Posts Tagged ‘ CO2 ’

Do the math


It seems the ALP isn’t much chop at it.

Riddle me this. With any budget surplus and carbon tax compo set to be tied to a hopeful EU carbon (dioxide) price of around $29 a ton, how’s it all going to work when it’s less than $5 a ton?

Three big reasons why Julia Gillard can’t possibly continue as PM


Not to mention the other myriad of reasons – listed here – but here’s the big three.

  1. The carbon tax
  2. The boats
  3. The AWU/Slater&Gordon scandal and cover-up

No wonder Labor’s Caucus is in crisis discussions.

And as for that list, do you agree? Perhaps the NBN,  her deal with the Greens, or something else scores higher in your mind.

Tell us below in comments. What are your big three?

Damn that’s taxing


What an excruciating read. PM Gillard has come out today and equated the Greens’ her carbon tax with the Snowy Mountains scheme.

Unbelievable. She’s equated a giant, useless TAX with one of Australia’s greatest achievements in infrastructure.

I was going to quote but I don’t have enough brain bleach to go around.

Somehow, the PM thinks making electricity more expensive, including (but not exclusively) by means of forcing power plants to close, should be equated with a scheme that provided more and cheaper electricity.

The party that once started building seven power stations at the same time now wants to close power stations one at a time.

Oh for the Labor of old.

They’ve descended from a party that started building 16 dams in one big hit to a party that won’t build a single dam even in the middle of a drought.

That woman is living in a watermelon dreamland. I never thought I’d see a Labor party become so out of touch with ordinary working people and families.

Carbonitis


No. No *FUCK YOU* Gillard.

Sentiment may not be enough right this moment, but history will slay that stubborn drone.

*wife edit

Useless fucking retarded troglodyte. Shoot the dam thing out of a cannon all the way to Wales.

UPDATE

Thanks, Sean.

Who says we don’t care for the environment?


A recent study reckons we don’t…

CONCERN for the environment has dwindled into a ”middling” issue that many people do not have strong feelings about, a major study into Australian attitudes towards society, politics and the economy has found.

Food, health, crime, safety and rights to basic public services – the tangible things that people confront on a daily basis – are dominant national concerns.

”Australians are effectively indifferent to global and societal issues, rating these significantly lower,” said the report What Matters to Australians, produced by the University of Technology, Sydney and the Melbourne Business School, with the support of the Australian Research Council.

Just my own opinion, but I reckon almost everybody has “concern for the environment”. Heck, even the evil skeptic James Delingpole, currently in Australia on a speaking tour, is enjoying Taronga Zoo.

It’s just that more and more of us don’t think an essential, oderless, colourless trace gas – er, make that human contribution to that trace gas, CO2, which occurs mostly naturally – is harmful to the environment.

And maybe we don’t think spending $76,000,000,000,000 to fight C02 is worth it.

And that taxing it won’t save the polar bears… which don’t need saving anyway.

Via Climate Nonconformist, who adds:

The environmentalists came on too strong and now they’re being ignored. Plus, getting your predictions wrong all the time doesn’t help. Nor do scandalous revelations about hidden declines, corruption of peer review, avoidance of data/FOI requests or deleted emails.

BTW, nice picture of man-made clouds the Age put above the story…

Must be that global warming…


Of course it’s just weather, however.

While winter is a distant memory for most Americans, it continues unabated in Anchorage, Alaska — where a new bout of precipitation this weekend helped the city break its record for seasonal snowfall, at more than 133 inches (3.38 meters).

In fact, if there actually were some global warming (we haven’t seen any in 15 years), you might see some happier natives.

“Okay…now the records broken [it stood for 57 years - bing], could you please make the snow go away??!!”

Can’t blame whoever said that. Usually Alaska sees an average of around 60 inches or a full one and a half metres less snow over the long winter season.

And no wonder with news like that, we’re seeing the following.

Green campaigners and climate scientists are losing the public debate over global warming, one of the movement’s leading proponents has admitted.

Dr James Hansen, director of the Nasa Goddard Institute for Space Studies, who first made warnings about climate change in the 1980s, said that public scepticism about the threat of man-made climate change has increased despite the growing scientific consensus.

Consensus, eh? Well, James. Perhaps people’s growing scepticism maybe, just maybe has something to do with that consensus and your their years of grossly exaggerated computer model BS fear-mongering that time has allowed us to check out.

And boy oh boy have there been some whoppers, such as these by Australia’s own government-funded $180,000 per year part time Climate Commissioner, Tim Flannery.

Keeping it on the home front, it could be that folks became a little more cynical when the weather was used by a government that can’t balance the books as an excuse to impose a giant new tax on everyone.

Confirmed: no global warming for the past 15 years


So why oh why PM Gillard your continued push for a carbon dioxide tax, a tax that will do nothing to avert something that isn’t even happening anyway, that the people don’t want, and that is detroying both your own reputation and the very future existence of the ALP as a major political force?

New UK Met Office global temperature data confirms that the world has not warmed in the past 15 years.

Analysis by the GWPF of the newly released HadCRUT4 global temperature database shows that there has been no global warming in the past 15 years – a timescale that challenges current models of global warming.

The graph shows the global annual average temperature since 1997. No statistically significant trend can be discerned from the data. The only statistically acceptable conclusion to be drawn from the HadCRUT4 data is that between 1997 – 2011 it has remained constant, with a global temperature of 14.44 +/- 0.16 deg C (2 standard deviations.)

“[I]t has remained constant”. No warming. No cooling. It’s hard to even argue climate change on that one.

The perils of going Green


Lord Lawson is talking about events in the UK, but the same applies in Australia, not least because of the carbon dioxide tax we will be unnecessarily burdoned with in a few months.

It is sad that fashionable obsession can lead an intelligent man like Tim Yeo into such a farrago of factual error and economic illiteracy. The reason why there is no economic case for ‘going green’ is simple. It is that green energy is hugely more expensive than carbon-based energy, it always has been and is likely to remain so for the foreseeable future.

That, and no other reason, is why the world relies on carbon-based energy – coal, oil and, increasingly, gas.

And that is why to ‘go green’ requires either a heavy tax on carbon-based energy, to make it less competitive, or a massive subsidy for wind power and other forms of green energy, to make them more competitive – and probably both. Either way, these represent a huge economic cost and a burden on the consumer that bears especially hard in an age of austerity, but which would be unjustifiable at any time.

Read on.

Just what benefit will be achieved from raising Australia’s already high electricity costs via the CO2 tax? Least of all when the Gillard government claims people will be compensated?

Well if they’re going to be compensated, then what’s the point of the tax in the first place?

It’s just a money-go-round, a massive government-led collection of private wealth to be then redistributed as the government sees fit.

Hello? That’s Socialism, and Cory Bernadi is right to call Gillard out on that.

And socialism? If (too much of) your hard-earned work, as represented by money, is taken away from you and given to someone else who didn’t work, then where is the incentive to work?

Nobody works too hard, and then what happens to society?

Australia’s clean energy scam


The Blissful Ignoramus takes a closer look at Australia’s clean energy future.

How appropriate.

The key, mission-critical system used by the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency for reporting and calculation of “emissions” by the “biggest polluters”, is called OSCAR.

And now, with just over 4 months till the carbon ‘tax’ begins, the “science” is in.

OSCAR is trash.

As indeed was the government’s $20 million taxpayer-funded advertising campaign for the carbon “tax”, which according to the Auditor-General:

“.. contained facts which were not properly sourced and seven breaches of financial management regulations.”

Read on. Perception is reality, errors (cheating?) abound, red tape is through the roof, and as for the amount of money wasted… eek!

Related: the ABC still champions the failed experiment that is solar energy as a primary source of power.

Related: Get with the times. The word “cold” is obsolete!

Gavin Atkins:

I HATE to break the news this way, but Australia is not going to meet its target to reduce greenhouse emissions by 5 per cent of 2000 levels by 2020.

Of course, the introduction of the carbon tax might make some difference, but I’m willing to stick my head out and call it right now. With only eight years left, carbon dioxide emissions have actually increased by 4 per cent on 2000 levels.

UPDATE

Related:Carbon derivitives trading; the ticking time bomb buried in Julia and the Greens’ Clean Energy Future legislation.

No wonder (rightfully dumped) former Opposition leader Malcolm Turnbull was/is so gung ho for a carbon (dioxide) tax/ETS. His mates back at Goldman Sachs are set to make a killing.

Oh if only the climate really needed saving and we had the God-like power to actually do something…

UPDATE II

Labor still has $10mil left to flog their disastrous and useless CO2 tax before July hits.

The climate debate of 2011: round up, part 2


Following professor Bob Carter’s Part One of his climate review of 2011, here’s Part Two.

Stimulated by research spending of billions of dollars, inexorably, and month by month. torrents of new scientific information appear that are relevant to the twin issues of global warming and climate change.

No one scientist, or group, can possibly absorb and précis accurately the full range of this literature, though valiant efforts are made both by the IPCC and by its essential counterpart, the Non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC).

To date, research findings are consistent with a largely natural, though still incompletely understood, origin for modern climate change. Discounting virtual reality computer model studies, no recent paper has provided empirical evidence that dangerous human-caused global warming is occurring; and neither the atmosphere nor the ocean are currently warming despite the continuing increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide.

*my emphasis*

Read on.

Some tidbits:

Those bullet points link to the full stories. Bob’s piece has excellent, briefer summaries.

H/T

Tim Flannery’s dud alarmist predictions


He gets paid $180,000 for just three days of work per week as Australia’s Climate Commissioner. Despite repeated warnings of catastrophic sea-level rises, he lives by the water. And he’s almost always wrong.

Andrew Bolt:

Small problem, though: after so many years of hearing Flannery’s predictions, we’re now able to see if some of the scariest have actually panned out.

And we’re also able to see if people who bet real money on his advice have cleaned up or been cleaned out.

So before we buy a great green tax from Flannery, whose real expertise is actually in mammology, it may pay to check his record. Ready?

Read on.

Via s_dog

The climate debate of 2011: round-up


Professor Bob Carter, a geologist, discusses “the the most important events which influenced the climate debate in 2011.”

2011, and the Unlucky Country finally gets a carbon dioxide tax

Australian voters entered 2011 with the pre-election commitment of Prime Minister Julia Gillard still sounding in their ears –

There will be no carbon [dioxide] tax under a government that I lead.

Nonetheless, cognitive dissonance had already arrived on the Canberra political scene, in the shape of the Multi-Party Committee on Climate Change (MPCCC) that was established in late 2010 in order to plan for the introduction of just such a tax.

Thereafter, the political year yielded a spectacular display of chicanery, scientific malfeasance, media bias and economic and social irresponsibility, all underpinned by a confusion of both purpose and morality and accompanied by an uncertainty of outcomes: and that’s just the global warming picture.

It is fitting, therefore, that the year should have ended shortly after the closure of the IPCC’s COP-17 climate conference in Durban, the outcome of which was a politically wonderful Clayton’s agreement regarding global warming – which is to say, it was the type of agreement that you have when there is in fact no agreement. As one commentator put it, the Durban partner nations’ statement appears to have agreed to an agreement to agree in future to an undefined agreement. Science magazine Naturecommented that “Despite the celebratory atmosphere, the platform represents an exercise in legalese that does little or nothing to reduce emissions, and defers action for almost a decade”.

Read on.

H/T & H/T

Oh, and why does a geologist’s opinion matter?

Carter’s view of climate science is profoundly influenced by the fact that he’s a geologist. He thinks in terms of geological time – eras and epochs. When compared to those timescales, 150 years of thermometer readings is a mere blink of an eye. As he writes in his accessible, well-argued book:

By overemphasizing the trivially short instrumental record, and greatly underemphasizing the varied changes that exist in geological records…the IPCC signals its failure to comprehend that climate change is as much a geological phenomenon as it is a meteorological one.

Meanwhile, as it becomes increasingly evident that drastic government measures to curb a problem that likely doesn’t exist will lead to so much pain with negligible gain, and as it becomes increasingly evident that alternative energy is outlandishly expensive and grossly inefficient, the Australian Greens leader, Bob Brown, continues to demonstrate his complete and utter lack of economic literacy.

This time he wants to make changes to our Super (i.e. increase taxes on it) that will hurt those worse off and punish those who want to contribute.

This once almost quaint quirk in Australian politics is weilding far, far too much influence for just one senator from a remote, sparsely populated region of the nation.

Global warming forecast models essentially worthless


Walter Russell Mead explains:

To predict the amount of CO2 that human industry will be emitting in 2050, you need a figure for the world’s GDP by then. That means you have to have long range forecasts for China, India, South Africa, Russia, Brazil, Germany, the US, Canada and many other countries. Nobody has any forecasts of the 50 year GDP growth of any of these countries that is worth anything at all, because economic forecasting doesn’t work that way. (It hardly works at all, but certainly not on this long term basis.)

And then you have to forecast how much CO2 will be emitted per unit of GDP. That involves forecasting the rate and nature of technological change, the state and composition of world energy reserves in thirty years, and many other things which simply cannot be known by anybody living today.

An astrologer would throw up his hands in dismay at this sloppy reasoning and hazy science.

And yet Australia’s lone ranga, PM Julia Gillard, pushes on with her useless, expensive carbon dioxide tax. With any luck, she’ll be gone by Friday.

UPDATE

Almost a fifth of MP snub Julia’s BBQ. Ouch.

“Absolutely useless”


That’s how Prince Philip described wind farms recently.

And in a line that’s reminiscent of Clint Eastwood’s famous, “Get off my lawn!”, he told a turbine peddler who was hoping to set up shop on his land quite clearly to “stay away from my estate, young man.”

Why the peddler was surprised is anyone’s guess since the prince had good reason to pan the inefficient, massively expensive gimmicks.

Please, enough of this clean green China crap


Who are our political overloads trying to kid? Please don’t tell me PM Gillard, Brown and Flannery and Co. actually believe their own BS.

Via JM, Tim Blair and Catallaxy

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 304 other followers

%d bloggers like this: