organisation that imposed such stupid 'restraint of trade' conditions in an employment contract. In one previous job I struck employment contract clauses which were unacceptable. I just crossed them out and initialled the changes and asked them to do the same. They agreed and we all moved on.

Spiny Norman
07-11-2009, 03:55 PM
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/vandelay_climate.png

Spiny Norman
07-11-2009, 04:00 PM
Al Gore (circa 2006) advised us that we should prepare for an increase in hurricane frequency and intensity. Here's an inconvenient truth:

http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/global_year_ace.jpg

Spiny Norman
07-11-2009, 04:11 PM
Couldn't resist posting this.

Gunner, not sure of your views of warming, but you'll love Monckton's turn of phrase. Around 5:15 in the video, he describes the 'true believers' in human-induced global warming as "bed wetters". :lol:

G2zaPCYgovg

Basil
07-11-2009, 05:58 PM
Couldn't resist posting this.
Glad you did. Quite proper too!


Gunner, not sure of your views of warming
Is pretty well the same as my views on 'is there a Greater Being'?, which are

a) that I don't know and nor does anyone else, and
b) I can't say that any view held is an incorrect one

As such, on matters global warming, I condemn Rudd for

a) claiming "the facts are in" as he did 18 months ago when asserting his belief on behalf of the country, and
b) as Rupert Murdoch said this week (and I agree with the sentiment) "being more interested in strutting the world stage than running Australia", and
c) being prepared to cripple this country on the back of his misguided self-assessed importance and knowledge on the matter
d) the campaign leverage he obtained (albeit from a dim-witted, gullible and hand-wringing electorate) over John Howard on the issue - only to be ever so gently easing back on the issue (a la the boiling frog (non)idea)) so that nobody notices.


... but you'll love Monckton's turn of phrase. Around 5:15 in the video, he describes the 'true believers' in human-induced global warming as "bed wetters". :lol:
Bravo! I did chortle.

Capablanca-Fan
07-11-2009, 07:38 PM
And look at KRudd's hysterical attack on warm-mongering dissenters (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/or_up_to_your_decayed_ankles_in_100_years/), al;thought he lacks any qualifications in science of any sort, let alone climate science:


“The do-nothing climate change sceptics are still alive and well in the coalition,” Mr Rudd said....

“The argument that we must not act until others do is an argument that has been used by political cowards since time immemorial both of the left and the right. They are reckless gamblers who are betting all our futures on their arrogant assumption that their intuitions should triumph over the evidence.

“You are betting our jobs, our houses, our farms, our reefs, our economy and our future on an intuition on a gut feeling; on a political prejudice you have about science.”

...

And by doing so, these do-nothing climate change skeptics are prepared to destroy our children’s future.

What next, witch trials for dissenters? Or even those who question signing up to Copenhagen that would require $7 billion pa from Australia?

Capablanca-Fan
16-11-2009, 02:33 PM
No carbon cut unless world cuts (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/opinion/no-carbon-cut-unless-world-cuts/story-e6frg9k6-1225797528270)
Terry McCrann, 14 Nov 09

MALCOLM Turnbull should propose one simple amendment to the government’s Emissions Trading Scheme as the sole price of opposition support. It is an amendment that would test the prime minister’s good faith, and indeed his sanity.

Turnbull should propose that unless the Copenhagen climate summit next month delivers mandatory commitments from the US, China, India and Europe to cut carbon dioxide emissions, our ETS legislation self-destructs, it simply ceases to be. ...

The government’s argument for insisting the ETS legislation must be passed before Copenhagen is that we should go there with a done deal. Purportedly, that would boost our credibility and increase the chances of a substantive deal at the conference.

Fine, give the government what it wants: a legislated ETS, but also present a challenge to the conference: Australia has committed, Australia has put its money where its collective mouth is, what about the rest of you? Unless you commit as well, we uncommit…

How could the government refuse such an amendment? On what possible rational basis?… A rebuff would also raise a legitimate question about the prime minister’s sanity. What possible justification could there be for Australia to embark on mandatory huge cuts knowing that it couldn’t make any difference to global CO2 outcomes because the main emitters refused to follow?

Hobbes
20-11-2009, 09:09 PM
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/19/breaking-news-story-hadley-cru-has-apparently-been-hacked-hundreds-of-files-released/#more-12937

Capablanca-Fan
24-11-2009, 05:59 PM
So much for the wonderful new green lightbulbs that must replace incandescent ones, thanx to Talkbull, the best performer for ALP:


Energy-efficient light bulbs lose on average 22% of their brightness over their lifetime (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8367933.stm), a study has found.

In some cases they emit just 60% as much light as traditional models which are being phased out of shops, it says.

The study in Engineering and Technology magazine concluded that consumers were being misled by the bulbs’ packaging.

Of course, the new green bulbs contain oh-so-environmentally friendly mercury (http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/50000_to_clean_up_a_2_oz_mercu.html).

Kevin Bonham
24-11-2009, 06:39 PM
The study in Engineering and Technology magazine concluded that consumers were being misled by the bulbs’ packaging.

I've found dimness to be an issue with them as well; you need to overcompensate in picking a supposed energy-equivalent in my experience.

Presumably over time the more competitive manufacturers will remedy these problems.

I'm also tracking longevity of the bulbs in our house, since it has quite a lot of dodgy wiring and the old bulbs used to blow monotonously. The new ones blow less often but I doubt they are living up to their claimed 2 year average lifespans.

Capablanca-Fan
26-11-2009, 01:05 AM
CPRS already a lawyer’s windfall (http://static.rbi.com.au/Common/ContentManagement/newlaw/PDF/20091125.pdf)

So the likes of GF probably love it.

Spiny Norman
26-11-2009, 04:51 AM
James Cook University’s Prof Peter Ridd says global warming could actually be good for the Reef and that:


“There’s a lot of money at stake here
...
There’s large organisations in science who are pushing particular lines and ... the other side of the argument is not being heard.
It seems Prof. Bob Carter (same Uni) has convinced a few of his friends up there.

Someone forgot to tell them that the science is settled.

Capablanca-Fan
26-11-2009, 11:55 AM
Invitation to rent-seekers (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/opinion/invitation-to-rent-seekers/story-e6frg9qf-1225803899543)
Alan Wood
The Australian, 26 November 2009

WHAT a mess. In the space of four months Kevin Rudd and Malcolm Turnbull will have burdened the nation with an ill-advised renewable energy target and a flawed and questionable emissions trading scheme, both in the name of saving us from an allegedly imminent global warming disaster, which they won't.

As a result we have seen the return of economic rent-seeking — the lobbying of government for taxpayer support — on a scale not matched since Australia's tariff wall was dismantled in the latter decades of the 20th century, and the economic and social costs will not be negligible.

The renewable energy target, an unproductive bit of political tokenism popular with governments across the world, was eagerly embraced by our local political class in August. The Productivity Commission, the body responsible for dismantling the tariff wall (to our great economic benefit), and others have pointed out why a renewable energy target is poor policy.

Briefly, it will be of no net benefit, impose unnecessary costs, including higher electricity prices, and encourage rent-seeking and picking winners. Look no further than the ineffective and costly wind power industry for evidence of the truth of this. ...

So why the rush? Well, first, Rudd told an interviewer in Brisbane who asked him this question, you go to the science.

"The international panel of climate change scientists is made up of 4000 scientists from around the world, all humourless guys and girls in white coats, who just sit around and measure stuff." And, according to Rudd, this crowd has concluded things are warming up and it's all our fault, so we need to do something, and do it soon.

Unfortunately, we have just discovered, courtesy of hackers who broke into a climate change science hub in Britain, that a few of the leading humourless white-coated guys have been rather naughty, suppressing important data, attempting to gag other white-coated guys who had a different opinion (and maybe even a sense of humour) and destroying important data that might have created doubts about some of their claims on global warming. Significant uncertainties still surround the science, as climate change sceptics have been pointing out for some time, and greater efforts need to be made to resolve them rather than suppress them. ...

The conundrum at the heart of Rudd's climate policy is that if global warming is a grave and urgent problem, as he believes, then his ETS won't do much about it, and neither will next month's gathering in Copenhagen. Better hope the sceptics are right.

Capablanca-Fan
29-11-2009, 08:34 AM
Time to stand up (http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/flint/2009/11/polling-voters-crying-out-for-leadership)
by David Flint, Quadrant Online, November 23, 2009
Polling: voters crying out for leadership

... But when it comes to border protection or the ETS, Malcolm Turnbull cannot blame the media for his inability to attract voters. The Nationals are, with Senators Barnaby Joyce and Ron Boswell, in the vanguard. Now Senator Nick Minchin is leading a growing phalanx of Liberal opponents to the ETS, with the erudite Senator Cory Bernardi in the forefront. Bernardi enjoys a rare distinction; he was dismissed from the shadow ministry by Malcolm Turnbull.
Senator Minchin was right to damn the ETS as an abomination. If carbon were a pollutant significantly causing global warming, and if reducing Australians’ carbon emissions would have any effect on warming — if there is warming - then a carbon tax might be appropriate. The ETS will hand over control of our economy to a powerful and eventually international bureaucracy with the purpose of increasingly impoverishing most Australians. Only the elites — powerful bureaucrats and carpet baggers will profit. The rest of us will be impoverished.

It seems that the electors in the regional Queensland are more perceptive than those of Wentworth. Even with minimal media exposure about the totally pointless cost of a Rudd-Wong ETS, they are sceptical — as any sensible person should be. On this Senator Minchin is right. The ETS is just not a scheme which the party of Sir Robert Gordon Menzies could possibly espouse.

Now it is true that in the dying days of the Howard government the cabinet unwisely and with an inadequate briefing approved an ETS to be introduced in the future. They seemed to have more information than the present government has before it committed to a $49 billion broadband scheme, but such a proposal for an ETS needed a more thorough investigation than that.

Spiny Norman
29-11-2009, 10:41 AM
From Frank Tipler, Professor of Mathematical Physics at Tulane:


One can always trust experimenters who get the right answer when they do not know what the right answer is. One can never trust experimenters who know what the right answer is (human-caused global warming), and who have total control of the only data that can confirm or reject the theory, and whose jobs depend on confirming it.

pappubahry
29-11-2009, 11:13 AM
From Frank Tipler, Professor of Mathematical Physics at Tulane:
Frank Tipler, author of The Physics of Immortality (http://www.amazon.com/Physics-Immortality-Modern-Cosmology-Resurrection/dp/0385467990/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259455499&sr=8-2), is not someone I'd be quoting as an authority.

Spiny Norman
29-11-2009, 11:16 AM
I'm not endorsing everything he has ever said or ever written. But I think his comment above is reasonable. Do you have concerns about it?

pappubahry
29-11-2009, 11:22 AM
I'm not endorsing everything he has ever said or ever written. But I think his comment above is reasonable. Do you have concerns about it?
No, but the only reason Bolta posted it is because of Tipler's title as a professor of physics, and the supposed extra weight that we should give to his opinion on matters science-related.

Capablanca-Fan
29-11-2009, 01:47 PM
Frank Tipler, author of The Physics of Immortality (http://www.amazon.com/Physics-Immortality-Modern-Cosmology-Resurrection/dp/0385467990/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259455499&sr=8-2), is not someone I'd be quoting as an authority.
Would you rather quote such expert climate scientists as DiCaprio, alGore, KRudd, Wong and Talkbull?

pappubahry
29-11-2009, 04:19 PM
Would you rather quote such expert climate scientists as DiCaprio, alGore, KRudd, Wong and Talkbull?
No.

Capablanca-Fan
30-11-2009, 12:03 PM
You’ll pay - and for what? (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/youll_pay_and_for_what/)
Andrew Bolt 30 November 2009

Labor will pay for this great green tax on everything:


ELECTRICITY prices in NSW will soar by a staggering 60 per cent over the next three years (http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/money/money-matters/family-power-bills-up-400/story-fn300aev-1225805132049), adding more than $400 to the average household power bill.

And Kevin Rudd’s plan to cut greenhouse gases would account for 50 per cent of the increase, according to a secret report with the State Government.

In alarming news for struggling families, the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal is recommending the hefty rise in power bills from next July… IPART is disputing Canberra’s forecast that an Emissions Trading Scheme will only add 7 per cent to electricity prices in 2011/12, rising to 12 per cent the following year. IPART expects the impact of the CPRS will be closer to 30 per cent by mid-2013.

Remember that this is just a downpayment on the true cost of this mad tax. You won’t just pay higher power prices. You will also pay more for everything that needed electricity, too — processed foods, clothes, cars, steel, concrete, train rides… You’ll need to pay more for the people who will lose their jobs because of this tax. You’ll pay more for the uneconomic “green” power we’ll be forced to use instead of cheap coal-fired power. You’ll pay for the gassy companies demanding compensation for going broke. You’ll pay for the billions Kevin Rudd is spending overseas to bribe poorer countries to cut gases, too.

You’ll pay. I suspect you’ll one day make Labor pay, too. And make the Liberals pay who said this great green tax on everything was a good idea — because they did not dare say no.

TheJoker
30-11-2009, 03:00 PM
Labor will pay for this great green tax on everything:

ELECTRICITY prices in NSW will soar by a staggering 60 per cent over the next three years, adding more than $400 to the average household power bill.

I bet this figure is based on adding the cost per KWh to existing energy usage bills. That assumes an inelastic demand over the four year period. Which is hard to believe. Since the price per unit of elcetricity has increased we should expect demand to fall at least in the long-run. People will be concious about saving energy because of the increased cost, energy efficient products will be more attractive to consumers that demand will likely drive innovations in energy efficiency. I'd guess and say that within five years we will be paying the same energy bills (adjusted for inflation) as we are today due to increases in efficiency.

Capablanca-Fan
30-11-2009, 03:01 PM
Emissions trading scheme attacks Australia's national foundations (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/opinion/emissions-trading-scheme-attacks-australias-national-foundations/story-e6frg9if-1225804745331)
Terry McCrann
The Australian 28 November 2009

THE events of the week would be unbelievable but for the fact that they happened.

They were exactly captured in the praise heaped on Friday afternoon by the woman who would be prime minister on the man who never will. Indeed, he is about to lose even the position of being the man who would be prime minister in the event of the voters losing their collective mind.

Inadvertently Julia Gillard projected the unbelievable: how the Prime Minister and the Opposition Leader this week joined hands to declare economic war on their own country.

That, plain and simple, is what Kevin Rudd and now also Malcolm Turnbull's Emissions Trading Scheme is. A direct attack on the foundation not just of our economy but of our very society and indeed modernity itself. Cheap and plentiful carbon-based power.

...

Why are we among the top emitters of carbon dioxide, measured per head? In the government's deliberate and only too depressingly successful lie: just about the world's worst "polluter"? Certainly, if you add on the CO2 emitted when our coal and iron ore is used somewhere else?

For the very simple reason that we benefit. The domestic emission of carbon dioxide and the export of minerals, so that others emit, is our core, utterly pervasive national comparative advantage.

Now if the rest of the world committed to CO2 cuts, whether rationally or not, we might have to reluctantly join, ceding some or all of what makes Australia successful.

But the emphasis has to be on that word “reluctantly”. To lead the process makes no rational sense at all. To lead, when no one of importance is likely to follow, is insane. Or juvenile. Take your pick.

That's the macro reality. For a PM to propose such a policy is economic treason. For an opposition leader not to lead the opposition to it is beyond stupid and a dereliction of his most basic duty.

This goes also to the pointlessness of the negotiations to make the ETS “better”. The devil is not in the detail, so changing the detail doesn't and can't make it “better”. The devil is the ETS.

As is slowly beginning to seep into the national consciousness, the ETS is first and undeniably a tax. Broadly it's equivalent to increasing the GST from 10 to 12.5 per cent.

Except that it's much more pervasive than the GST. Some spending is exempted from the GST — notably fresh food and medical and hospital services. Nothing is exempted from the ETS.

Not even farming — one of the concessions “won” in the negotiations. Yes, farting cows would be “exempted” but farmers would pay the same ETS tax as everyone else on everything else that they bought.

That's the insidious reality. It's not just the direct impact of power bills going up a “few dollars a week”. Of course they might also reduce for the periods of black-outs. Emphasis on the word might reduce; there's no might about the blackouts in an Australia of Rudd-Turnbull's ETS.

It is not just a pervasive tax but a tax of indeterminate rate and extent. Which is why the Treasury estimates that it will raise $114 billion out to the iconic 2020 date are an utter nonsense. At least they are of a piece with everything else Treasury has done on the subject.

...

Capablanca-Fan
30-11-2009, 03:05 PM
I bet this figure is based on adding the cost per KWh to existing energy usage bills. That assumes an inelastic demand over the four year period. Which is hard to believe. Since the price per unit of elcetricity has increased we should expect demand to fall at least in the long-run. People will be concious about saving energy because of the increased cost, energy efficient products will be more attractive to consumers that demand will likely drive innovations in energy efficiency. I'd guess and say that within five years we will be paying the same energy bills (adjusted for inflation) as we are today due to increases in efficiency.
A pipe dream. Many of the "green" energy sources are much more expensive.

Igor_Goldenberg
30-11-2009, 03:24 PM
A pipe dream. Many of the "green" energy sources are much more expensive.
They also might be not as "green" as purported when all enviromental concerns are taken into account.

TheJoker
30-11-2009, 03:28 PM
A pipe dream. Many of the "green" energy sources are much more expensive.

I wasn't talking about green energy.... I was talking about energy efficiency and reduction in energy demand totally unrelated to green energy.

For a person who professes to be a free-market advocate you don't seem to have much faith in market fundamentals

Capablanca-Fan
30-11-2009, 03:36 PM
I wasn't talking about green energy.... I was talking about energy efficiency and reduction in energy demand totally unrelated to green energy.
Like what? More likely, the result of the new tax will be more money in the coffers of monumentally inefficient government, and a lower standard of living for the poorest in the country.


For a person who professes to be a free-market advocate you don't seem to have much faith in market fundamentals
What crap. I do have this faith, which is why I have no faith in the ability of governments to make things more efficient.

TheJoker
30-11-2009, 04:16 PM
Like what?

Energy efficient appliances. People and Industry being more energy concious and finding ways to save energy.

For industry energy efficiency will become an increased source of competitive advantage (because of the extra cost savings over less energy efficient competitors).


What crap. I do have this faith

Then you would agree that an increase in the price of eergy is likely to result in a reduction in eenergy demand in the long-run?

You'd also agree that increasing the cost of energy will create an incetive for innovation in energy efficient products and processes?

Desmond
30-11-2009, 04:50 PM
From The Australian websitre

Do you believe that climate change is really happening?
Yes 37.35% (5529 votes)
No 62.65% (9273 votes)
Total votes: 14802

Capablanca-Fan
30-11-2009, 04:52 PM
Global Warming Consensus: Garbage In, Garbage Out (http://townhall.com/columnists/MichaelBarone/2009/11/30/global_warming_consensus_garbage_in,_garbage_out)
by Michael Barone
30 Nov 09

...
The CRU has been a major source of data on global temperatures, relied on by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. But the e-mails suggest that CRU scientists have been suppressing and misstating data and working to prevent the publication of conflicting views in peer-reviewed science periodicals. Some of the more pungent e-mails:

"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

"Can you delete any e-mails you may have had with Keith re AR4?"

"I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."

"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty we can't."

"I'm getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU temperature station data. Don't any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act!"

You get the idea. The most charitable plausible explanation I have seen comes from The Atlantic's Megan McArdle. "The CRU's main computer model may be, to put it bluntly, complete rubbish."

Australian geologist Ian Plimer, a global warming skeptic, is more blunt. The e-mails "show that data was massaged, numbers were fudged, diagrams were biased, there was destruction of data after freedom of information requests, and there was refusal to submit taxpayer-funded data for independent examination."

Kevin Bonham
30-11-2009, 05:05 PM
From The Australian websitre

Do you believe that climate change is really happening?
Yes 37.35% (5529 votes)
No 62.65% (9273 votes)
Total votes: 14802

Not all that surprising given that newspaper's readerbase (which includes me as its political coverage is often very thorough, but I pretty much screen out a number of its opinion writers).

Igor_Goldenberg
30-11-2009, 09:43 PM
Then you would agree that an increase in the price of eergy is likely to result in a reduction in eenergy demand in the long-run?

You'd also agree that increasing the cost of energy will create an incetive for innovation in energy efficient products and processes?
Yes to both questions, but....
Is it a good thing?

Capablanca-Fan
01-12-2009, 08:52 AM
One of Terry McCrann's readers (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/business/terry-mccranns-column/an-ill-wind-blowing-our-way/story-e6frfig6-1225805548221) has a much cheaper way than the Rudd/Turnbull great green tax to deal with CO2 emissions:


Simple, a National Apology on Climate Change. Same effect on global emissions as an ETS, but with zero cost.

Continuing on "What ignoring Kyoto has cost us", uninentional humour from an online commentator:


Two things it appears. Living in smaller houses.

Damn, if only we'd adopted Kyoto we could have been living in British-style shoe-boxes. Sorry, 'cosy' cat-friendly accommodations. Cat-friendly? Well, you can't swing ...

Secondly, not being serious about Kyoto has condemned us to cheap electricity prices. At least 50 per cent below the rest of the world.

If we'd gone for wind farms, nuclear, solar, etc, we could have had more expensive power over the past dozen or more years.

Damn that John Howard again, for depriving us of having air-conditioning-free summers and invigorating heat-free winters.

These other countries would soon "have an (unspecified) advantage over us", according to the commentator.

Desmond
01-12-2009, 09:13 AM
Not all that surprising given that newspaper's readerbaseWhy is that?

TheJoker
01-12-2009, 09:27 AM
Yes to both questions, but....
Is it a good thing?

Not necessarily... But I just wanted to point out that figures were likely to be an exageration because they ignored a few market fundamentals.

Capablanca-Fan
01-12-2009, 10:11 AM
Not necessarily... But I just wanted to point out that figures were likely to be an exageration because they ignored a few market fundamentals.
I think they are an understatement, because the cost of government inteference is almost always a lot more than it claims.

TheJoker
01-12-2009, 10:41 AM
I think they are an understatement, because the cost of government inteference is almost always a lot more than it claims.

I suspect the ETS may cause some price inflation as businesses pass on the intitial cost increase. But we are are talking about the average household electricity bill, not the overall increase in cost to the consumer.

We will have to wait and see if the avergage household electricity bill increases by $400 or 60% (in real terms) over the next four years.

Capablanca-Fan
02-12-2009, 12:50 AM
But the way the ETS is most likely to work, it won't be the truly energy efficient industries that will develop, but the rent-seekers who gain political favor who will become wealthy at the expense of consumers (e.g. alGore, ethanol, windfarms).

Desmond
02-12-2009, 10:43 AM
Liberal senator breaks ranks on ETS (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/liberal-senator-breaks-ranks-on-ets/story-e6frg6xf-1225806063382)


LIBERAL senator Judith Troeth has confirmed she will cross the floor and vote with Labor on an emissions trading scheme.

Senator Troeth said her experiences in the bush and in farming had convinced her climate change was real.

"Droughts are longer. Rainfall has dropped," she told the Senate.

"In short I believe there is global warming. We need to take steps to remedy this.''


Australia as a continent has been drying out for tens of thousands of years. But hey, let's blame all that on man made carbon emissions.

Capablanca-Fan
02-12-2009, 11:11 AM
Australia as a continent has been drying out for tens of thousands of years. But hey, let's blame all that on man made carbon emissions.
Exactly. Older farmers have experienced worse droughts; as I said, Dorothea McKellar's iconic poem My Country took it as given that this continent is a land of fire, drought and famine.

Silly bint still doesn't realize that KRudd's gigatax won't even make any difference, even presupposing AGW, unless the major CO2-emitting countries cut as well.

Goughfather
02-12-2009, 01:52 PM
Silly bint still doesn't realize that KRudd's gigatax won't even make any difference, even presupposing AGW, unless the major CO2-emitting countries cut as well.

If and when the US and China cut emissions, are you going to make the excuse that since the major emitters are already cutting emissions, its no longer necessary for Australia to do so?

Capablanca-Fan
02-12-2009, 01:58 PM
If and when the US and China cut emissions, are you going to make the excuse that since the major emitters are already cutting emissions, its no longer necessary for Australia to do so?
Let's worry about that if it happens. But at least if the others do it too, the crass unilateral ETS gesture that KRudd/Talkbull wanted won't drive our main emitters to these other countries while they laugh all the way to the bank, and there might be a detectable level of CO2 reduction FWIW.

There is no movement that is so led by rank hypocrites as globull warm-mongering (http://townhall.com/columnists/MeredithTurney/2009/12/01/america%E2%80%99s_unnecessary_sacrifice_for_the_pl anet) (except possibly, by your own blog admission, the Poverty Gospel):


Burning up carbon-based fuel as they fly in on their private jets, wining and dining like the elite, attendees of the Summit will spend days pontificating on the dire state of the planet—caused by the evil, greedy men who aren’t in attendance—and then push radical plans to curb any modern, productive ventures that they perceive as contributing to nebulous “climate change”.

Goughfather
02-12-2009, 02:38 PM
Let's worry about that if it happens.

In other words, you want to buy time so that you can formulate a new excuse to do nothing as the debate on climate change moves forward.

Igor_Goldenberg
02-12-2009, 03:20 PM
In other words, you want to buy time so that you can formulate a new excuse to do nothing as the debate on climate change moves forward.
And you want to hurry up?

Capablanca-Fan
02-12-2009, 03:43 PM
In other words, you want to buy time so that you can formulate a new excuse to do nothing as the debate on climate change moves forward.
IOW, you want to commit ourselves to a huge gigatax on everything before any real debate on climate change has happend aka "the science is settled".

The "precautionary principle", most recently touted by Hockey, sounds lovely. But what about precautions against crippling our economy and causing increased poverty and unemployment — demonstrable risks to physical and mental health? As IG said earlier, the warm-mongers want to place their hands in our pockets.

TheJoker
02-12-2009, 04:47 PM
IOW, you want to commit ourselves to a huge gigatax on everything before any real debate on climate change has happend aka "the science is settled".

The science wont be settled until after the fact. Even then it probably wont be clear what impacted any changes or stability in the climate.

This is the problem there is no scientific experiement that can be conducted to prove or disprove the hypothesis.

We are relying on regression analysis to predict future trends in a heavily fluctuating system. If you ever think you are going to get concensus on those predictions then you're fooling yourself.

The fact is the economy will adapt to the the new tax, and rather rapidly I expect. Industry will quickly find ways to produce energy with lower emissions, create more energy efficient production process and equipment/appliances. Money is a great incentive.

Goughfather
02-12-2009, 05:10 PM
The science wont be settled until after the fact. Even then it probably wont be clear what impacted any changes or stability in the climate.

Jono would still be bleating the same tune if he was waist deep in water. Fortunately, the people that the ALP need to win over are not the climate change denialists like Jono, but rather those who simply need to be better informed about the ETS. I concur with Hawke when he concedes that the government hasn't done a particularly good job at educating the electorate about what is involved in such a scheme. Where are the actors the Coalition used for the Workchoices advertisements.


The fact is the economy will adapt to the the new tax, and rather rapidly I expect. Industry will quickly find ways to produce energy with lower emissions, create more energy efficient production process and equipment/appliances. Money is a great incentive.

I agree. Talk about the initial economic sting really is quite short-sighted. The fact is, we're already behind a good part of the developed world on climate change action and we are missing a great opportunity to modernise our industry and our economy. Even in the case that an ETS had no appreciable effect upon the environment, the fact that industries will be moving towards green technologies that we can subsequently market to the rest of the world will have a positive impact upon the economy should we choose to take up the gauntlet.

Capablanca-Fan
02-12-2009, 05:52 PM
Jono would still be bleating the same tune if he was waist deep in water.
What would you know? By your own admission, you're an ignoramus on the science, just like KRudd, Talkbull, PWong, and that fraudulent hypocrite alGore.


Fortunately, the people that the ALP need to win over are not the climate change denialists like Jono, but rather those who simply need to be better informed about the ETS.
Yet if the science were so settled, there would be no need to censor opposing views, intimidate editors, and suppress contrary data, as we now know happened.

Also, as I've said, one can be a climate change swallower and still doubt that the ETS is a good idea. I.e. one can accept that climate change is caused by man and harmful, but still think that a gigatax is a far worse cure than the disease. One can argue that wealth is the best antidote to what nature can throw at us; for example, hurricanes in modern USA cause far less loss of human life than 100 years ago. The Dutch built dykes to combat rising sea levels.


I concur with Hawke when he concedes that the government hasn't done a particularly good job at educating the electorate about what is involved in such a scheme. Where are the actors the Coalition used for the Workchoices advertisements.
You mean the Labor scaremongering about wicked employers firing good employees? But now many Labor dupes have lost their jobs, and have trouble finding work because employers are more reluctant to hire when it's so hard to fire.


I agree. Talk about the initial economic sting really is quite short-sighted.
Well, lawyer types will benefit (http://static.rbi.com.au/Common/ContentManagement/newlaw/PDF/20091125.pdf), we know; but many people will be thrown out of work, and poorer people will be most affected by the rising power and petrol prices, e.g. every family will face a likely $1100 a year in bills.


The fact is, we're already behind a good part of the developed world on climate change action
What? The Kyoto hype (http://patriotpost.us/opinion/edwin-j-feulner/2009/12/01/climate-agenda-high-price-low-return/)?


In 1997, world leaders agreed to the Kyoto Protocol. The U.S. signed that document. But President Clinton never submitted it for Senate approval. Neither did President George W. Bush. So it never achieved the force of law here.

Under Kyoto, developed economies — including most of Europe, as well as Japan and Canada — promised to cut greenhouse gas emissions (mostly carbon dioxide from fossil fuels) by 5 percent below 1990 levels by 2012.

They haven't kept that promise. In fact, the U.S. has done better as a Kyoto treaty outsider than many insiders.

U.N. statistics show our economy trimmed emissions by 3 percent from 2000 to 2006. The 27 European signers increased their emissions during those years slightly, with Austria, Finland, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Portugal and Spain leading the way. Canada, supposedly a poster child for green behavior, increased its emissions 21.3 percent.

Yet, even though their nations failed to meet Kyoto's emission limits, many leaders want to see those standards made even more stringent at Copenhagen. And they want them to apply to the U.S. for the first time.

This is where our leaders must be careful. Other countries haven't paid any legal price for failing to keep their promises. But the U.S. could.



Keep in mind that all this pain comes with virtually no gain. Global temperatures haven't risen for a decade now. And at least one scientific study estimates that even if the world met Kyoto's targets, global temperatures would be trimmed by just 0.07 degree Celsius by 2050, a difference too small to measure.


and we are missing a great opportunity to modernise our industry and our economy.
Government-driven drives are a flop—a gold mine for rent-seekers (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/opinion/invitation-to-rent-seekers/story-e6frg9qf-1225803899543). Look at the US synfuels, NZ's Think Big, the modern ethanol push that caused food price spikes ...


Even in the case that an ETS had no appreciable effect upon the environment, the fact that industries will be moving towards green technologies that we can subsequently market to the rest of the world will have a positive impact upon the economy should we choose to take up the gauntlet.
What modernization? The Greenstapo reject nuclear power, the reason France and Sweden are so "green", and instead pump for ridiculous solar and wind power to tap very diffuse and intermittent energy sources.

Goughfather
02-12-2009, 08:12 PM
What would you know? By your own admission, you're an ignoramus on the science, just like KRudd, Talkbull, PWong, and that fraudulent hypocrite alGore.

I never never suggested that I was an "ignoramus" on the science. Besides, one doesn't need to know anything about the science to follow the general trajectory of your responses.

By the way, you may want to be a bit more careful with your typing, especially with names - those typos make what you write very hard to read.


Yet if the science were so settled, there would be no need to censor opposing views, intimidate editors, and suppress contrary data, as we now know happened.

And as I suspect has happened in all areas of academia. Academic mischief no more suggests that the science is not settled than your constant whinging that global warming is a worldwide left-wing conspiracy to deindustrialise the Western world.


Also, as I've said, one can be a climate change swallower and still doubt that the ETS is a good idea. I.e. one can accept that climate change is caused by man and harmful, but still think that a gigatax is a far worse cure than the disease. One can argue that wealth is the best antidote to what nature can throw at us; for example, hurricanes in modern USA cause far less loss of human life than 100 years ago. The Dutch built dykes to combat rising sea levels.

Pity about the third world, but I guess they don't get a look in under your schema.


You mean the Labor scaremongering about wicked employers firing good employees? But now many Labor dupes have lost their jobs, and have trouble finding work because employers are more reluctant to hire when it's so hard to fire.

Well, I was actually talking about the Howard government commercials and express my disappointment that the ALP is not so profligate in the money they spend on education campaigns.

But while we are at it, employers will hire employees when they derive benefit from doing so. If they aren't able to be as exploitative under a non-WorkChoices regime, but can still make money, they will still hire, although they may whinge and whine about the fact that they are no longer able to keep serfs.



Well, lawyer types will benefit (http://static.rbi.com.au/Common/ContentManagement/newlaw/PDF/20091125.pdf), we know; but many people will be thrown out of work, and poorer people will be most affected by the rising power and petrol prices, e.g. every family will face a likely $1100 a year in bills.

As I said, all this whinging about an initial sting is short-sighted, not to mention hypocritical when coming from the highest taxing government in Australia's history.



What modernization? The Greenstapo reject nuclear power, the reason France and Sweden are so "green", and instead pump for ridiculous solar and wind power to tap very diffuse and intermittent energy sources.

Fallacy of false alternatives.

Capablanca-Fan
02-12-2009, 08:38 PM
And as I suspect has happened in all areas of academia. Academic mischief no more suggests that the science is not settled than your constant whinging that global warming is a worldwide left-wing conspiracy to deindustrialise the Western world.
I never said it was a conspiracy—until those emails proved there was! Normally a shared worldview explains things reasonably well without recourse to conscious conspiring.


Pity about the third world, but I guess they don't get a look in under your schema.
Ah yes, the typical leftard attack: if you don't agree with a leftard policy, it means you don't care about the people the policy ostensibly means to help. As Bjørn Lomborg (not a denier) points out (http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/all/767021/global-warming-is-not-our-most-urgent-priority.thtml), there is a huge opportunity cost with spending billions on "climate change" gestures, i.e. there are far better ways to benefit the third world:


Lomborg’s basic argument — as laid out in his bestsellers, The Skeptical Environmentalist and Cool It! — is that the world isn’t in nearly as bad a mess as the eco-doomsayers claim it is. And before we do anything too drastic to try to make things better, we ought first to ascertain what its most pressing problems are, rather than throw good money after hopeless causes.



Its conclusions are hardly likely to win Lomborg new fans in the eco movement, for global warming comes so far down the list of urgent priorities that it doesn’t make the top ten. Far better to spend our limited pool of development aid money, say the economists, on schemes like micronutrient supplements (vitamin A and zinc) for malnourished children. For an annual outlay of only $60 million this would result in yearly benefits (through improved health, fewer deaths, increased earnings) worth more than $1 billion.

Also high on the list are unglamorous things like expanded immunisation coverage for children; deworming programmes in Third World schools; and community-based nutrition promotion. Number two on the recommended list is the — highly unlikely given resistance from the US and the EU — implementation of the Doha development agenda. Ending the trade tariffs, in other words, which are immeasurably to the developing world’s disadvantage.

‘It’s true that in the battle between exciting problems and boring problems we are defenders of the boring problems,’ agrees Lomborg, when I suggest that polar bears on melting ice caps tug the heartstrings far more effectively than flyblown African urchins. ‘Our uphill task is to try to show that problems involving the greatest pictures and the cutest animals are not necessarily the most pressing issues.’


But while we are at it, employers will hire employees when they derive benefit from doing so. If they aren't able to be as exploitative under a non-WorkChoices regime, but can still make money, they will still hire, although they may whinge and whine about the fact that they are no longer able to keep serfs.
There is little economic sense to fire good employees, because it costs money to train replacements. And the "serf" jobs are usually people starting out, gaining work experience that will make them more productive and thus able to earn higher wages.


As I said, all this whinging about an initial sting is short-sighted, not to mention hypocritical when coming from the highest taxing government in Australia's history.
You mean highest tax rate or tax take? Sometimes lowering tax rates can make the economy more productive, so raising the total taxes. What matters more is how much the government spends. And as Abbott rightly notes, KRudd is spending like your namesake Gough.


Fallacy of false alternatives.
How so? But KRudd is guilty of that, when he shrieks that it's either support his gigatax, or you're a denier who doesn't care that the planet is cooking.

Goughfather
02-12-2009, 10:13 PM
I never said it was a conspiracy—until those emails proved there was! Normally a shared worldview explains things reasonably well without recourse to conscious conspiring.


I did say worldwide conspiracy, not a couple of academics.


Ah yes, the typical leftard attack: if you don't agree with a leftard policy, it means you don't care about the people the policy ostensibly means to help. As Bjørn Lomborg (not a denier) points out (http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/all/767021/global-warming-is-not-our-most-urgent-priority.thtml), there is a huge opportunity cost with spending billions on "climate change" gestures, i.e. there are far better ways to benefit the third world:

...

‘It’s true that in the battle between exciting problems and boring problems we are defenders of the boring problems,’ agrees Lomborg, when I suggest that polar bears on melting ice caps tug the heartstrings far more effectively than flyblown African urchins. ‘Our uphill task is to try to show that problems involving the greatest pictures and the cutest animals are not necessarily the most pressing issues.’[/INDENT]

You accuse me of being emotionally manipulative and then come up with this quote? Are you serious?

The problem is, addressing the issue in manner that Lomborg speaks of is not going to help all that much if neglect on climate change means intractable problems for low lying countries as well as climate shifts that impact upon the viability of agricultural industries in third world countries. All it is doing is giving with the left hand and taking with the right.


There is little economic sense to fire good employees, because it costs money to train replacements. And the "serf" jobs are usually people starting out, gaining work experience that will make them more productive and thus able to earn higher wages.

But there is plenty of economic sense in exploiting naive workers who aren't aware of their worth and threatening these workers with the sack if they fail to toe the line, however empty these threats may be in practice. What's more, your assessment that people will not be hired as a result of the abolition of WorkChoices is far too simplistic. Whenever it is profitable to hire employees, employers will do so, WorkChoices or no WorkChoices. Even if it is less profitable without WorkChoices, employers may grumble, but they'll still employ.


You mean highest tax rate or tax take? Sometimes lowering tax rates can make the economy more productive, so raising the total taxes. What matters more is how much the government spends. And as Abbott rightly notes, KRudd is spending like your namesake Gough.

All very rich, given the Howard government's record in its last term or so and the extent of its election promises in 2007, which significantly costed more than that of Labor. What's more, the Liberal Party response to the budget you affectionately refer to as the spendulus was to spend even more money, not less. If you think the Rudd government are big spenders, just think that it could have been considerably worse under the Coalition.


How so? But KRudd is guilty of that, when he shrieks that it's either support his gigatax, or you're a denier who doesn't care that the planet is cooking.

False alternatives in the sense that you suggest that either one adopts a nuclear option or one rejects modernising industry and the economy. Never mind the fact that many of the alternate green sources are somewhat more modern than nuclear power.

Capablanca-Fan
02-12-2009, 11:23 PM
I did say worldwide conspiracy, not a couple of academics.
No, quite a lot of warm-mongering leaders conspiring to hide data, intimidate dissenters and lean on editors.


You accuse me of being emotionally manipulative and then come up with this quote? Are you serious?
First, it was in reply to your typical leftard claim that I don't care about the third world. Second, it was documenting far better ways to help them for less money. Third, it was an example that one doesn't have to be a "denier" to think that the current warm-mongering is misdirected.


The problem is, addressing the issue in manner that Lomborg speaks of is not going to help all that much if neglect on climate change means intractable problems for low lying countries
What, swallowing alGore's demonstrably inflated claims of rising sea levels? But again, wealth is a better means of coping than poverty; high tech machines that need energy can cope with nature far better.


as well as climate shifts that impact upon the viability of agricultural industries in third world countries.
Or might increase them; CO2 is used in plant photosynthesis, and frosts damage crops too.


All it is doing is giving with the left hand and taking with the right.
Again, opportunity costs. Gigataxes are likely to cause much more poverty and even loss of life. Even now, far more people die of excess cold than excess heat; raising the cost of electricity will do more; some warming would probably lower this particular cause of death.


But there is plenty of economic sense in exploiting naive workers who aren't aware of their worth and threatening these workers with the sack if they fail to toe the line, however empty these threats may be in practice.
Sure, employers are human too with all the flaws that entails. But stupid Labour policies making it less worthwhile to hire people is not helping them find jobs, as much as it helps Labour's union allies. Another moronic policy practiced by the State Labour governments is fining employers for hiring people (aka payroll tax).


What's more, your assessment that people will not be hired as a result of the abolition of WorkChoices is far too simplistic.
Not at all: it's the only sensible way to analyse policy: what is it rewarding and what is it punishing?


Whenever it is profitable to hire employees, employers will do so, WorkChoices or no WorkChoices. Even if it is less profitable without WorkChoices, employers may grumble, but they'll still employ.
Or find alternatives. These choices are still incremental. In many businesses, the inability to fire can and has made a difference whether to employ. I.e. they can make the difference to whether it is profitable or unprofitable to hire someone/


All very rich, given the Howard government's record in its last term or so and the extent of its election promises in 2007, which significantly costed more than that of Labor.
That was a mistake. Yet they never went for the Whitlamesque spending, going into debt, that KRudd did.


What's more, the Liberal Party response to the budget you affectionately refer to as the spendulus
Of course. My term accurately reflects what it is actually doing—spending. KRudd's term "stimulus" reflects what he hopes it will achieve—stimulate the economy.


was to spend even more money, not less.
What are you on aboutHockey's reply to the spendulus (http://www.joehockey.com/mediahub/mprDetail.aspx?prID=779) was very much to the point (before his brains were addled).


If you think the Rudd government are big spenders, just think that it could have been considerably worse under the Coalition.
Not likely. They are more responsible in government. It's regrettable that they are not really free market, but in elections, we must choose between the alternatives actually available.


False alternatives in the sense that you suggest that either one adopts a nuclear option or one rejects modernising industry and the economy. Never mind the fact that many of the alternate green sources are somewhat more modern than nuclear power.
Who cares? Are they more efficient?

Kevin Bonham
02-12-2009, 11:45 PM
I'm amused by an upcoming round of protests called the "Walk against Warming" and supported by various of the usual suspects (Wilderness Society, Get Up, etc). Most of these are being held in central city locations but the Tasmanian one is different. It's being held at Timbs Track in the Florentine, a current forestry region, which is about 90 minutes' drive from Hobart.

Yes, drive. These people are going to car pool and get buses, thus burning fossil fuels (albeit in reduced amounts by pooling) so they can protest against carbon emissions by the forest industries.

Of course it's not about global warming but about using global warming as a stick to bash forestry when most of the other sticks they like to use have passed their use-by date.

It's the whole "flying by jet to global warming conferences" paradox on a local level.

Spiny Norman
03-12-2009, 04:33 AM
Fact #1: pro-AGW scientists are having trouble explaining why (a) CO2 levels are increasing rapidly; but (b) the world has slightly cooled over the past decade.

Fact #2: we are now in the depths of what may be the lowest/longest solar minimum (i.e. time between sunspot cycles) for a century. From www.spaceweather.com:


The sun is in the pits of a very deep solar minimum. Many researchers thought the sunspot cycle had hit bottom in 2008 when the sun was blank 73% of the time. Not so. 2009 is on the verge of going even lower. So far this year, the sun has been blank 75% of the time, and only a serious outbreak of sunspots over the next few weeks will prevent 2009 from becoming the quietest year in a century. Solar minimum continues.

Coincidence? Possibly. However there are some very good correlations between sunspot cycles and global temps. Only this year we learned (yes, through the peer-reviewed literature) that climatologists may have underestimated the impact of sunspot cycles by as much as a factor of 4 in their modelling.

Perhaps this explains why none of the models predicted this cooling.

Perhaps this also explains why claims of "the science is settled" are just plain wrong.

They need better models, not an ETS.

Igor_Goldenberg
03-12-2009, 07:36 AM
But there is plenty of economic sense in exploiting naive workers who aren't aware of their worth and threatening these workers with the sack if they fail to toe the line, however empty these threats may be in practice.

Which planet do you live on? Did you ever try to run a business or a small department or have any managerial role? If you have a good employee you treat them like gold.
And if you come across any "naive workers who aren't aware of their worth" please let me know, as I haven't seen any yet.


What's more, your assessment that people will not be hired as a result of the abolition of WorkChoices is far too simplistic. Whenever it is profitable to hire employees, employers will do so, WorkChoices or no WorkChoices. Even if it is less profitable without WorkChoices, employers may grumble, but they'll still employ.

So you agree the more profitable to hire someone, the more likely they will be hired?



All very rich, given the Howard government's record in its last term or so and the extent of its election promises in 2007, which significantly costed more than that of Labor. What's more, the Liberal Party response to the budget you affectionately refer to as the spendulus was to spend even more money, not less. If you think the Rudd government are big spenders, just think that it could have been considerably worse under the Coalition.

It could have been. But the 11 years of Coalition government proved otherwise. Two years of Labor government added further proof that it's not the case.




False alternatives in the sense that you suggest that either one adopts a nuclear option or one rejects modernising industry and the economy. Never mind the fact that many of the alternate green sources are somewhat more modern than nuclear power.
In science fictions they are. In real life they don't work.
I love science fictions, but have to feed my family in real world.

Igor_Goldenberg
03-12-2009, 07:42 AM
Coincidence? Possibly. However there are some very good correlations between sunspot cycles and global temps. Only this year we learned (yes, through the peer-reviewed literature) that climatologists may have underestimated the impact of sunspot cycles by as much as a factor of 4 in their modelling.


Indeed, I heard a lot about climate being most affected by sun activity.
I have another question:
Suppose that CO2 has no effect on climate. In this case, what are the detrimental effect of increasing CO2 level? What is the highest acceptable level of CO2?

Igor_Goldenberg
03-12-2009, 04:15 PM
Earth Day Blackout in Israel vs. Al Gore (http://www.sciencebits.com/EarthDayBlackout)

Well, for one, the amount of electricity saved is ridiculously meaningless. The Israeli populous saved a "whopping" 65,000 KWhr (e.g., here (http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/spages/1080846.html), in hebrew). In fact, if you compare it to the annual electricity usage of the Al Gore household, of 210,000 KWhr, you realize that Israelis saved a third of what Al Gore wastes in a year. Makes you think.
I don't know whether those numbers are correct, but the mere fact that they are comparable makes me laugh.
I think if Australia joins, we might make Al Gore "green".

Ian Murray
03-12-2009, 04:43 PM
A Climate Scientist Explains Our Choices (http://newmatilda.com/2009/12/01/climate-scientist-explains-our-choices)
By James Risbey PhD (Climatology)
1.12.09


Whatever your stance on the ETS, we need to make some hard choices very fast, writes climate scientist James Risbey

Climatologists have been described as the Cassandras of the modern era. We have developed the ability to see what the future may have in store for the climate, but are confronted by big industry that doesn't want to hear it, government that mirrors big industry, and an ambivalent public.

Despite that, I'd like to set out what climate science has told us about the choices we have in the situation we're facing.

The futures that we climatologists see diverge radically in the next few years. On one path, the world imposes rapid reductions of carbon emissions and ultimately manages to stabilise concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would keep the warming below about 2 degrees Celsius. On the other path, we keep to our present course and bring about warming well beyond 2 degrees, perhaps 4 degrees or 6 degrees, or more.

Climatologists have picked 2 degrees as the rough number that separates "manageable" impacts from major, irreversible changes to the planet....

Igor_Goldenberg
03-12-2009, 04:58 PM
A Climate Scientist Explains Our Choices (http://newmatilda.com/2009/12/01/climate-scientist-explains-our-choices)
By James Risbey PhD (Climatology)
1.12.09


Whatever your stance on the ETS, we need to make some hard choices very fast, writes climate scientist James Risbey

Climatologists have been described as the Cassandras of the modern era. We have developed the ability to see what the future may have in store for the climate, but are confronted by big industry that doesn't want to hear it, government that mirrors big industry, and an ambivalent public.

Despite that, I'd like to set out what climate science has told us about the choices we have in the situation we're facing.

The futures that we climatologists see diverge radically in the next few years. On one path, the world imposes rapid reductions of carbon emissions and ultimately manages to stabilise concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would keep the warming below about 2 degrees Celsius. On the other path, we keep to our present course and bring about warming well beyond 2 degrees, perhaps 4 degrees or 6 degrees, or more.

Climatologists have picked 2 degrees as the rough number that separates "manageable" impacts from major, irreversible changes to the planet....

They can describe themselves as Cassandra, but it does not add credibility or predictive power to their models.

Spiny Norman
03-12-2009, 05:20 PM
There are a number of things that we humans are doing which are almost certainly bad for the planet:

(1) cutting down most of the forests; and
(2) burning off all the fossil fuels in a massive hurry

I strongly support efforts to preserve and re-establish forest environments. I strongly support efforts to find alternatives to fossil fuels. I just don't happen to think that an ETS is the way to achieve those goals. I suspect the CO2 threat is overblown, although it is possible that pro-warmers are correct.

Igor, in answer to your question about CO2 ... lets say for argument sake that CO2 has only a mild effect on climate, or is neutral. In that event, I think increasing our CO2 levels would be very beneficial. It will increase plant growth, therefore will increase crop productivity/yields. An optimal CO2 level from a plant growth perspective would be substantially higher than current levels.

Igor_Goldenberg
04-12-2009, 11:31 AM
There are a number of things that we humans are doing which are almost certainly bad for the planet:

(1) cutting down most of the forests; and
(2) burning off all the fossil fuels in a massive hurry



I agree these are the problems. They can be solved on a local level.
Global warming by it's nature can only be resolved on a very high level.

Which one is more attractive to politician? Sorry for asking a rhetorical question:lol:

Capablanca-Fan
04-12-2009, 05:00 PM
Holland’s Elsevier reports on new research that once more shows up untruths in An Inconvenient Truth by warm-mongering profit prophet alGore (translated by Andrew Bolt (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/gores_mountain_of_misinformation/), who has Dutch parents):


Frormer American vice president and Nobel Prize winner Gore has for years used the melting snow on Africa’s highest mountain (5892 metres) for his climate propaganda. The snow cover is shrinking and that is caused by man and his greenhouse gases!

The Dutch scientist Jaap Sinninghe Damsté debunks this story of climate guru Gore in the leading periodical Nature.

A natural process of large climate shifts seems to be the true cause, says the Dutch Organisation for Scientific Research on Thursday....

The researcher and European colleagues discovered that Kilimanjaro underwent successive periods of heavy monsoons and extreme dryness. Ice and snow retreat from the top in dry periods and return in the very wet ones....

Al Gore must find another symbol for his climate problem. Kilimanjaro does now have little snow on the peak, but that seems to be completely natural.

Spiny Norman
05-12-2009, 12:33 PM
I knew he'd be good for something sooner or later:

Spiny Norman
06-12-2009, 09:43 AM
tUZRjHK8rQs

Capablanca-Fan
07-12-2009, 08:27 AM
Delegates gas it up for Copenhagen climate change talks (http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,26445747-953,00.html)
Adam Shand
Courier Mail, 5 Dec 09

AUSTRALIA will emit more than 400 tonnes of greenhouse gases in sending one of the world’s largest parties to this month’s Copenhagen climate talks.

The Australian delegation is tipped to number up to 90 state, federal and local government politicians and officials, surpassing more populous nations such as Britain.

Britain is only sending 38 delegates and support staff.

...

Environmental groups are concerned the conference, which will draw 15,000 delegates, will add significantly to the problem it purports to solve.

Conference organisers have estimated that, excluding air travel, overall emissions will be 40,500 tonnes of carbon dioxide, or 2.7 tonnes per person.

....

Copenhagen climate summit: 1,200 limos, 140 private planes and caviar wedges (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6736517/Copenhagen-climate-summit-1200-limos-140-private-planes-and-caviar-wedges.html)
Copenhagen is preparing for the climate change summit that will produce as much carbon dioxide as a town the size of Middlesbrough.

On a normal day, Majken Friss Jorgensen, managing director of Copenhagen’s biggest limousine company, says her firm has twelve vehicles on the road. During the “summit to save the world”, which opens here tomorrow, she will have 200.

“We thought they were not going to have many cars, due to it being a climate convention,” she says…

“We haven’t got enough limos in the country to fulfil the demand,” she says. “We’re having to drive them in hundreds of miles from Germany and Sweden.”

And the total number of electric cars or hybrids among that number? “Five,” says Ms Jorgensen…

The airport says it is expecting up to 140 extra private jets during the peak period alone, so far over its capacity that the planes will have to fly off to regional airports – or to Sweden – to park, returning to Copenhagen to pick up their VIP passengers.

As well 15,000 delegates and officials, 5,000 journalists and 98 world leaders, the Danish capital will be blessed by the presence of Leonardo DiCaprio, Daryl Hannah, Helena Christensen, Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Prince Charles.

Spiny Norman
07-12-2009, 09:52 AM
Finally, an explanation for global warming that makes sense! Philosophical and evolutionary hot air:

Desmond
07-12-2009, 10:51 AM
I don't know that all the focus on travel emissions is useful. "Spending" some carbon to facilitate agreements that will dwarf the spend in net reductions.

It's a bit like paying to consult a financial planner who then helps you generate more wealth.

Capablanca-Fan
07-12-2009, 11:30 AM
I don't know that all the focus on travel emissions is useful.
It is. It shows that most of the leading warm-mongers not only don't practice what they preach but are also worse sinners than those they preach at.


"Spending" some carbon to facilitate agreements that will dwarf the spend in net reductions.
You hope. But is there really any need for so many delegates? What about environmentally friendly teleconferences? Are gas-guzzling limos and private jets really necessary?


It's a bit like paying to consult a financial planner who then helps you generate more wealth.
Sounds more like destroying the village in order to save it.

Desmond
07-12-2009, 11:59 AM
It is. It shows that most of the leading warm-mongers not only don't practice what they preach but are also worse sinners than those they preach at.Are people who say "let's have a moment's silence" practising what they preach? :P
You hope. But is there really any need for so many delegates?I don't know, it does sound like a lot. But then how much less carbon does a half full jet emit compared to a full one.
What about environmentally friendly teleconferences? Are gas-guzzling limos and private jets really necessary?In my experience teleconferences are no substitute for the real thing. Yes they are cheaper and can be more convenient but I think the level of engagement from the participants is much lower. Also there is much more room for distraction when you are not physically there. Not to mention time zone differences.

Capablanca-Fan
07-12-2009, 12:06 PM
Are people who say "let's have a moment's silence" practising what they preach? :P
Yes, because the request is an implied near future time, not the present, where they will be participating ;)

But is there any other movement where both the founders and major preachers are the main sinners against its commandments? The huge mansions and private jets (or at least frequent jet-setting) of many of the vocal warm-mongers are unparalleled. As I said, hardly any of them act like it's a crisis and lead by example.


I don't know, it does sound like a lot.
Yes, what a small to medium city would emit.


But then how much less carbon does a half full jet emit compared to a full one.
Not sure; what about a number of small private jets compared to one large one?


In my experience teleconferences are no substitute for the real thing. Yes they are cheaper and can be more convenient but I think the level of engagement from the participants is much lower. Also there is much more room for distraction when you are not physically there. Not to mention time zone differences.
Sure, but there seem to be rather many hangers on, which in itself is a distraction.

Desmond
07-12-2009, 12:27 PM
Yes, because the request is an implied near future time, not the present, where they will be participating ;)

But is there any other movement where both the founders and major preachers are the main sinners against its commandments? The huge mansions and private jets (or at least frequent jet-setting) of many of the vocal warm-mongers are unparalleled. As I said, hardly any of them act like it's a crisis and lead by example.But who is to say they aren't reducing their energy usage in other ways. Saying that they use private jets therefore are not taking measures to reduce energy consumption seems to be an oversimplification.
Yes, what a small to medium city would emit.I meant a lot of delegates.
Not sure; what about a number of small private jets compared to one large one?I wouldn't know.

Sure, but there seem to be rather many hangers on, which in itself is a distraction.Are they hangers on? I haven't seen the list of who's going but it would make sense to have representatives from different areas in each country meet with their foreign couterparts to compare notes.

Kevin Bonham
07-12-2009, 01:07 PM
But is there any other movement where both the founders and major preachers are the main sinners against its commandments? The huge mansions and private jets (or at least frequent jet-setting) of many of the vocal warm-mongers are unparalleled.

I agree that Gore and others like him are hypocrites but the above is hyperbolic. There are other very rich people who have big mansions and who engage in unnecessarily frequent jet travel who are not "warm-mongers" (as you call them), and the "main sinners" against the "commandements" are probably owners of major polluting industries.

Igor_Goldenberg
07-12-2009, 05:36 PM
I agree that Gore and others like him are hypocrites but the above is hyperbolic. There are other very rich people who have big mansions and who engage in unnecessarily frequent jet travel who are not "warm-mongers" (as you call them), and the "main sinners" against the "commandements" are probably owners of major polluting industries.
But the don't preach against emitting CO2!

Kevin Bonham
07-12-2009, 05:44 PM
But the don't preach against emitting CO2!

Indeed, but that is not what I took issue with. The issue is that it should be sufficient to demonstrate that Gore and pals are hypocrites without needing to exaggerate their environmental impact compared to that of those who are not hypocrites on this issue.

Capablanca-Fan
08-12-2009, 08:57 AM
Indeed, but that is not what I took issue with. The issue is that it should be sufficient to demonstrate that Gore and pals are hypocrites without needing to exaggerate their environmental impact compared to that of those who are not hypocrites on this issue.
OK, the main preachers are pretty bad sinners against their commandments, and are quite high up there among the worst individual sinners.

Capablanca-Fan
08-12-2009, 09:00 AM
But who is to say they aren't reducing their energy usage in other ways.
But are they? It's more about preaching conservation to the masses while they indulge themselves. Maybe they pay carbon indulgences offsets, but in alGore's case, they go to a company partly owned by him.


Saying that they use private jets therefore are not taking measures to reduce energy consumption seems to be an oversimplification.
Yet a single flight on a private jet emits more CO2 than most people drive in a year, even with SUVs.


Are they hangers on? I haven't seen the list of who's going but it would make sense to have representatives from different areas in each country meet with their foreign couterparts to compare notes.
Why does Australia need twice as many delegates as the UK, with so far to travel? Looks like Labor grandstanding.

Mephistopheles
08-12-2009, 01:19 PM
I agree that Gore and others like him are hypocrites but the above is
nonsense.

What has hypocrisy to do with the validity or otherwise of AGW? I have no barrow to push here but I can't help but take exception to yet another Jono lapse in logic and I'm quite frankly surprised to see you pay his wibble even the briefest of lip service.

Sweet Lucifer, the next thing I know, you'll be telling me that my position that drinking to excess is not good for you is invalidated by the fact that I occasionally drink to excess myself.

Igor_Goldenberg
08-12-2009, 01:24 PM
Sweet Lucifer, the next thing I know, you'll be telling me that my position that drinking to excess is not good for you is invalidated by the fact that I occasionally drink to excess myself.
If you were actively promoting government policies to curb excessive drinking while excessively drinking yourself, you'd be a hypocrite.
The point is that Al Gore et al are hypocrites. It does not undermine scientific research (it was undermined already by ClimateGate), but certainly undermines their advocacy.

Kevin Bonham
08-12-2009, 01:53 PM
What has hypocrisy to do with the validity or otherwise of AGW?

At a quick look I can't see anywhere where I suggested it had anything to do with it so this:


Sweet Lucifer, the next thing I know, you'll be telling me that my position that drinking to excess is not good for you is invalidated by the fact that I occasionally drink to excess myself.

...doesn't seem to have anything to do with anything I have actually argued (whatever it probably does have to do with Jono's methods.)

Capablanca-Fan
08-12-2009, 02:24 PM
If you were actively promoting government policies to curb excessive drinking while excessively drinking yourself, you'd be a hypocrite.
The point is that Al Gore et al are hypocrites. It does not undermine scientific research (it was undermined already by ClimateGate), but certainly undermines their advocacy.
Exactly. Mephistopheles is just being paranoid, imputing to me an argument I wasn't even making. But one must ask whether these profits prophets really believe their own faith, since they sin so blatantly against it. And the more the leaders sin, the more sacrifices the masses will need to make to compensate.

And here is an even more glaring example of warm-mongering hypocrisy: Sir Richard Brazen, owner of a CO2-spewing airline (http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/article6788581.ece), and now wants to have commercial flights into space (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/12/08/2764911.htm), which would be even worse. And Australian warm-monger Tim Flummery is joining this venture (http://www.smh.com.au/national/greenie-accused-of-being-a-space-cadet-20090422-affm.html).

TheJoker
08-12-2009, 04:13 PM
If you were actively promoting government policies to curb excessive drinking while excessively drinking yourself, you'd be a hypocrite.

Not if you advocated government policies as the only effective way to modify the behaviour.

For example a proponent of an ETS might say that a financial penalty for CO2 emissions is the only thing likely to cause people to reduce emissions. Therefore, they could quite happily be a heavy emitter without an ETS without being hypocritical.

Desmond
08-12-2009, 04:34 PM
But are they? It's more about preaching conservation to the masses while they indulge themselves. Maybe they pay carbon indulgences offsets, but in alGore's case, they go to a company partly owned by him.


Yet a single flight on a private jet emits more CO2 than most people drive in a year, even with SUVs.


Why does Australia need twice as many delegates as the UK, with so far to travel? Looks like Labor grandstanding.
Also don't forget to factor in that Rudd is staying in the same place for a week. Think of all the trips he won't be making in that time, no hopping around the globe. Think of the savings!

Desmond
08-12-2009, 04:44 PM
Obama and Gore to meet on climate change (http://en.cop15.dk/news/view+news?newsid=2866)


An official says President Barack Obama plans to talk with former Vice President Al Gore at the White House on Monday as the president prepares for his appearance at a major international climate summit in Copenhagen.

Obama will meet with Gore in a closed meeting with no expected press coverage.

The former vice president won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 for his work toward combatting climate change.

Obama is also meeting on Wednesday with environmental leaders and US business leaders to discuss climate change.

The president will appear at the summit of world leaders on Dec. 18.

A senior administration official told The Associated Press of Obama's meetings on condition of anonymity because they had not yet been announced.

Kevin Bonham
08-12-2009, 04:46 PM
It does not undermine scientific research (it was undermined already by ClimateGate)

That's a curious position for you to take since you didn't agree with it even before the Hadley CRU hackings (which I will not call "ClimateGate" since I am sick of the -gate suffix gimmick as noted elsewhere).

So either you think the case against the science was already overwhelming (in which case why suggest that the hackings tell us anything you didn't already "know") or else you think it wasn't already overwhelming, in which case why did you call belief in global warming one of the "faith based delusions"?

Mephistopheles
09-12-2009, 07:54 AM
If you were actively promoting government policies to curb excessive drinking while excessively drinking yourself, you'd be a hypocrite.
So what? Does that have any bearing on whether excessive drinking is undesirable hor harmful?

Shouting "hypocrite!" may give you a sense of moral superiority but it doesn't change the fact that a hypocrisy call is usually just an argumentum ad hominem in a very flimsy disguise.

Mephistopheles
09-12-2009, 08:00 AM
Exactly. Mephistopheles is just being paranoid,
About what, exactly? I've merely called you out on your having played the "hypocrisy" card. As mentioned elsewhere, it is simply argumentum ad hominem by another hame.


imputing to me an argument I wasn't even making.
So you are now willing to admit that the hypocrisy of subscribers to the notion of AGW is irrelevant to whether AGW is a reality?


But one must ask whether these profits prophets really believe their own faith, since they sin so blatantly against it. And the more the leaders sin, the more sacrifices the masses will need to make to compensate.
But it's all a con, Jono, so we don't need to worry about any of that at all ...

... Or do we?

Buggered if I know, to be honest, but what I do know is that crying "hypocrite" doesn't really make any impact on the fundamental debate apart from introducing a simple logical fallacy.

Mephistopheles
09-12-2009, 08:06 AM
At a quick look I can't see anywhere where I suggested it had anything to do with it so this:
So why even mention the hypocrisy of these people (which you did)? I fail to see the relevance.

(whatever it probably does have to do with Jono's methods.)
Probably should have been directed more roundly at Jono, admittedly. I was simply shocked that any of this hypocrisy crap was allowed to see the light of day without it being questioned.

Igor_Goldenberg
09-12-2009, 08:20 AM
So what? Does that have any bearing on whether excessive drinking is undesirable hor harmful?

It undermines the position of the hypocrite itself. It means (s)he is not likely to be genuine. It means (s)he is likely to be misleading and deceiving.

Igor_Goldenberg
09-12-2009, 08:26 AM
That's a curious position for you to take since you didn't agree with it even before the Hadley CRU hackings (which I will not call "ClimateGate" since I am sick of the -gate suffix gimmick as noted elsewhere).

So either you think the case against the science was already overwhelming (in which case why suggest that the hackings tell us anything you didn't already "know") or else you think it wasn't already overwhelming, in which case why did you call belief in global warming one of the "faith based delusions"?
Climategate brought in a daylight what some suspected and many were ignorant of.
I knew that science is far from being settled, I suspected that motives of some advocates aren't as pure as they want us to think, but I didn't know CRU researchers (don't want to call them scientist any more) deliberately distorted data.

Capablanca-Fan
09-12-2009, 08:49 AM
That's a curious position for you to take since you didn't agree with it even before the Hadley CRU hackings
One can disagree for all sorts of reasons. One can point out that "consensus" is not a way to settle science, even before we find that this consensus was reached by "tricks" to "hide the decline", leaning on editors and overtly advocating that dissent should be censored.


(which I will not call "ClimateGate" since I am sick of the -gate suffix gimmick as noted elsewhere).
Which I agree with.


So either you think the case against the science was already overwhelming (in which case why suggest that the hackings tell us anything you didn't already "know") or else you think it wasn't already overwhelming, in which case why did you call belief in global warming one of the "faith based delusions"?
We brought up other points, such as costs v benefits of trying to do something about it.

Mephistopheles
09-12-2009, 09:37 AM
It undermines the position of the hypocrite itself.
What arrant nonsense. It does no such thing to the position but may undermine the person, who is not very often germane to the actual argument.


It means (s)he is not likely to be genuine.
It may well mean no such thing. In any case, a valid position not genuinely held by a person remains a valid position.


It means (s)he is likely to be misleading and deceiving.
It may well mean no such thing. Besides, a valid position held by a misleading, deceiving person remains a valid position.

This is not rocket surgery or brain science. It is Logic 101.

The above two pieces of cack are pure conjecture on your part and nothing more. Put simply, calling somebody a hypocrite is an argumentum ad hominem (as I'm sure I'll mention many times more) and says nothing about the validity of the position espoused by that person.

Capablanca-Fan
09-12-2009, 10:25 AM
Yeah, yeah, we all know that "I don't practice what I preach" doesn't entail "What I preach is wrong", and have said so. But as a matter of credibility, it does little for a position loudly preached to sin gravely against it.

In some cases, the position really is good, and the hypocrite harms himself and others by not following it. For example, the favorite atheopaths' example of priests who abuse teen boys; promoters of marital faithfulness who cheat on their own wives. See The Haggard tragedy: ‘Christianity must be wrong because of all the hypocrites in the church!’ (http://creation.com/the-haggard-tragedy)

Other times, it is an indication that the position is not really so good after all. E.g. Nancy Pelosi promoting unions but hiring only non-union labour for her own jobs; Barbra Streisand promoting minimum wage laws in America but hiring Canadian workers because they are cheaper, and demanding environmental cutbacks while spending $22,000 on her own water bill; wealthy Dems who promote higher taxes but have their own fortunes in tax shelters; pro-euthanasia Peter Singer paying for his own mother's treatment for Alzheimer's; Mike Moore denouncing racism while hiring only white people, and railing against oil and the stockmarket while owning a pile of stocks, including oil; Obamov and other Dems opposing school choice for the masses while sending their own kids to the best private schools money can buy. See Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy by Peter Schweitzer (http://www.nationalreview.com/interrogatory/schweizer200510250827.asp) to explain the difference between leftist hypocrisy and Haggard-type hypocrisy.

With the warm-mongering, one must doubt how honestly they hold their position given how much they use CO2-belching luxuries, and unrepentantly so. Richard Brazen not only owns an airline but wants to send rich people into space, yet demands that the rest of us cut back.

Igor_Goldenberg
09-12-2009, 10:38 AM
What arrant nonsense. It does no such thing to the position but may undermine the person, who is not very often germane to the actual argument.


It may well mean no such thing. In any case, a valid position not genuinely held by a person remains a valid position.


It may well mean no such thing. Besides, a valid position held by a misleading, deceiving person remains a valid position.

This is not rocket surgery or brain science. It is Logic 101.

While the position itself might or might not remain valid, advocacy from the hypocrites can be safely discounted.
In case of global warming all the hype from Gore et al can be thrown out as well.

Mephistopheles
09-12-2009, 11:05 AM
While the position itself might or might not remain valid, advocacy from the hypocrites can be safely discounted.
Would you care to post some supporting arguments for the above bald assertion.


In case of global warming all the hype from Gore et al can be thrown out as well.
And again, please.

What is it with the right and an inability to understand the simplest of ideas in informal logic?

Mephistopheles
09-12-2009, 11:19 AM
Yeah, yeah, we all know that "I don't practice what I preach" doesn't entail "What I preach is wrong", and have said so. But as a matter of credibility, it does little for a position loudly preached to sin gravely against it.
And it does little against a position loudly preached, either.


With the warm-mongering, one must doubt how honestly they hold their position given how much they use CO2-belching luxuries,
Which does not affect the validity or otherwise of that position. How many times do you need to be reminded of this?

Now do understand that I am most definitely an AGW agnostic and hold no firm view upon whether these people's position is valid. What I am questioning here is the use of the tools of the propagandist to play the man rather than the ball.

Capablanca-Fan
09-12-2009, 12:58 PM
When I say green, you say money! (http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/when_i_say_green_you_say_money/)
The push for an international treaty at Copenhagen has little to do with climate change and much to do with money.
Brian Lilley, 4 Nov 2009
...

It's about money, plain and simple. While most of the focus in the media is on the attempts to cut greenhouse gas emissions, the behind the scenes negotiations are about how much developed countries will have to pay to developing ones. Ban Ki Moon says that the $150 billion USD in annual contributions to help developed countries adapt to climate change will have to be "scaled up." That's a fancy way of saying the bill just got bigger.

According to the draft treaty, in sections pushed by Flannery and the Secretary General, developed countries, in addition to being required to cut their own emissions of greenhouse gasses by 25 to 40 percent by 2020, must also make several different kinds of payment s to the developing world. There is the payment for historic or past emissions of greenhouse gases; that unspecified amount will be due almost immediately. In addition, the agreement also says (page 16, sect. 33), "Annex I Parties [developed countries] shall provide new and additional financial resources to meet the full costs incurred by developing country Parties" for any undertakings to curb emissions in the developing world. None of these payments, according to the agreement, should come from money currently set aside from foreign aid money to the developed world. Also, green technologies developed by wealthy nations must be transferred, without compensation, to developing nations to help them deal with climate change.

So, the 23 countries deemed "developed" shall pay for their own past emissions, future emissions, the reduction of their own emissions, the reduction of the emissions of developing countries and for the mitigation of any damages caused by climate change in developing nations. They will also hand over potentially lucrative technology and continue to pay aid to the developing world. Have I mentioned that India and China are among the countries that will benefit from all of these payments as their robust economies are considered developing and are therefore in need of support? If boosters of the deal have their way, not only will developed nations pay to see their jobs exported to India and China but neither country will need to sign on to binding targets for reducing their own greenhouse gas emissions.

Igor_Goldenberg
09-12-2009, 01:08 PM
Would you care to post some supporting arguments for the above bald assertion.
Are you saying you would be listening carefully to a hypocrite preaching?



What is it with the right and an inability to understand the simplest of ideas in informal logic?
So far I witnessed many more leftists problem with the logic.
But if you want to beat it up, feel free to.

Mephistopheles
09-12-2009, 03:44 PM
Are you saying you would be listening carefully to a hypocrite preaching?
If their points are valid and their argument is worth listening to then yes. A doctor who tells you not to smoke cigarettes while, at the same time, smoking 20 a day himself is still giving sound advice. Argument is about the message rather than the messenger. How many times do I have to spell this out to you people?


So far I witnessed many more leftists problem with the logic.
And yet it is you and Jono (both right wing posters) who appear to be intent upon argumentum ad hominem by shouting "hypocrite!" rather than actually addressing arguments. Indeed, Jono's oft-presented collection of emotive, derogatory and invented neologisms makes his posts resemble some kind of Orwellian, propagandist newspeak rather than the English language. Go figure.


But if you want to beat it up, feel free to.
I feel free, indeed almost compelled, to demolish meaningless twaddle and logical fallacies offered up in place of a well presented position. I tend to find that the right deals in emotion, personal attacks and scaremongering every bit as often as the left does in those regards.

Igor_Goldenberg
09-12-2009, 04:18 PM
If their points are valid and their argument is worth listening to then yes. A doctor who tells you not to smoke cigarettes while, at the same time, smoking 20 a day himself is still giving sound advice. Argument is about the message rather than the messenger. How many times do I have to spell this out to you people?

It's a pity you don't understand the difference. Doctor tells you not to smoke because you might have problems exacerbated by smoking.

Capablanca-Fan
09-12-2009, 04:42 PM
And yet it is you and Jono (both right wing posters) who appear to be intent upon argumentum ad hominem by shouting "hypocrite!" rather than actually addressing arguments. Indeed, Jono's oft-presented collection of emotive, derogatory and invented neologisms makes his posts resemble some kind of Orwellian, propagandist newspeak rather than the English language. Go figure.

What, rightwingers-under-the-bed now? Actually, you've perfectly described the warm-mongers:

scream about a crisis (warm-mongering is about #27)
commit the Politician's Fallacy of:something must be done, this is something, therefore we must do it (all cats have four legs, my dog has four legs, therefore my dog is a cat—see Yes Minister clip below)
Attack the opponents: if you disagree with the lefties' proposed solutions, you must not care about the problem they are meant to solve (i.e. oppose ETS, you want the planet to fry)
Then of course, the lefties explain away contrary results, such as the leaked emails about "tricks" to "hide the decline".

(Courtesy Thomas Sowell, Vision of the Anointed (http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?a=484))

vidzkYnaf6Y

Mephistopheles
09-12-2009, 07:49 PM
It's a pity you don't understand the difference.
It's actually identical. You are arguing from consequence, another fallacy, BTW.

The message is what should be examined and criticised - the character of the messenger is irrelevant.

Mephistopheles
09-12-2009, 07:57 PM
What, rightwingers-under-the-bed now?
Not at all. You and Igor are openly right wing posters. There's hardly a vast conspiracy at work, unless I regard the two of you failing to grasp Logic 101 as a conspiracy.


Actually, you've perfectly described the warm-mongers:

scream about a crisis (warm-mongering is about #27)
commit the Politician's Fallacy of:something must be done, this is something, therefore we must do it (all cats have four legs, my dog has four legs, therefore my dog is a cat—see Yes Minister clip below)
Attack the opponents: if you disagree with the lefties' proposed solutions, you must not care about the problem they are meant to solve (i.e. oppose ETS, you want the planet to fry)
Then of course, the lefties explain away contrary results, such as the leaked emails about "tricks" to "hide the decline".


Absolutely with you on the first three. I believe that much of the Climate Change debate has been muddied by hysteria and it is the proponents of the theory who are largely guilty of this. Once again, this says nothing one way or another about the validity of their position but it does say without a doubt that it's not being presented very well. However, you're really talking about the extremists and I have heard the Climate Change argument better articulated from time to time. Not yet enough to convince me, mind you.

Mind you, your grab bag of insults, neologisms and unadulterated emotion haven't exactly impressed me any more than the hysterical fringe of the AGW movement.

I'm withholding judgement on the last point here. I'm down with "tricks", having heard lecturers use the word "trick" to describe a couple of the cleverer transformations in QM and some of the uglier approximations used in Plasma Physics (and in neither case are we talking about anything sinister or deceptive). The words that concern me most are "hide the decline". I've been far, far too lazy to contextualise the e-mail or even read it so I only really have metadata (i.e. arguments of third parties) to go on and that's not really the best position to be in when making a call.

Kevin Bonham
09-12-2009, 11:33 PM
So why even mention the hypocrisy of these people (which you did)? I fail to see the relevance.

Mainly because I'd be very reluctant to ever write anything that some remotely intelligent but overly gullible young amoeba might ever mistake for an endorsement or defence of Al Gore. I can't stand Gore or his fellow AGW alarmists either, even though I am on the same side of the fence as them on two of the most basic general questions in the debate. If someone wants to call Gore a hypocrite many hundreds of posts into a general global warming slush thread that was never all that tightly focussed to begin with then far be it from me to try to drag them back to an artificial sense of topicality.

Perhaps also because I do sometimes find that telling someone they are right about X but wrong about Y is a useful way of getting them to realise that they are in fact wrong about Y and putting a bit more effort into admitting that and making a more defensible statement.

Speaking of Jono being wrong, here's some of Jono's recent commenting about hypocrisy:


In some cases, the position really is good, and the hypocrite harms himself and others by not following it.

[..]Other times, it is an indication that the position is not really so good after all.

and he gives examples in the first case of marital faithfulness and some unstated aspect of priestliness (presumably priestly celibacy?), while in the second case his examples include promoting unions, promoting minimum wage laws, environmental cutbacks, higher taxes, euthanasia support and so on.

But Jono provides no guideline by which one could determine whether hypocrisy really "indicates" a defect in a given position or not. After all, if both defective and non-defective positions may be defended by hypocrites, the presence of hypocrisy doesn't indicate all that much.

I am certain he cannot provide such a guideline, in part because it is blatantly obvious that what really determines which hypocritically-advocated positions he assigns to the "not really so good after all" bin is his pre-existing disapproval of those positions whether their supporters are hypocrites or not.

However, there are some cases in which the prevalence of hypocritical behaviour by those claiming to support a given message is a counter-argument of sorts against that message, because it provides evidence that the message is one that only some human beings can reasonably and reliably follow.

For this reason I prefer not to be too hasty in concluding that the widespread existence of hypocrisy on an issue says nothing against the claim that the hypocrites are making. Sometimes it actually does.

Spiny Norman
10-12-2009, 03:55 AM
When Igor wrote:
"While the position itself might or might not remain valid, advocacy from the hypocrites can be safely discounted."

I interpreted his point to mean roughly this:
-- the person making the case is being an advocate (a kind of cheerleader role), not necessarily just using logical argument supported by indisputable facts
-- other people have pointed out problems with some of the 'facts'
-- therefore on the evidence available to the public, the position (AGW) may or may not be true (the advocate has failed to make the case)
-- the advocate is telling us not to worry about such trivial details as understanding the argument
---- typically they tell us its very complex (it is) and that we should just trust the scientific concensus (which is in question)
-- we then look to see whether the advocate is taking his/her own advice by moderating their behaviour in the same way that they are telling us that we ought to be modifying ours
-- they aren't

When you get a scenario like that, the use of the word hypocrite targeted at the advocacy crew is justified ... and anyone with an ounce of common sense smells a rat.

Back to Igor's words. He didn't say that facts can be discounted, he didn't say that evidence can be discounted, rather he specifically said that advocacy from hypocrites can be discounted ... and it can be.

I stopped listening to Gore and his team long ago. But I will still listen to scientists who are prepared to speak calmly, not over-reach on the doomsday scenarios and tell me that careful examination of the facts is in order and who will then give me the evidence.

Its when people hide the evidence that you rightly smell a rat. Its when people use emotive language draped in "you MUST act now" that you get the feeling that you've just walked into the famous Fakhari Rugs store and the carpet salesmen are in full swing.

Mephistopheles
10-12-2009, 07:19 AM
For this reason I prefer not to be too hasty in concluding that the widespread existence of hypocrisy on an issue says nothing against the claim that the hypocrites are making. Sometimes it actually does.
That's a subtle one and I mostly agree, although it is extremely dependent on the nature of the claim, although it does fit well with one of the claims made by AGW proponents.

Specifically, "If we do X, and X is very do-able, then Y can be achieved."

Now it may well be true that if we do X then we can achieve Y but it's the claim that X is do-able that can be spoken to by examining hypocrisy. If most advocates of the position find themselves incapable of doing X then one has to wonder if X is actually and realistically do-able.

That is to say, I don't think that it speaks against the whole claim; just a specific (although crucial, in the case of action on Climate Change) aspect of it.

Mephistopheles
10-12-2009, 07:26 AM
Back to Igor's words. He didn't say that facts can be discounted, he didn't say that evidence can be discounted, rather he specifically said that advocacy from hypocrites can be discounted ... and it can be.
It can be, inasmuch as discounting it is an option. That is not to say that it can be safely discounted and that is the key word in Igor's hasty generalisation.


Its when people hide the evidence that you rightly smell a rat. Its when people use emotive language draped in "you MUST act now" that you get the feeling that you've just walked into the famous Fakhari Rugs store and the carpet salesmen are in full swing.
I don't care what the emotive language is "draped in". I generally switch into "pick apart the logic of this wibble" mode as soon as I see/hear/read emotive language. That's why I trust neither the AGW hysterics nor the vehement AGW deniers and count myself an actual sceptic - I am open to being convinced either way but the argument had better be free of doomsaying, namecalling and all other manner of mouldy old rubbish.

Igor_Goldenberg
10-12-2009, 10:52 AM
It can be, inasmuch as discounting it is an option. That is not to say that it can be safely discounted and that is the key word in Igor's hasty generalisation.

What's your understanding of the difference between "discounting"and "safely discounting"?

Mephistopheles
10-12-2009, 11:22 AM
What's your understanding of the difference between "discounting"and "safely discounting"?
You can discount anything up to and including the notion that jumping from a cliff onto jagged rocks might be harmful to you.

You cannot, however, safely discount such a thing.

Are you being deliberately cussed here or merely obtuse?

Igor_Goldenberg
10-12-2009, 02:19 PM
You can discount anything up to and including the notion that jumping from a cliff onto jagged rocks might be harmful to you.

You cannot, however, safely discount such a thing.

Another example not related to what is being discussed.

I can safely dismiss what hypocrite says. It does not mean I can safely dismiss the same thing said by others. I am surprised you don't understand it.


Are you being deliberately cussed here or merely obtuse? I think it was poster "Mephistopheles" who clinged to differences between "discounting" and "safely discounting" and other insignificant trifles. Before sinking to the level of personal attack have a look in the mirror.
If you want to debate the subject, then do so.

Mephistopheles
10-12-2009, 02:28 PM
Another example not related to what is being discussed.

I can safely dismiss what hypocrite says. It does not mean I can safely dismiss the same thing said by others. I am surprised you don't understand it.
So what you're saying is that, for example, if person A tells you that smoking is bad for you but smokes themselves then you can safely discount them.

You are also saying that if person B (who does not smoke) tells you that smoking is bad for you then you cannot safely discount them.

I am surprised that you don't understand the simple logic of what I'm saying here.


I think it was poster "Mephistopheles" who clinged to differences between "discounting" and "safely discounting" and other insignificant trifles. Before sinking to the level of personal attack have a look in the mirror.
If you want to debate the subject, then do so.
It was an honest question as I am frankly gobsmacked that you are genuinely failing to understand something as basic as the difference between the message and the messenger. Seems to me that you need to get yourself a thicker skin.

Igor_Goldenberg
10-12-2009, 02:33 PM
So what you're saying is that, for example, if person A tells you that smoking is bad for you but smokes themselves then you can safely discount them.

You are also saying that if person B (who does not smoke) tells you that smoking is bad for you then you cannot safely discount them.

If person A tells me that smoking is harmful for everyone and should be banned, while smoking himself, then my opinion on the subject will not be influenced.
If person B (who does not smoke himself) tells me the same, he might (or might not) influence my opinion depending on the strength of arguments.



I am surprised that you don't understand the simple logic of what I'm saying here.
Probably because what you are saying is void of logic.

Kevin Bonham
10-12-2009, 03:03 PM
If person A tells me that smoking is harmful for everyone and should be banned, while smoking himself, then my opinion on the subject will not be influenced.

There are actually two subjects here.

1. Smoking is harmful for everyone.
2. Smoking should be banned.

The first is a question of fact. The second is a question of advocacy.

If person A is a medical expert who has strong evidence to present re the first then that evidence should certainly be considered seriously, irrespective of the fact that the doctor smokes. For instance, the doctor may:

1. Enjoy smoking so much that they have decided to continue it although it is harmful.
2. Be addicted to smoking and want to give it up but be unable to do so.

In either of these cases, the fact that the doctor smokes is perfectly consistent with the doctor saying "smoking is harmful" - and the doctor choosing to smoke isn't even hypocritical anyway.

Even in the second case, the doctor's comments are not necessarily hypocritical. A person who is addicted to something can call for that thing to be banned without contradicting themselves, especially if they think that criminalising their addiction might give them the impetus they need to break out of it. Indeed, one recent survey of smokers showed many smokers calling for the price of tobacco to be increased in the hope that this would compel them to give up.

Igor_Goldenberg
10-12-2009, 03:42 PM
There are actually two subjects here.

1. Smoking is harmful for everyone.
2. Smoking should be banned.

The first is a question of fact. The second is a question of advocacy.

If person A is a medical expert who has strong evidence to present re the first then that evidence should certainly be considered seriously, irrespective of the fact that the doctor smokes. For instance, the doctor may:

1. Enjoy smoking so much that they have decided to continue it although it is harmful.
2. Be addicted to smoking and want to give it up but be unable to do so.

In either of these cases, the fact that the doctor smokes is perfectly consistent with the doctor saying "smoking is harmful" - and the doctor choosing to smoke isn't even hypocritical anyway.

Even in the second case, the doctor's comments are not necessarily hypocritical. A person who is addicted to something can call for that thing to be banned without contradicting themselves, especially if they think that criminalising their addiction might give them the impetus they need to break out of it. Indeed, one recent survey of smokers showed many smokers calling for the price of tobacco to be increased in the hope that this would compel them to give up.
Correct.
What if doctor is not addicted beyond being able to quit and engages in advocacy of the ban?

Kevin Bonham
10-12-2009, 04:18 PM
Correct.
What if doctor is not addicted beyond being able to quit and engages in advocacy of the ban?

Then his advocacy of the ban may well be hypocritical (although I'm not sure it's necessarily so.) But that shouldn't take away from considering the merit or otherwise of anything he says about smoking being dangerous.

Capablanca-Fan
11-12-2009, 08:03 AM
“Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.” — William Pitt the Younger, UK PM and close friend of slavery abolitionist William Wilberforce (http://creation.com/anti-slavery-activist-william-wilberforce-christian-hero). Globull warm-mongering is just the latest expression of this.

Mephistopheles
11-12-2009, 09:08 AM
If person A tells me that smoking is harmful for everyone and should be banned, while smoking himself, then my opinion on the subject will not be influenced.
If person B (who does not smoke himself) tells me the same, he might (or might not) influence my opinion depending on the strength of arguments.
So you make decisions not upon the merits of the argument presented but on the subjective merits of the presenter?

Not a logical approach and certainly not an approach that I would take but that's your privilege. Be aware, though, that smoking is harmful regardless of whether the person telling you so smokes or not.

I think that Kevin has said it far more succinctly and elegantly than ever I could but I am becoming somewhat frustrated here and have been glad that I allowed myself to cool off before posting as the original version of this was most definitely insulting.


Probably because what you are saying is void of logic.
With all due respect, your performance in this thread indicates that you are barely on nodding terms with logic. You appear to confuse logical fallacies with valid argumentation, regard the individual presenting the argument as more important than the argument itself and generally display quite a degree of confusion about the difference between your emotional reaction to hypocrisy and whether hypocrisy itself changes the nature of the argument (hint: in the vast majority of cases, it doesn't).

Igor_Goldenberg
11-12-2009, 10:15 AM
Then his advocacy of the ban may well be hypocritical (although I'm not sure it's necessarily so.) But that shouldn't take away from considering the merit or otherwise of anything he says about smoking being dangerous.
Add to this example that the "advocate" has no expertise in the medicine (apart from being hypocrite). Should he still be taken seriously?

Mephistopheles
11-12-2009, 10:36 AM
Add to this example that the "advocate" has no expertise in the medicine (apart from being hypocrite). Should he still be taken seriously?
Now that is a much more useful thing to question than hypocrisy. If the expertise of an advocate is questionable then it does not necessarily invalidate their position/argument but it may give grounds for suspicion.

However, this doesn't extend to a non-expert claiming that smoking is unhealthy as we are already aware (I hope) from other sources that this is the case.

It may, on the other hand , apply to many AGW proponents, very few of the most vocal of whom are actually experts.

Igor_Goldenberg
11-12-2009, 10:38 AM
It may, on the other hand , apply to many AGW proponents, very few of the most vocal of whom are actually experts.
Finally you got it.

Mephistopheles
11-12-2009, 11:24 AM
Finally you got it.
I "got it" quite some time ago. I am wondering about you, on the other hand ...

Kevin Bonham
11-12-2009, 11:18 PM
Add to this example that the "advocate" has no expertise in the medicine (apart from being hypocrite). Should he still be taken seriously?

That depends on whether his lack of expertise is causing him to make errors. And if he is, then those errors, rather than his lack of expertise or his hypocrisy, are the reason to not take him seriously.

While lack of expertise is a reason to treat comments with wariness, an inexpert comment is not necessarily wrong and an expert comment is not necessarily right.

I understand the problem you're referring to, when it comes to trying to decide who to take seriously in a public debate where there's a lot of expert opinion, a lot of politicisation, and it's not clear whose opinion should be trusted.

But if you're in a situation where you feel the need to consider someone's level of expertise and whether or not they are a hypocrite in deciding what to take seriously, rather than just judging what they say on its merits, then perhaps it's best to leave the running in the debate to those (expert or not) who think they can comprehend the arguments.

This is why I generally don't get involved in directly debating whether the earth is warming and if so whether the causes are primarily anthropogenic. These are debates (and they are debates, whether or not they are lopsided ones) that I can't contribute usefully to, except for pointing out (as is often the case) when someone on one side clearly misrepresents the position of the other.

I do believe I can contribute usefully to the debate about the urgency or otherwise of solutions, however, given my observations of the generic track record of eco-alarmist predictions, and given my own expertise relevant to assessing and modelling claimed threats to species.

Given both the uncertainties involved and the currently recovering and presumably still potentially fragile state of the global economy, I'm not that impressed by either the "we must act very drastically now, within a few years it will be much too late" or the "problem? what problem?" mobs. Wholeheartedly following either of these camp's recommendations is potentially disastrous; it is another instance where the so-called "precautionary principle" is utterly useless because harm, risk and uncertainty occur on both sides of the equation.

Spiny Norman
12-12-2009, 05:16 AM
There are actually two subjects here.

1. Smoking is harmful for everyone.
2. Smoking should be banned.

The first is a question of fact. The second is a question of advocacy.
There was a time though when BOTH were the subject of advocacy, when the science of "smoking is harmful" was not yet settled. Once the data was in and once the vested interests had lost the battle, the discussion about whether or not smoking was in FACT harmful was settled (genuinely settled, not just a manufactured concensus) and then answering #2 got a lot easier.

The problem with global warming is that the proposition similar to #1 above, namely, that "human greenhouse gas emissions are causing the earth to warm" has not been settled. Increasing numbers of people are suspicious of it.

Proponents of AGW are trying to bludgeon people. Typically they overreach themselves, going well beyond the data, or by (as it now has become manifestly evident) manipulating the data to get the results they want.

Despite all this, I am still open to the idea that MAYBE AGW IS REAL. I am watching the satellite data and forming my own opinions. I don't trust tree ring proxies which are manipulated by those with a vested interest in a certain outcome. The facts as they currently stand are that the latter half of this year has been unusually hot. There is a warming signal in the atmosphere. Anyone with a web browser can easily verify this for themselves by looking at NASA's satellite data. For quite a chunk of the latter part of the year, temperatures at the 14,400 foot level (which is where climate scientists indicate the warming should show up first and most) were at 20-year highs.

But the science isn't settled. Things may cool again. The current El Nino event is skewing the temps a lot, just like it did in 1998. When it is over and when things have again settled down, perhaps in 2011, we'll get a better idea of whether the entire globe has ratched up its temps a bit, or whether things return to normal or cool.

So anyone like Al Gore who tries to compare dodgy data manipulation and competer modelling on AGW to "a FACT as firmly established as gravity" is a lying scoundrel ... and if the chief proponents of something are lying scoundrels, then I frankly don't hold out much hope for the theory as a whole.

Spiny Norman
12-12-2009, 05:24 AM
OK, here's was I was talking about ... the NASA satellite temperature data, which is acknowledged by both AGW proponents and critics as the best data we have, because its a direct measurement, not inferred by looking at tree rings or tea leaves.

I took this image from the NASA website this morning, and its of the 14,400 foot ch05 data. Note particularly that I have graphed:
-- 20-year highs, lows, and average
-- current year

It shows that the latter part of the year was indeed unusually hot.

Spiny Norman
12-12-2009, 05:25 AM
Image attached.

Desmond
12-12-2009, 07:44 AM
Can you demonstrate a similar trend in sea and ground temperatures?

Spiny Norman
12-12-2009, 09:02 AM
Sea temperatures are not something that I currently have access to, although I have been given to understand that they have slightly dropped in recent years.

Ground-based measurements I do not trust, mostly because of urban heat island and other similar effects. This is where encroachment of human habitation on the measuring stations corrupts the raw data, so that manual intervention is required to try to "correct" the data ... and this is where much of the dispute a-la Climategate has arisen.

In view of the above, that is why I think the satellite-based measurement of atmospheric temperatures is the most reliable/trustworthy data record.

Spiny Norman
12-12-2009, 09:10 AM
Here is an example that shows why not to trust East Anglia CRU or IPCC temperature reconstructions based on tree ring data. Briffa took a sample of twelve (yes, just 12!) tree ring records from a much larger dataset, cherry-picking the data that suited him best according to criteria that have not yet been disclosed. He then chopped off all the data post-1960.

The following graph, released by Steve McIntyre, shows why. This is the meaning of the "hide the decline" phrase that we have heard so much about. What is needed is a clear explanation of (a) why choose only 12 trees and ignore the rest; and (b) why drop 40-years worth of inconvenient data from the reconstruction. This also explains why other climate scientists interacting with the CRU were complaining about Briffa's use of data and in a few celebrated cases were warning against its continued use when trying to make the case for global warming.

Be sure your sins will find you out ....

Desmond
12-12-2009, 09:13 AM
Sea temperatures are not something that I currently have access to, although I have been given to understand that they have slightly dropped in recent years.

Ground-based measurements I do not trust, mostly because of urban heat island and other similar effects. This is where encroachment of human habitation on the measuring stations corrupts the raw data, so that manual intervention is required to try to "correct" the data ... and this is where much of the dispute a-la Climategate has arisen.

In view of the above, that is why I think the satellite-based measurement of atmospheric temperatures is the most reliable/trustworthy data record.OK fair enough. Just thought I'd ask because I saw a snipet from Cpoenhagen on the news where it said something like "despite the sceptics, the warming trend in ground and sea temperatures is clear." Why air temps should be different I don't know but perhaps there is something in that.

Spiny Norman
12-12-2009, 09:16 AM
OK fair enough. Just thought I'd ask because I saw a snipet from Cpoenhagen on the news where it said something like "despite the sceptics, the warming trend in ground and sea temperatures is clear."
It could be that sea temperatures are rising. I just don't know.

I agree that ground-based temperatures are rising, however there is a very simple reason for that (human encroachment on the measuring stations) and so determining a CO2 signature is problematic. I don't trust the science, and I now also don't trust the scientists themselves.

Satellites, provided that they are genuinely providing raw data, don't lie!

Spiny Norman
12-12-2009, 10:41 AM
Here's some of the data Briffa selected:

Spiny Norman
12-12-2009, 10:43 AM
If instead he had used a wider selection of data from Yamal, instead of cherrypicking tree ring sets with a warming shape to them, this is what his graph would have come out like:

Spiny Norman
12-12-2009, 10:45 AM
... and THAT, my friends, is how you manipulate results to get what you already "know" to be true.

"If you torture the data long enough, it will confess."
-- Ronald Coase

Desmond
12-12-2009, 11:53 AM
"If you torture the data long enough, it will confess."
-- Ronald Coase:lol: nice one

Kevin Bonham
12-12-2009, 02:40 PM
So anyone like Al Gore who tries to compare dodgy data manipulation and competer modelling on AGW to "a FACT as firmly established as gravity" is a lying scoundrel ... and if the chief proponents of something are lying scoundrels, then I frankly don't hold out much hope for the theory as a whole.

I don't regard Al Gore as a "chief proponent" of anything, except perhaps for Al Gore.

Spiny Norman
12-12-2009, 02:47 PM
I don't regard Al Gore as a "chief proponent" of anything, except perhaps for Al Gore.
True, more a cheerleading, scaremongering, figurehead.

Capablanca-Fan
12-12-2009, 09:30 PM
I don't regard Al Gore as a "chief proponent" of anything, except perhaps for Al Gore.
Me neither of course, but the problem is that many people do, hence forced indoctrination of schoolkids with his deceitful movie.

Basil
12-12-2009, 09:39 PM
Me neither of course, but the problem is that many people do, hence forced indoctrination of schoolkids with his deceitful movie.
Leftie indoctrination in all its guises is insidious. Much of it is based on latent (or overt) hate for people, wealth, fantasies, stereotyes - none of which survives the strongest scrutiny. If the word hate is too severe, then so be it, but not by much. By the time indoctrinees have finished the brainwashing course at home or uni, it takes decades for defragging to occur, if ever.

By which time, hundreds of thousands more have been hot-housed at home and at uni or on the building site. All the while many lefties are growing out up/ out of their simple myopia, righties (the grey vote) dying off. And so the cycle goes. A constant state of approximate 50-50 left - right. Round and round.

Capablanca-Fan
14-12-2009, 07:50 PM
Red Reverend Tim Costello preaches warm-mongering but drives gas-guzzler and advocates flying to Copenhagen (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/then_drive_like_you_mean_it_tim/).

Capablanca-Fan
16-12-2009, 09:59 AM
More ammo for Abbott against KRudd, showing that the Battlers will face pain as they are forced to sacrifice to Labor's green faith:


THE amended emissions trading scheme put forward by the Government threatens to wipe off about 3 per cent of the value of Australia’s top 200 companies (http://www.theage.com.au/business/company-values-may-be-burnt-by-an-ets-20091215-kulg.html), according to research to be released today…

An analysis of the revised plan by carbon risk firm RepuTex and Arbor Partners, consultants to institutional investors, shows that indirect factors such as electricity and supply chain costs, will make up 60 per cent of the total carbon liability of S&P/ASX 200 companies.

That would add $3.1 billion to the $2.1 billion in direct costs companies face through trading permits.

I'm sure NSW battlers will appreciate:


NSW power bills to rise up to 62 per cent due to network fixes and ETS (http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/money/nsw-power-bills-to-rise-up-to-62-due-to-network-fixes-and-ets/story-e6frezc0-1225810517218)

and Victorians will love:


blackouts and power shortages under ETS (http://www.nationals.org.au/News/LatestNews/tabid/94/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/4498/Warnings-of-blackouts-and-power-shortages-under-ETS.aspx)

And will Australia be fined by the UN too?


Because of breaches of its emissions target under the Kyoto Protocol, Canada owes about $1 billion (http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world/walkout-triggers-copenhagen-breakdown-20091214-kses.html), and will owe $1.3 billion if commitments under Kyoto continue.

Basil
16-12-2009, 10:19 AM
Murdered in their beds. That was my repeated claim on this board when dickless came to power. I shall be vindicated.

Lefty governments consistently, and without exception, shaft the very ones whom they profess to care for most, and who are as equally blissfully unaware that they are being shafted.

Set your clocks by it. Those of you young enough can watch it all again in 15-20 years when the cycle repeats :wall:

Ian Murray
17-12-2009, 08:10 PM
For an unforgettable experience, read Cormac McCarthy's The Road. It's a small book but a monumental tour de force - it leaves me shaken still. Pulitzer Prize winner and mooted as a Nobel contender. The movie is due for release here early next year.

The glimpse of our world stripped of its biosphere and civilisation is haunting and horrifying.

Some reviews;
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=um0VAAAACAAJ&dq=Cormac+McCarthy&source=an&hl=en&ei=7fYpS6b5E5Ds7AOg1rGCBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CC4Q6AEwBg
http://www.cleveland.com/moviebuff/index.ssf/2009/12/long_wait_for_the_road_is_wort.html
http://www.randomhouse.com/kvpa/cormacmccarthy/

Spiny Norman
18-12-2009, 04:20 AM
The glimpse of our world stripped of its biosphere and civilisation is haunting and horrifying.
Fiction and horror movies will do that to you. Far too many people have watched the Terminator and Matrix movies ... ;)

Desmond
18-12-2009, 08:13 AM
News reports this morning that the "secret" agenda has been to limit GW to 3 degree, not the 2 degrees widely advertised. Not sure what the implications of this are but I don't think it's a good look for the UN.

Capablanca-Fan
18-12-2009, 12:15 PM
Fiction and horror movies will do that to you. Far too many people have watched the Terminator and Matrix movies ... ;)
IM would probably have been panicked by a Martian invasion when Orson Welles narrated War of the Worlds on radio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_War_of_the_Worlds_(radio)#Public_reaction), if he had been around back then (1938).

Ian Murray
19-12-2009, 11:48 PM
IM would probably have been panicked by a Martian invasion when Orson Welles narrated War of the Worlds on radio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_War_of_the_Worlds_(radio)#Public_reaction), if he had been around back then (1938).
Perhaps you haven't heard of the Pulitzer Prizes (http://www.pulitzer.org), recognising excellence in US journalism and the arts. As The Road won the Pulitzer Prize for Fiction in 2007, it would seem that I'm not alone in thinking it's a good book

Hobbes
20-12-2009, 12:03 AM
Perhaps you haven't heard of the Pulitzer Prizes (http://www.pulitzer.org), recognising excellence in US journalism and the arts. As The Road won the Pulitzer Prize for Fiction in 2007, it would seem that I'm not alone in thinking it's a good book
Also, you are probably not alone in thinking that the book is evidence for AGW and hence relevant to this thread. Nevertheless...

Capablanca-Fan
20-12-2009, 12:04 AM
Perhaps you haven't heard of the Pulitzer Prizes (http://www.pulitzer.org), recognising excellence in US journalism and the arts.
I have heard of them—one was given to Walter Duranty who whitewashed Stalin's mass murders, the Soviet famine and show tria (http://www.nationalreview.com/contributors/stuttaford051501.shtml)ls.

Ian Murray
20-12-2009, 07:40 PM
I have heard of them—one was given to Walter Duranty who whitewashed Stalin's mass murders, the Soviet famine and show tria (http://www.nationalreview.com/contributors/stuttaford051501.shtml)ls.
Over 75 years ago - all involved are long dead

Igor_Goldenberg
21-12-2009, 06:53 PM
Over 75 years ago - all involved are long dead
Sure.
But do you honestly believe that it has higher credibility then Nobel peace prize?

Ian Murray
21-12-2009, 09:08 PM
Sure.
But do you honestly believe that it has higher credibility then Nobel peace prize?
If you mean the Nobel Prize for Literature, of course not. In my post of 17 Dec I said of The Road: "Pulitzer Prize winner and mooted as a Nobel contender" It didn't happen of course - American literature is inferior to European, in the view of the Nobel committee.

Igor_Goldenberg
21-12-2009, 11:14 PM
If you mean the Nobel Prize for Literature, of course not. In my post of 17 Dec I said of The Road: "Pulitzer Prize winner and mooted as a Nobel contender" It didn't happen of course - American literature is inferior to European, in the view of the Nobel committee.
I think my post specifically says "Nobel peace prize".

Igor_Goldenberg
21-12-2009, 11:28 PM
A question about ETS:
Does it include flatulence permits (given the high amount of greenhouse gases produced)?
:lol: :lol: :lol:

Ian Murray
21-12-2009, 11:39 PM
I think my post specifically says "Nobel peace prize".
It does. Sorry, but I can't see any connection between the Nobel Peace Prize and the Pulitzer Prize for Fiction. Certainly none I expressed or inferred.

Capablanca-Fan
22-12-2009, 12:13 AM
A question about ETS:
Does it include flatulence permits (given the high amount of greenhouse gases produced)?
:lol: :lol: :lol:
What about the hot air at Copenhagen, or emitted by KRudd's posturing, given that exhaled air is 3.5% CO2? :lol: :lol: :lol:

Spiny Norman
22-12-2009, 04:37 AM
KR is a filthy polluter, so he should be made to pay for the cleanup. :lol:

Igor_Goldenberg
28-12-2009, 05:08 PM
It does. Sorry, but I can't see any connection between the Nobel Peace Prize and the Pulitzer Prize for Fiction. Certainly none I expressed or inferred.
Some deem those prizes prestigious. However, Nobel Peace Prize was seriously compromised, at least in my books. I am not sure Pulitzer Prize is much more credible. I am too lazy to scroll through other laureates, but have a feeling that Durante is not the only example.

Capablanca-Fan
07-01-2010, 06:54 PM
Mr Rudd, your misguided warming policies are killing millions (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/mr-rudd-your-misguided-warming-policies-are-killing-millions/story-e6frg6zo-1225816411782)
Christopher Monckton
The Australian, 6 January 2010

...

However, the question I address is whether the cost of taking action is many times greater than the cost of not acting? The answer is yes.

Millions are already dying of starvation in the world's poorest nations because world food prices have doubled in two years. That was caused by a sharp drop in world food production, caused by suddenly taking millions of acres of land out of growing food for people who need it, to grow biofuels for clunkers that don't. The policies that you advocate are killing people by the million. At a time when so many of the world's people are already short of food, the UN's right-to-food rapporteur, Herr Ziegler, has rightly condemned the biofuel scam as "a crime against humanity".

Yet this slaughter is founded upon a lie: the claim by the IPCC that it is 90 per cent certain that most of the "global warming" since 1950 is man-made. This claim — based not on science but on a show of hands among political representatives, with China wanting a lower figure and other nations wanting a higher figure — is demonstrably false. Peer-reviewed analyses of changes in cloud cover over recent decades — changes almost entirely unconnected with changes in CO2 concentration — show that it was this largely natural reduction in cloud cover from 1983–2001 and a consequent increase in the amount of short-wave and UV solar radiation reaching the Earth that accounted for five times as much warming as CO2 could have caused.

...

Garvinator
10-01-2010, 08:53 AM
Hang on Jono, I think I have seen that article somewhere before? :lol:

Garvinator
18-01-2010, 07:19 PM
So now the IPCC has gotten it wrong on the issue of glacial melt in the himalayas and have also admitted they did not use scientific means at all to come up with their conclusions regarding the himalayas.

So now the question should surely be.... what has the IPCC gotten right?

Igor_Goldenberg
19-01-2010, 10:53 AM
So now the question should surely be.... what has the IPCC gotten right?
UN funding.

Capablanca-Fan
20-01-2010, 11:43 AM
Climate science on thin ice (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/climate-science-on-thin-ice/story-e6frg6z6-1225820985361)
Cameron Stewart
The Australian, 19 January 2010

THE prediction, if true, was an apocalyptic one. The "rapid melting" of thousands of glaciers across the Himalayas would lead to deadly floods, followed by severe long-term water shortages across the food bowl of central Asia.



It was a sweeping, bold and alarmist prediction by the IPCC, and one that raised eyebrows among many of the small group of experts who study the behaviour of the world's glaciers.

But the IPCC defended its glacier claims vigorously, with IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri recently describing those who cast doubt upon them as practitioners of "voodoo science".

Yet today it is the powerful IPCC that stands accused of practising voodoo science in relation to its sweeping claims about the melting of Himalayan glaciers following revelations its apocalyptic predictions were based on little more than "speculation".

At face value, the disclosures by Britain's The Sunday Times (reprinted in The Australian yesterday) amount to one of the most serious failings yet seen in climate research.

They will further tarnish the IPCC's reputation, coming less than two months after the emergence of leaked emails from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit that raised questions about the legitimacy of some data published by the IPCC about global warming.

As with the leaked email affair, dubbed Climategate, this new controversy of Glaciergate has energised climate change sceptics, who exploded into cyberspace yesterday, relishing the opportunity to accuse the IPCC of sloppy science. It is the same accusation sceptics have been accused of by the IPCC.



An Australian glacier expert, Cliff Ollier of the University of Western Australia, accuses the IPCC of being "deliberately alarmist" with its predictions about melting glaciers because he says the organisation has a vested interest in global warming. "Glaciers started to retreat in 1895 when there was no correlation to global warming," Ollier says. "Now we are seeing a general retreat on glaciers because we are coming out of an ice age, but there is nothing alarming about it. These retreats are not caused only by temperatures."


Igor_Goldenberg
25-01-2010, 12:36 PM
IPCC caught yet again (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/united-nations-caught-out-again-on-climate-claims/story-e6frg6n6-1225823075213)

Capablanca-Fan
25-01-2010, 09:39 PM
Lord Monckton's open letter to warm-monger KRudd (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/03/climate-change-proposed-personal-briefing/)
1 January 2010
...

Even if multilateral action were required, which it is not, national governments in the West are by tradition democratically elected. Therefore, a fortiori, transnational or global governments should also be made and unmade by voters at the ballot-box. The climate ought not to be used as a shoddy pretext for international bureaucratic-centralist dictatorship. We committed Europeans have had more than enough of that already with the unelected but all-powerful Kommissars of the hated EU, who make nine-tenths of our laws by decree (revealingly, they call them “Directives” or “Commission Regulations”). The Kommissars (that is the official German word for them) inflict their dictates upon us regardless of what the elected European or any other democratic Parliament says or wishes. Do we want a worldwide EU? No.

...

Now ask yourself this. Are you, personally, and your advisers, personally, and your administration’s officials, personally, willing to make the heroically pointless sacrifices that you so insouciantly demand of others in the name of Saving The Planet For Future Generations? I beg leave to think not. At Flag 1 I have attached what I have reason to believe is a generally accurate list of the names and titles of the delegation that you led to Copenhagen to bring back the non-result whose paltriness, pointlessness and futility we have now rigorously demonstrated. There are 114 names on the list. One hundred and fourteen. Enough to fill a mid-sized passenger jet. Half a dozen were all that was really necessary — and perhaps one from each State in Australia. If you and your officials are not willing to tighten your belts when a tempting foreign junket at taxpayers’ expense is in prospect, why, pray, should the taxpayers tighten theirs?

You say that climate-change “deniers” — nasty word, that, and you should really have known better than to use it — are “small in number but too dangerous to be ignored”, and “well resourced”. In fact, governments, taxpayer-funded organizations, taxpayer-funded teachers, and taxpayer-funded environmental groups have spent something like 50,000 times as much on “global warming” propaganda as their opponents have spent on debunking this new and cruel superstition. And that is before we take account of the relentless prejudice of the majority of the mainstream news media.

How, then, it is that we, the supposed minority who will not admit that the emperor of “global warming” is adequately clad, are somehow prevailing? How is it that we are convincing more and more of the population not to place any more trust in the “global warming” theory? The answer is that the “global warming” theory is not true, and no amount of bluster or braggadocio, ranting or rodomontade will make it true.

...

You say that I and others like me base our thinking on the notion that “the cost of not acting is nothing”. Well, after a decade and a half with no statistically-significant “global warming”, and after three decades in which the mean warming rate has been well below the ever-falling predictions of the UN’s climate panel, that notion has certainly not been disproven in reality.

However, the question I address is not that but this. Is the cost of taking action many times greater than the cost of not acting? The answer to this question is Yes.

Millions are already dying of starvation in the world’s poorest nations because world food prices have doubled in two years. That abrupt, vicious doubling was caused by a sharp drop in world food production, caused in turn by suddenly taking millions of acres of land out of growing food for people who need it, so as to grow biofuels for clunkers that don’t. The scientifically-illiterate, economically-innumerate policies that you advocate – however fashionable you may conceive them to be — are killing people by the million.

You say my logic “belongs in a casino, not a science lab”. Yet it is you who are gambling with poor people’s lives, and it is you — or, rather, they — who are losing: and losing not merely their substance but their very existence. The biofuel scam is born of the idiotic notion – a notion you uncritically espouse — that increasing by less than 1/2000 this century the proportion of the Earth’s atmosphere occupied by CO2 may prove catastrophic. At a time when so many of the world’s people are already short of food, the UN’s right-to-food rapporteur, Herr Ziegler, has roundly and rightly condemned the biofuel scam as nothing less than “a crime against humanity”.

...

Desmond
03-02-2010, 01:51 PM
So, Abbott reveals his incentive-based system? Whadyareckon? The be-all and end-all? As bad as Rudd says? The lesser evil?

Capablanca-Fan
03-02-2010, 02:23 PM
So, Abbott reveals his incentive-based system? Whadyareckon? The be-all and end-all? As bad as Rudd says? The lesser evil?
Andrew Bolt: Abbott wastes $2.5 billion on a warming policy he knows is crap (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/abbott_wastes_25_billion_on_a_warming_policy_he_kn ows_is_crap/):


So what’s nice about it? Well, it’s a waste of only $2.5 billion, rather than Kevin Rudd’s billions more, and it’s spread over four years. Nor will it send power stations broke by wiping out their value, as Rudd’s planned emissions trading scheme threatens to do. And the spending can be stopped once the warming scam collapses completely, while Rudd’s ETS will be almost impossible to scrap without more massive pain.

And that’s it. Other than that, it will spend billions to achieve absolutely nothing in stopping any warming. I doubt it would come within a bull’s roar of cutting our emissions by 5 per cent by 2020, which is still official Liberal policy.

As for the claim that it won’t hurt consumers, don’t make me laugh. Taxpayers are all consumers, too, and they’ll pay plenty for this.

No, there is only one thing for it. At some stage Abbott will have to stop being half-pregnant and call the global warming scam for what it is. There has been no warming for almost a decade, the science of the scare is now under a huge cloud, and should warming ever resume, it would be far, far cheaper to live with the consequences than to waste billions on this kind of snake-oil.

Challenge the warming scam, Tony. You can see already from your tentative start that the slightest push causes warming certainties to collapse. Push harder, and the public will keep following. At least demand a full parliamentary inquiry into Climategate and the IPCC scandals, and a complete reassessment of the science, before committing your party to spending a penny more. And please don’t listen for a second longer to Greg Hunt, a long-time warming believer whose fingerprints are all over this dog of a policy.

Fight the fraud. Anything less makes you seem weak and insincere. A spendthrift just playing politics.

Kevin Bonham
03-02-2010, 03:30 PM
So, Abbott reveals his incentive-based system? Whadyareckon? The be-all and end-all? As bad as Rudd says? The lesser evil?

It's fence-sitting. The idea is to appear to be doing something so that he can rebuff claims that he's doing nothing, while actually doing not very much, and so he can create product differentiation with Labor and paint Labor as overreacting.

It's palpable that he doesn't really believe in it and only has the policy for pragmatic reasons but I think he would be scare-campaigned to oblivion if he didn't - bearing in mind that scare-campaigning works much better from Government than from Opposition.

Because it is policy for the sake of it, what he would actually do with the issue if elected is unknowable.

Basil
03-02-2010, 04:43 PM
It's fence-sitting. The idea is to appear to be doing something so that he can rebuff claims that he's doing nothing, while actually doing not very much, and so he can create product differentiation with Labor and paint Labor as overreacting.

It's palpable that he doesn't really believe in it and only has the policy for pragmatic reasons but I think he would be scare-campaigned to oblivion if he didn't - bearing in mind that scare-campaigning works much better from Government than from Opposition.

Because it is policy for the sake of it, what he would actually do with the issue if elected is unknowable.
It appears that way to me. It also appears that that is what the electorate wants (to see/ hear). I deduce this from the bollocks that KRudd put up which was (and continues to be) lauded or at least palatable - certainly the staggering cost and the globe-trotting wasn't harming him, and further still the promise of 'being touch' on matters green at al was deliciously attractive to an electorate that I still maintain was cringing over ghosts and matters they were too weak to fathom (but in time will embrace - immigration anyone?).

The present Coalition position is probably exactly what Labor didn't want to see.

Had the coalition rolled out what Bolt suggests, then KRudd could have slept very soundly and wheeled out 'The Deniers' allegation with renewed vigour.

This is a pitiable, politicised universal bed that is NOW all about 'The Game' and nothing to do with the facts, which {HELLO} were never in play! Despite KRudd and the warm-mongers declaring so two years ago.

The electorate and the polis can all swim in it together. Abbott appears to playing Rudd's game. Whether it works and whether I like it are topics for a different day.

Ian Murray
03-02-2010, 06:42 PM
Have The Libs Lost Faith In The Market? (http://newmatilda.com/2010/02/02/have-libs-lost-faith-market)
By Ben Eltham
newmatilda.com
2.2.10


The Coalition's climate policy, which was announced this afternoon by Tony Abbott, has abandoned all faith in the market as a mechanism to restrain carbon emissions. Under a Coalition Government there would be no proper price signal for pollution only direct payments to polluters out of what would be known as the Emission Reductions Fund.

The party of free enterprise has proposed a policy of free pollution.

For economists, prices are among the most important things in the entire economy, in fact they are often held up to be the holy grail of free markets themselves. This is because of the crucial role prices play in signalling the supply and demand in a given market. Indeed, the theory of marginal utility underlies much of contemporary economics.

This is what makes the Coalition's climate change policy so strange. The Coalition believes in market signals in education, in healthcare and in real estate but when it comes to polluting the atmosphere, the Coalition has somehow convinced itself that carbon emissions should come free of charge.

The key line comes on page 14 of the policy, where Tony Abbott and Greg Hunt attempt to explain how their $3.2 billion policy will work. The policy states that "unlike Labor's emissions trading scheme, businesses will not be penalised for continuing to operate at 'business as usual' levels," and that the fund "will not be imposing liabilities but instead providing incentives". While there will be some kind of "penalty" for businesses emitting more than their "business as usual" levels, the cost of this penalty is not explained. All we are told is that "the value of the penalties will be set in consultation with industry".

So there you have it. The Coalition proposal is essentially to argue that polluting the atmosphere should involve no extra cost. Even worse (for the environment, that is), companies that can prove they are reducing their greenhouse emissions — or even growing them more slowly than "business as usual" — will be paid a subsidy by the government. In other words, the more you pollute now, the better your chance of raking in millions of dollars of taxpayer money for greenhouse abatement. The money will come straight from the budget — that is, from taxpayers like you and me.
....

Igor_Goldenberg
04-02-2010, 10:35 AM
There are two more paragraphs in that article worth quoting:


There's a big problem here, obviously. Global warming, as Nicholas Stern famously pointed out in his Stern Review, is a problem of market failure. Because producers and consumers don't pay for the damage their pollution does to the planet, there is little incentive for any of us to modify our carbon-intensive lifestyles.

That explains the obsession of politicians, bureaucrats, greens and leftists with global warming - it's their biggest chance to fault the market and convince us of the need to control it. No wonder hysteria, fraud and simply incompetent science are abound.


$3.2 billion? It's about the cost of one Air-Warfare Destroyer. It's less than the Government spends annually on subsidising private health insurance. That's not "direct action". That's business as usual by another name.
I can't call it a "positive sign", but definitely "lesser of the evils".

3.2 billions is the net loss from Coalition policy, which means it's a bad policy.
Many more billions (in terms of productivity loss and churning of funds in CPRS) is the net loss from Labor policy, which means it's much worse.

Garvinator
04-02-2010, 11:56 AM
3.2 billion is way less than the gov quoted price for the NBN.

Spiny Norman
04-02-2010, 04:42 PM
Lesser of two evils is my feeling too. But if the money is spent on:
-- solar panels; and
-- improved soils for agriculture (which is a MAJOR issue in Australia)

then at least we all get something tangible, albeit at a high cost.

Spiny Norman
06-02-2010, 06:12 AM
Whistleblower Magazine:
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=124000

Kevin Bonham
06-02-2010, 01:48 PM
Whistleblower Magazine:
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=124000

I wouldn't be taking this "expose" for granted at all; looks like there may be a lot of hysteria, misconstrual and moonbattery going on in those pages.

For instance:


"Why psychologist group embraces same-sex marriage" by David Kupelian, who asks why the American Psychological Association promoted adult-child sex as harmless in its peer-reviewed journal

Firstly these are two very distinct issues, and secondly far from promoting adult-child sex as harmless what said Association did was publish one paper over ten years ago questioning whether widespread views of the harm caused by acts defined legally as "child sexual abuse" (ie that CSA usually causes intense lasting psychological harm that affects both genders equally) actually stood up to scrutiny. The authors specifically wrote:


That is, the findings of the current review should not be construed to imply that CSA never causes intense harm for men or women-clinical research has well documented that in specific cases it can. What the findings do imply is that the negative potential of CSA for most individuals who have experienced it has been overstated.

What of course happened was that the paper was gleefully jumped on by NAMBLA types keen to promote their pet activity as inevitably harmless and by right-wingers keen to initiate a morals panic by accusing a mainstream psychological association of having endorsed such a view. The APA itself issued a statement that child sexual abuse is harmful and wrong, and that while the study's methods were sound, some of the language used in the paper had been inappropriate and inconsistent with the APA's policies. Note that I am not making any claim about the merits of the Rind et al paper itself.

I have picked this as an example because it is obvious from the description of the Kupelian article in "Hijacking Science" that the hijacking is in this instance being done by "whistleblower" magazine, through blatant misrepresenation of both the study itself and the APA's attitude towards it, and for the sake of the widespread practice of attempting to tar gay rights through conflation with abusive pederastry. I predict there would be many other such examples among those of supposed dodgy science that it gives - which is not to say that all are necessarily unsound.

Spiny Norman
06-02-2010, 02:37 PM
I just thought it was hilarious that there was a Whistleblower Magazine. But who would buy it? :eek:

Basil
06-02-2010, 03:27 PM
I just thought it was hilarious that there was a Whistleblower Magazine. But who would buy it? :eek:
You mean outside of Axiom and fg7?

Capablanca-Fan
07-02-2010, 05:12 PM
This looks good:

"Politicizing science" by Thomas Sowell, who warns that when government gets involved, "do not expect the disinterested search for truth"
"How government corrupts science" by Art Robinson, in which the veteran scientific researcher exposes the pervasive and powerfully destructive consequences of federal "help"


Most leftards have no better argument against warm-mongering skeptics that they are in the pay of "Big Oil", even when true. But apparently the far greater slush fund from Big Government ensures total objectivity.

Igor_Goldenberg
08-02-2010, 12:45 PM
Creative accounting for the company might disguise dire financial situation and trick creditors and shareholders, but only for some time. Sooner or later the company will run out of money anyway (or reverse the tide and get out of problems).
Creative accounting for the government has a potential to cover the problem for long, but might eventually sent the country bankrupt.

In both cases reality check will sooner or later catch-up

However, creative carbon accounting can go on indefinitely, as the is no reality check. The only absolute measure is the percentage of CO2 in the air. We can only guesstimate the proportion of that attributed to mankind or anything human has any control over. We can only guess distribution between countries.

Call me cynical, but I am sure any carbon trading will lead to a massive corruption on unimaginable scale.

To give an idea of difficulties with carbon accounting:

Feral camels clear in Penny Wong's carbon count (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/feral-camels-clear-in-penny-wongs-carbon-count/story-e6frg6nf-1225827641354)

Capablanca-Fan
08-02-2010, 02:59 PM
Firstly these are two very distinct issues, and secondly far from promoting adult-child sex as harmless what said Association did was publish one paper over ten years ago questioning whether widespread views of the harm caused by acts defined legally as "child sexual abuse" (ie that CSA usually causes intense lasting psychological harm that affects both genders equally) actually stood up to scrutiny.
OK, if not Whistleblower; try Top 10 Things Gay Men Should Discuss with their Healthcare Provider (http://www.glma.org/_data/n_0001/resources/live/Top%20Ten%20Gay%20Men.pdf) from GLMA (Gay & Lesbian Medical Association).

Kevin Bonham
08-02-2010, 04:43 PM
OK, if not Whistleblower; try Top 10 Things Gay Men Should Discuss with their Healthcare Provider (http://www.glma.org/_data/n_0001/resources/live/Top%20Ten%20Gay%20Men.pdf) from GLMA (Gay & Lesbian Medical Association).

Why should I "try" it? It's irrelevant to the point at hand.

My previous post questioned the credibility of Whistleblower magazine by pointing out that it was publishing nonsense (and a non sequitur) about the views of the APA. Therefore, whatever it has published about the global warming debate, while not necessarily false, should be treated with a very great degree of caution, as should its general conclusions about the condition of science.

In showing that what it was publishing about the APA's views (and those of the Rind et al paper as well) was nonsense, I wasn't seeking to get into the debate about how much harm is caused by what the law defines as child sexual abuse (CSA), and I explicitly stated I was not making any claim about the merits of the Rind et al paper. And even if I had been, the link you give is not about CSA anyway.

Capablanca-Fan
10-02-2010, 11:35 AM
Another Great Green Tax? (http://www.corybernardi.com/2010/02/another-great-green-tax.html)
Cory Bernardi
10 Feb 2010


Homeowners awoke on Sunday morning to read about the Rudd Government’s proposed new mandatory energy assessment of all homes before they can be rented or sold. The cost was estimated at up to $1500 per home!

...

Homeowners will foot the bill and many will expect that money back when they sell, thereby lifting property prices above where they would otherwise be. Even if they can’t recoup their costs, it’s an additional impediment for either the seller or the purchaser.

Not surprisingly, at $1500 per home, the total cost of assessing Australia’s 8.1 million residential dwellings gives rise to a new green tax of a staggering $12 billion plus!

And for what purpose? Is anyone really going to stop making one of the most important decisions of their lives based on whether the right light globes are fitted or not? Can we really expect a missing ratings ‘star’ will stop you buying your dream home?

...

The QLD Layba government recently imposed similar hassles by making a "sustainability declaration" compulsory for any home-seller to fill out. But my sources in the real estate industry tell me that hardly any prospective buyer is interested.

Typical of the Lefty Anointed: they are never happy with a free buyer and free seller exchanging goods on mutually agreeable terms; they are only happy when they interfere, and they don't bear the costs.

Ian Murray
12-02-2010, 08:06 PM
The Coalition in Australia offers its alternative to the CPRS, but it needs to come up with something better and get the numbers right (http://www.newenergymatters.com/download.php?n=BNEF_PressRelease_2010_02_Coalition Policy.pdf&f=pdffile&t=pressreleases)
Bloomberg New Energy Finance
Press release 9.2.2010


The government’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) will cost less than A$1.5bn over the first four years – not A$40.6bn as claimed by the Coalition – according to the latest Bloomberg New Energy Finance analysis. Indeed the CPRS would actually be more cost-effective than the Coalition’s proposed climate policy which would cost some A$3.2bn over the same period.

The Coalition’s direct-action climate policy, published on 2 February, claims to achieve a 5% reduction in emissions by 2020 at a fraction of the cost of the government’s CPRS. This conclusion however appears to be based on flawed analysis, Bloomberg New Energy Finance finds in its recent research. In particular, the Coalition’s claim that the CPRS will cost A$40.6bn appears to be based on a strange logic which confuses the value of allowances distributed with the actual cost of emissions reductions to the economy. Bloomberg New Energy Finance’s analysis indicates that the government’s CPRS will cost less than half of the Coalition’s plan.

In its new analysis, Bloomberg New Energy Finance appraises the Coalition’s policy proposals against three criteria:
• Cost effectiveness: the analysis finds that the CPRS is likely to be more cost-effective than the Coalition’s proposals for two reasons. First, because it increases the pool of low-cost abatement options available to Australia by linking to the international market. Second, the CPRS is a market-based mechanism backed with penalties to force participants to find the least-cost abatement options. In contrast the Coalition’s approach is a voluntary mechanism and so does not penalise firms whose emissions increase, and it does not offer a permanent price signal. As such, there are fewer incentives to abate and a large fraction of the low-cost abatement options in the economy would likely remain untapped.
• Certainty: the Coalition’s scheme is unable to guarantee a specific level of emissions reduction. By setting the value of the proposed fund, it cannot set a corresponding volume of abatement. The CPRS in contrast fixes an emissions target and allows the market to find the least-cost way to achieve it.
• Scalability: the climate change challenge calls for long-term policy infrastructure which can be scaled up to achieve deep cuts in emissions over time. Direct government funding as per the Coalition’s proposals will likely become increasingly unviable once the low-hanging fruit is exhausted and more significant changes to the economy are required. This will arguably be a 10-year policy at best.

Finally, the Coalition plan relies too heavily on sequestration through soil carbon – a high-risk approach considering soil carbon cannot currently be included in Australia’s greenhouse accounts and although Australia may include it in a post-2012 agreement, exactly how it will be treated is unknown.

In contrast, Bloomberg New Energy Finance concludes that, while it has its own limitations, the government’s CPRS performs better against the three criteria. As a cap-and-trade scheme, it should provide a least-cost means of achieving a given level of emissions reduction. The emissions cap will ensure that targets are achieved, and once in place it can continue to operate into the future, providing both policy and investment certainty.

“With climate policy such a hot political issue in Australia, it is important for parties to debate new policies and eventually find a way forward. However the Coalition’s latest proposals do not pass muster and risk taking the debate backwards not forwards.” said Guy Turner, Bloomberg New Energy Finance Head of Carbon Market Research.
....

Igor_Goldenberg
12-02-2010, 08:16 PM
Bloomberg New Energy Finance
Press release 9.2.2010


The government’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) will cost less than A$1.5bn over the first four years – not A$40.6bn as claimed by the Coalition – according to the latest Bloomberg New Energy Finance analysis.
....

Could it be that government will collect 40.6 billions and pay out 39.1 billions?