Archive for June 1st, 2011

Cost benefit analysis? Here’s why you never received one.

It’s not actually too bad for a feel-good poem. i.e. It’s reasonably well written considering its a hatchet job done on the fly.

In a dry place, the dry out of reason

and testing all cases of precedent

should pull us up short, drop jaws,

have us staggering bewildered in dis-


Bewildered indeed.

It’s completely devoid of any sense of reality whatsoever (It’s a global warming poem).

To put that in context for someone who may have just stumbled upon this, many talking heads in Australia are really pushing for a tax that they feel can somehow save a planet.

A planet-saving tax that makes you – the person having his hard-earned money swindled – feel good: Is that a government’s wet dream or what?

Cate Blanchett: “We change countries, governments, history, gravity.”

How about trees into a different state of form?

Change gravity?

You mean like in a NASA space plane, or at the International Space Station?

Ummm…change history?

It doesn’t matter how good that ecstasy is, it ain’t gonna change the laws of physics.

Like, OK, circumstances prevented me gaining the most out of math in the final two years of high school, but we’re talking basic arithmetic here.

Australia, via a massive $11,500,000,000 per year wealth redistribution (and ever-increasing… $6,500,000,000 or 55% will be returned from the “big polluters” to “the people”, which means a 45% “profit” for the government) and thusly economy destroying tax, is trying to save the planet by reducing… let’s do the math.

CO2=0.04% of the atmosphere. Total Human CO2 is 3% of that 0.04%. Australia’s man-made CO2 is 1.5% of that 3% of that 0.04%. And we’re trying to lower that by 5%.

It is staggeringly, er, small. Inconsequential. Infinitesimal.

Most calculators can’t even give a “number” a layman can read since it’s so frickin’ small.


Seriously, we’re looking at this equation:

0.05 x 0.015 x 0.03 x 0.0004

The answer to that is the difference Gillard’s climate tax will make to the planet. On the other hand, $11.5 billion – for starters – is what’s going to be ripped from us.

So… why no cost-benefit analysis? Because we are looking at virtually zero benefit for an absolutely staggering outlay of cost. We’re going to have to start coming up with new words.

Literally: Gillard’s carbon tax – 5% “carbon pollution” reduction by 2020 – equates to negating 0.000000009 (eight zeros then a 9) bits of the atmosphere for a cost of $11,500,000,000 per year… and climbing.

And that 0.000000009 bits is over the next nine years.

That means 0.000000009 bits at a cost of at least $103,500,000,000

Still feel good?

*numbers corrected. they’re so small, can someone check them please?*


Limousine liberals

Cut back, they say, yet as with liberals ad nauseum, it’s always a case of do as I say, not do as I do.

Limousines, the very symbol of wealth and excess, are usually the domain of corporate executives and the rich. But the number of limos owned by Uncle Sam increased by 73 percent during the first two years of the Obama administration, according to an analysis of records by iWatch News.

Most of the increase was recorded in Hillary Clinton’s State Department.

Obama administration officials said most of the increase reflects an enhanced effort to protect diplomats and other government officials in a dangerous world.

So Obama – darling of the masses – thinks it’s more dangerous for US reps now than it was under the almost universally globally-hated Bush.

Give me a break!

Meanwhile, Aussie liberal carbon crusader Cate Blanchett jets off to London. It’s OK. She has another mansion there, too.


Remembering Hazma

Whilst we’ve been slugging away at getting rid of that carbon (dioxide!) tax, and worrying about cows, remember that “Arab Spring” has been going on all the while.

Unfortunately, 13 year old Syrian boy, Hazma, will never get to see the summer.

Devotedly washed and sprinkled with rose petals, Hamza Ali al-Khateeb lies prepared for burial.

But the rituals of death cannot wipe away the horrific injuries that have mutilated his body almost beyond recognition.

Nor do they blot out that Hamza – riddled with bullets, kneecapped and with neck broken and penis hacked off – has the rounded cheeks and gentle face of a child.

At 13, he is one of the youngest known victims of Syria’s ruthless crackdown on protesters who have tried to overthrow the government of President Bashar al-Assad.

Suicide attacks a duty

One the one hand, one could dismiss the ranting of some deranged cleric in some backwater advocating suicide bombings, but when it’s Iranian President Ahmadinijad’s spiritual advisor, perhaps it’s good to take a little notice.

In case you still haven’t seen it…

Global nothing

Via Andrew Bolt, Canberra experiences “global nothing” over the last 100 years. That’s right. One hundred years and no temperature increase.

Some Cate Blanchett quotes that rival Charlie Sheen’s. Srsly? Our job is to change reality?

Peak Renewables?

The arguments for converting the economy to wind, solar and biomass energy have collapsed. The date of depletion of fossil fuels has been pushed back into the future by centuries — or millennia. We may be living in the era of Peak Renewables, which will be followed by a very long Age of Fossil Fuels that has only just begun.

Go on. Did Cate Blanchett or Aussie PM Julia Gillard hear about this? It’s all to do with fracking and advanced drilling techniques.

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, these advances mean there is at least six times as much recoverable natural gas today as there was a decade ago.

And gas is cleaner than coal, not that coal is anything to worry about, anyway.

There is enough coal to produce energy for centuries. And governments, universities and corporations in the U.S., Canada, Japan and other countries are studying ways to obtain energy from gas hydrates, which mix methane with ice in high-density formations under the seafloor. The potential energy in gas hydrates may equal that of all other fossils, including other forms of natural gas, combined.

But what about the global warming?

Two arguments for switching to renewable energy — the depletion of fossil fuels and national security — are no longer plausible. What about the claim that a rapid transition to wind and solar energy is necessary, to avert catastrophic global warming?

The scenarios with the most catastrophic outcomes of global warming are low probability outcomes — a fact that explains why the world’s governments in practice treat reducing CO2 emissions as a low priority, despite paying lip service to it. But even if the worst outcomes were likely, the rational response would not be a conversion to wind and solar power but a massive build-out of nuclear power. Nuclear energy already provides around 13-14 percent of the world’s electricity and nearly 3 percent of global final energy consumption, while wind, solar and geothermal power combined account for less than one percent of global final energy consumption.

There’s nothing like reading some good sense, especially if you’ve just listened to a soundbite of Australia’s PM (That whole article is well worth the read, BTW).

And just in case you’re still worried about the rising CO2 (not carbon, not pollution, not carbon pollution) causing the global warming or the climate change, note that 2011 is so far cooler than many previous years (there goes the alarmist theory right there) , and apart from there being less big weather events on average, and them being less severe, there are also less deaths from these weather events than we’ve had in the past.

PS Don’t forget sea level rise is actually slowing downcurrently at about 1.5mm per year – Oooooo!

And a reminder: Why renewables won’t work.


Another Green tax scam, courtesy of Obama’s mates at GM?

%d bloggers like this: