Global Warming / Climate Change scam

Author Topic: Global Warming / Climate Change scam  (Read 190862 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Saint

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 28
  • Put your bodies upon the gears & apparatus.
Re: The real climate change culprit is methane gas from cows and sheep
« Reply #80 on: July 09, 2008, 08:34:45 PM »
Careful! They'll chip us and tax us on each and every "emission". A global farting tax.
"...you’ve got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it, that unless you’re free, the machine will be prevented from working at all!"   Mario Savio, Sproul Hall speech, FSM, Dec 2nd 1964.

Offline mr anderson

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,355
    • WeAreChange Brisbane
On Tonight's Q & A: It's not easy being Green: Video now available
« Reply #81 on: July 09, 2008, 08:36:14 PM »
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/

http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/vodcast/qanda_2008_ep08.wmv
http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/vodcast/qanda_2008_ep08.mp4


Previous Vodcasts: http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/vodcast.htm

------------------------------------------
All the best to Andrew Bolt, the only sceptic on the panel!



Environmental apocalypse now or never? Green’s Senator Christine Milne will be up against Herald Sun columnist and climate change sceptic Andrew Bolt, with Minister for Small Business Craig Emerson, former Communications Minister Helen Coonan, and author, essayist and playwright Linda Jaivin holding the casting votes.

Panelists


Craig Emerson

Craig Emerson has represented the seat of Rankin, in outer suburban Brisbane, since 1998. Now Minister for Small Business, Independent Contractors and the Service Economy, Craig is regarded as one of the Rudd government’s most innovative policy thinkers.Born in Baradine, NSW, in 1954, Craig studied economics at Sydney University and then completed a PhD in the subject at the Australian National University in Canberra.

He has extensive experience in government at both the State and federal levels. From 1986-90 he was economics adviser to Prime Minister Bob Hawke, and subsequently he was senior policy adviser to Queensland Premier Wayne Goss. Other positions he has held include CEO of the South-East Queensland Transit Authority; Director-General of the Queensland Department of Environment and Heritage; and Assistant Secretary in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.

Craig has a deep policy interest in such areas as innovation, deregulation and ecologically sustainable development. He has written widely on challenging policy issues and on securing a prosperous future for Australia. His other interests include rugby league, volleyball and the guitar.


Andrew Bolt

Columnist and blogger Andrew Bolt is one of Australia’s most prominent commentators – loathed by some, loved by others but never ignored. A conservative provocateur who delights in aggravating his critics and attacking the cultural sacred cows and superstitions of the New Age, Andrew is never far from controversy and attracts a deluge of pro and anti correspondence in the blogosphere for his commentary.

Andrew was born in 1959 in Adelaide to newly-arrived Dutch immigrant parents. Through his father’s profession as a teacher and school principal, he spent much of his childhood in remote parts of Australia. After completing secondary school he travelled widely overseas before returning to Australia and starting a journalism cadetship with The Age in Melbourne in 1979. He worked in various roles – sports, politics, crime, court reporting – before joining the Herald-Sun. He worked as the News Ltd Asia correspondent in Hong Kong and Bangkok before returning to Melbourne and crafting a role for himself as a columnist.

His columns in the Herald-Sun, Australia’s biggest-selling daily newspaper, appear twice a week and he maintains an active and lively blog. He is a regular commentator on TV and radio and is also a sought-after speaker. In recent years he has taken aim at several of the Left’s most totemic causes, including the stolen generations apology, global warming and the children overboard saga. While he mostly writes from a conservative perspective, he shocked Liberals last year by calling on John Howard to quit and has been a severe critic of some coalition policy and personnel. In the 80s he did two stints working for the ALP.

One of his first jobs was drummer in a dance band; his best was packing tulips near Amsterdam. He is a proud grower of tulips and speaks Dutch “clumsily, and with a terrible accent.” Andrew is married to journalist Sally Morrell and they have three children.


Christine Milne

Senator Christine Milne is a fifth-generation Tasmanian. Born in Latrobe, in north-west Tasmania, in 1953, she attended boarding school in Hobart and graduated with an Arts degree from the University of Tasmania in 1975.
She began a career as a high school teacher but her involvement in the environmental movement led her into a life of politics and activism. In 1983 she was gaoled for her role in protests against a dam on the Franklin River, and in the later 80s successfully campaigned against the Wesley Vale pulp mill. She was elected to the Tasmanian Parliament in 1989 and in 1993 became Leader of the Tasmanian Greens – the first woman to lead a political party in Tasmania.

Her time in the State Parliament, particularly from 1996-98 when the Greens held the balance of power, saw significant economic and social reform. Measures included gun law reform, liberalisation of gay laws, an apology to the Indigenous stolen generation and support for an Australian republic.

Christine was elected to the Senate at the 2004 election and is now one of five Greens who, with two Independents, hold the balance of power in the Senate.


Linda Jaivin

Linda Jaivin is an essayist, arts writer, translator, playwright and the author of seven books, including the bestselling comic erotic novel Eat Me. Her last novel, The Infernal Optimist, set in Villawood Immigration Detention Centre, was short-listed for the Australian Literature Society Gold Medal. Her non-fiction includes The Monkey and the Dragon, a biography of a Chinese singer-songwriter set against the bigger story of China’s relationship with Taiwan and the Beijing massacre of 1989. Her next novel, A Most Immoral Woman, to be published next year, is an historical fiction set in China and Japan in 1904 and based on an episode in the life of the great Australian overlander and journalist George Morrison.

Linda’s translations include the subtitles for films such as Chen Kaige’s Farewell My Concubine and Zhang Yimou’s Hero.
She was a national sponsors of the first Sorry Day and is a refugee advocate.

Born in the US, Linda graduated with honours from Brown University with a degree in Asian History and Political Science. She spent the next nine years studying and working in Taiwan, Hong Kong and China before immigrating to Australia. At the time she became an Australian citizen, it was necessary to swear an oath to either or both God and the Queen; although pro-republic, Linda chose the Queen because at least it was possible to prove she existed. She lives in Sydney.


Helen Coonan

Helen Coonan entered the Senate at the 1996 election that brought the coalition to power under John Howard, and became that government’s most senior female office-holder.
Born in the NSW town of Mangoplah in 1947, Helen attended the Mt Erin convent boarding school in Wagga Wagga before moving to the University of Sydney to complete her law degree. She then embarked on a diverse legal career that included starting her own legal firm, becoming a partner in a large commercial law firm and working as a commercial barrister. She also practised as a registered attorney in New York for a large firm specialising in the entertainment industry, working for such clients as the New York City Ballet and making legal arrangements for Bruce Springsteen’s first tour of Australia.

Following her election to the Senate Helen was promoted to the front bench after the 2001 election, when she became Minister for Revenue and Assistant Treasurer. In 2004 she was promoted to the Cabinet as Minister for Communications and the Arts, a post she held until the Howard government lost office in 2007.

As Communications Minister, Helen was involved in extensive reforms and a broad range of testing policy issues at a time when technological advances were revolutionising the entire communications landscape. Policy challenges included the transition from analog to digital television, the launch of National Indigenous Television, a fund to provide future service upgrades in regional Australia, a tender process to deliver a broadband network and changes to media ownership laws.

In Opposition Helen was made Shadow Minister for Human Services, a portfolio which covers big government agencies such as Centrelink and Medicare and involves an annual budget of $96 billion. She and her husband Andrew Rogers QC live in the Sydney suburb of Woollahra. They have an adult son, Adam, and two dogs, Archie and Grace.
WeAreChange Brisbane
I hold personal views, beliefs and opinions that do not necessarily reflect the beliefs and opinions of WeAreChange Brisbane as a whole.

Our Bitcoin address: 1Fzb4bp48oMr7CFzT3SbkTzKpMSvWW1X1t

Offline mr anderson

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,355
    • WeAreChange Brisbane
Re: The real climate change culprit is methane gas from cows and sheep
« Reply #82 on: July 09, 2008, 08:50:40 PM »
WeAreChange Brisbane
I hold personal views, beliefs and opinions that do not necessarily reflect the beliefs and opinions of WeAreChange Brisbane as a whole.

Our Bitcoin address: 1Fzb4bp48oMr7CFzT3SbkTzKpMSvWW1X1t

Offline munkey

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 540
Re: The real climate change culprit is methane gas from cows and sheep
« Reply #83 on: July 09, 2008, 08:55:47 PM »
I think that the gasses emited from our political leaders would have to be comparable to that of cows and sheep.

after all. I know our polititions speak Bulls**t
For a boit of mindless fun
click below

Just click the link, you know you want to

Offline mr anderson

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,355
    • WeAreChange Brisbane
Clean air and a penalizing plan
« Reply #84 on: July 09, 2008, 10:10:54 PM »
http://www.vvdailypress.com/opinion/california_7349___article.html/clean_penalizing.html

The Orange County Register


California’s on the verge of a massive, historic redistribution of wealth to benefit a select few and economically punish many, while simultaneously concentrating unprecedented power among unelected government bureaucrats.

The state Air Resources Board has unveiled its much-anticipated plan to implement regulations, mandates and a carbon tax disguised as a “cap-and-trade” restriction on greenhouse gas emissions authorized by the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. The plan, to be finalized in the fall, will raise prices on everything energy-related, reduce profits for countless industries and aggravate the state’s economic problems in order to dramatically reduce greenhouse gases. Unsurprisingly, some environmental activists think it doesn’t go far enough.

The regulations “will be felt by everyone at all levels of the economic ladder, no matter where they live, work or play,” said state Sen. Bob Dutton, Republican energy committee vice chairman. “It will also be felt by businesses across the full spectrum from refineries to agriculture to construction to forestry. It will even affect the way local governments do business.”

If anything, Mr. Dutton under-estimates. The plan would financially penalize companies and individuals for emitting greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, a natural gas necessary for plant growth, and subsidize a favored few who reduce emissions. Why cut California’s so-called carbon footprint 30 percent in the next 12 years?

Because there is “no greater threat than global warming,” says ARB Chairman Mary Nichols. James Hansen, a NASA scientist credited with kicking off global warming mania 20 years ago, now proclaims “We’re toast if we don’t get on a very different path” and curb greenhouse gases. The theory is, simply put, that there is not enough plant life to absorb all the CO2 gases emitted, and that excess gases rise in the atmosphere, forming a kind of blanket, creating a warming effect.

But over the past 10 years the world’s climate has cooled, not warmed, says the journal Nature. And even global warming theorists concede the next decade will bring more cooling.
 
Nevertheless warming alarmists seek ways to tax carbon emissions “and other restrictive, punitive and expensive regulations,” says Dr. Tim Ball, chairman of the natural Resources Stewardship Project and former University of Winnipeg climatology professor.

“All the problems evolve from the false claim that CO2 is causing global warming/climate change,” writes Dr. Ball, who characterizes the frenzy as “foolish, ignorant attempts to resolve the non-existent problem.”

Dramatic CO2 increases over the past decade and their anticipated continuing increase in years to come, coincide with cooling, not warming – the opposite of what alarmists say should be happening.

Alarmism rooted in faulty science, Dr. Ball says, has prompted “governments, eager to be green,” to naively introduce policies like California’s. No U.S. government has been more aggressive than California’s. And Californians are about to pay for this misguided fervor.

California should learn from Maryland, where the legislature recently rejected a similar Global Warming Solutions Act. “(I)t amounts to an indirect tax on working middle-class families,” one Maryland state senator explained.

Wisely, legislators there listened to reason when warned that such Draconian efforts would dramatically raise energy costs, bring economic slowdown and increase unemployment. But incredibly, California ARB’s Ms. Nichols claims California’s punitive heavy hand will boost, not depress the economy.
WeAreChange Brisbane
I hold personal views, beliefs and opinions that do not necessarily reflect the beliefs and opinions of WeAreChange Brisbane as a whole.

Our Bitcoin address: 1Fzb4bp48oMr7CFzT3SbkTzKpMSvWW1X1t

Offline mr anderson

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,355
    • WeAreChange Brisbane
Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
« Reply #85 on: July 09, 2008, 11:30:54 PM »
Doing nothing is not an option for survival

Kevin Rudd | July 08, 2008
Kevin Rudd is the Prime Minister of Australia.

THE science tells us that continued high levels of carbon pollution have led to global warming and if the world continues on a business-as-usual trajectory the consequences for us all will be significant. The economics tells us that the cost of responsible action is much less than if we as a planet fail to act on climate change now. The longer we delay, the higher the cost.

And Ross Garnaut tells us the case for Australia is particularly acute because we are already a hot and dry continent.

That is the reality the Australian Government faces today.

Some commentators have said acting on climate change will take courage. Frankly, however, the reverse applies. It would be reckless not to act. Reckless for our generation. Reckless for our children. Reckless for our grandchildren.

Because the fact is if we do not begin reducing the nation's levels of carbon pollution, Australia's economy will face more frequent and severe droughts, less water, reduced food production and devastation of areas such as the Great Barrier Reef and Kakadu wetlands.

Garnaut's draft report released on Friday predicted by 2100 a 92per cent decline in irrigated agriculture in the Murray-Darling Basin; a reduction of at least 7.8 per cent in real wages; and a $425 billion loss in potential gross domestic product.

But the impact of inaction on climate change will be much more immediate. The Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics predicts if we don't act on climate change, Australia's exports of key commodities will fall by up to 63 per cent in 2030 and by up to 79per cent in 2050.

Just a few weeks ago, the Queensland climate change report concluded that destruction of the Great Barrier Reef alone would put in danger $4.9 billion and 60,000 jobs.

These are just two results of inaction. There are many more. What they all confirm is that the cost of inaction will be far greater than the cost of action.

And that is why the Australian Government is acting.

The Government has a comprehensive national plan to tackle climate change, from the development of renewable energy and energy-efficiency solutions to international action, through initiatives such as the Kyoto Protocol

The Government is also developing an emissions trading scheme, designed to bring down carbon pollution emissions with minimum impact on business and households.

The previous Coalition government spent years arguing about whether climate change was even happening. Fortunately, in its final year of office, the Liberal Party finally matched Labor's commitment to tackle climate change through a national emissions tradingscheme. Today, however, it is not clear where the Coalition Opposition stands.

The Garnaut report, as well as experience in other countries, concludes that an emissions trading scheme is the best way to reduce Australia's greenhouse pollution.

So why is a trading scheme, designed to reduce carbon pollution, the best way forward?

At present, industry and big business have no limit on how much they can pollute and this is causing global warming.

An emissions trading scheme will require business and industry to buy pollution permits for each tonne of pollution they contribute to the atmosphere. By setting a limit on how much carbon pollution Australian industry and business can emit, the Government will set a limit on the number of pollution permits available to meet that target and let the market decide how they are allocated. And through time, the Government will reduce the number of pollution permits available, providing business with incentive to move towards cleaner technologies.

There is no cost-free option for tackling climate change, but an emissions trading scheme is the best way to reduce pollution at the lowest cost across the economy.

The Government is committed to ensuring every cent received from the emissions trading scheme will go back to Australian households and businesses to help them with costs and invest in cleaner energy choices.

And the Government will help Australian families take practical action at home to save energy, using efficient products such as insulation and solar hot water, reducing emissions and saving on energy bills.

The Liberal Party is putting forward a range of competing views around what should and shouldn't be in the trading scheme, when it should start and whether we should act on climate change at all.

It boils down to what is the most economically responsible approach. The debate must be about what is best for our economy, our environment and our long-term future.

Australia is not alone in tackling the challenge of climate change with an emissions trading scheme.

The European Union has had one in place since 2005, and Canada, Japan, New Zealand and the US are moving towards introducing schemes. The Group of Eight major industrialised nations committed in 2005 "to act with resolve and urgency now" on climate change.

As a nation, we need to undertake the real economic reform that will enable Australia to compete in a world economy that is being reshaped by climate change.

As Garnaut says, "Delaying now is not postponing a decision. To delay is to deliberately choose to avoid effective steps to reduce the risks of climate change to acceptable levels."
WeAreChange Brisbane
I hold personal views, beliefs and opinions that do not necessarily reflect the beliefs and opinions of WeAreChange Brisbane as a whole.

Our Bitcoin address: 1Fzb4bp48oMr7CFzT3SbkTzKpMSvWW1X1t

Offline mr anderson

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,355
    • WeAreChange Brisbane
Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
« Reply #86 on: July 09, 2008, 11:39:06 PM »
More than fuel hikes needed to cut gas

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23996505-11949,00.html

Lenore Taylor, National correspondent | July 10, 2008


INCREASING the cost of petrol under an emissions trading scheme will not reduce the greenhouse emissions produced by Australian drivers without more spending on public transport and laws to make engines more fuel-efficient, argues former Telstra chairman Ziggy Switkowski.

Writing in The Australian today, Dr Switkowski, who also chaired the Howard government's 2006 nuclear taskforce, points out that even if government measures did eventually reduce emissions from Australian cars by 10 million tonnes a year, this was not significant when compared with global annual emissions of 35,000 million tonnes.

Dr Switkowski says that as well as introducing a carbon price on petrol, the Government needs to legislate minimum engine fuel efficiency levels.

It also needs to support global efforts to introduce alternative technologies to the internal combustion engine such as new low-emission hybrid and hydrogen cars.

"The argument that in order to preserve the integrity of an (ETS), transport fuels need to be included has merit," he writes.

"But we should not expect this to drive a climate-friendly outcome on its own. What is required is to wrap an (ETS) around a mix of some of the initiatives described above, and persuade the rest of us that this is an environmentally responsible trip worth taking."
WeAreChange Brisbane
I hold personal views, beliefs and opinions that do not necessarily reflect the beliefs and opinions of WeAreChange Brisbane as a whole.

Our Bitcoin address: 1Fzb4bp48oMr7CFzT3SbkTzKpMSvWW1X1t

Offline mr anderson

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,355
    • WeAreChange Brisbane
Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
« Reply #87 on: July 10, 2008, 03:16:52 AM »
After Applause Dies Down, Global Warming Talks Leave Few Concrete Goals
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/10/science/earth/10assess.html?ref=science



By ANDREW C. REVKIN

Nearly everyone had something to cheer about on Wednesday after the major industrial powers and a big group of emerging nations pledged to pursue “deep cuts” in emissions of heat-trapping gases in coming decades.

President Bush, who had insisted that any commitment to combat global warming must involve growing economies as well as the rich nations, recruited China and India to the table and received rare accolades from some environmentalists for doing so.

The developing countries received a promise that the rich countries would take the lead in curbing emissions. And environmentalists said the agreements renewed chances of reviving two ailing climate pacts, the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the 1997 Kyoto Protocol.

But behind the congratulatory speeches on Wednesday, some experts said, was a more sobering reality. The documents issued by the participating countries had very few of the concrete goals needed to keep greenhouse gases from growing at their torrid pace, they said.

The statement issued by the industrialized Group of 8 pledged to “move toward a carbon-free society” by seeking to cut worldwide emissions of heat-trapping gases in half by 2050. But the statement did not say whether that baseline would be emissions at 1990 levels, or the less ambitious baseline of current levels, already 25 percent higher.

Mentions of mandatory restrictions on emissions were carefully framed. Caps or taxes were endorsed where “national circumstances” made those acceptable. The statement urged nations to set “midterm, aspirational goals for energy efficiency.”

There were new commitments to demonstrate that carbon dioxide from coal combustion could be captured, compressed, and stashed permanently underground. But experts have said that process would have to work at the scale of billions of tons of carbon dioxide a year within a decade or two to avert a huge rise in carbon dioxide concentrations, while proposed projects are all measured in millions of tons.

The Group of 8 statement also pledged to increase aid to help developing countries improve energy efficiency or cut their vulnerability to climate risk. But developing countries have noted that in the past those pledges have gone unfilled.

“I would characterize this outcome as ‘talking the talk’ rather then ‘walking the walk’ on climate change policy,” said Michael E. Schlesinger, a climatologist at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, who has co-written many papers on climate policy.

Dr. Schlesinger and others said that neither this week’s statements nor the two previous climate treaties seemed likely to significantly slow the rise over decades of heat-trapping gases, most notably carbon dioxide — an unavoidable byproduct of burning fossil fuels and forests.

Beyond any vagueness in this week’s statements is the challenge that climate policy must compete with other pressing global problems, particularly rising prices for energy.

This reality was on display in Japan in the days leading up to the leaders’ formal sessions. Gwyn Prins, an expert on climate policy at the London School of Economics and Political Science, was there for discussions preceding the formal talks and noted that current concerns about energy security were already clearly interfering with discussions aimed at climate stability.

One day, in particular, he said, was “gloriously incoherent.” At a meeting in the morning, participants focused on finding ways to reduce gas prices, he said, while a session that afternoon focused on raising them through caps or taxes on fossil fuels.

The most discouraging aspect of the statements out of Japan, for many experts, was seeing the persistent gap between what science is saying about global warming and what countries are doing.

The United States appeared to regain some credibility at the meetings, but some environmentalists still found an opportunity to criticize President Bush. David G. Victor, an expert on climate policy at Stanford University, said that the power of any American president was limited, and that another barrier to cutting emissions was Congress.

“Nearly every government is looking beyond Bush, and while they are hopeful that the next president will surely be more constructive on this issue, they don’t know what the president can really bring to the table,” he said. “It is hard for the U.S. president to negotiate with strength when his ability to offer commitments hinges on national legislation that he does not control.”

Cutting emissions in half is just the first step in curtailing warming, climate experts have long said, because the main greenhouse gas generated by human activities, carbon dioxide, can persist for a century or more in the atmosphere, once it is released. That means that later in the century, emissions must drop nearly to zero, or large-scale techniques must be developed to pull carbon dioxide directly from the atmosphere.

Making a bit of lemonade from lemons, Dr. Victor saw a bright spot in the disagreements at the meetings. “Inability to agree is a sign that governments are actually getting serious,” he said.

He concluded: “People are working hard and pursuing many avenues; in time, they will find routes that work. This is quite unlike the Kyoto process, which was marked by very rapid negotiations that produced agreements that looked good on paper, but didn’t really reflect what important governments, such as the U.S., could actually deliver.”
WeAreChange Brisbane
I hold personal views, beliefs and opinions that do not necessarily reflect the beliefs and opinions of WeAreChange Brisbane as a whole.

Our Bitcoin address: 1Fzb4bp48oMr7CFzT3SbkTzKpMSvWW1X1t

Offline mr anderson

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,355
    • WeAreChange Brisbane
Re: (Climate Change) Sceptics grow bold - Andrew Bolt
« Reply #88 on: July 10, 2008, 04:53:15 AM »
Disclaimer: Entering Limbaugh sector

In referring to Andrew Bolt's blog above

Stream: http://stream.rushlimbaugh.com/cgi-bin/members.cgi?stream=clips/08/07/070908_4_climate_change_delusion.wma&site=rushlimb

RUSH: From the Australian newspaper, the Herald Sun: "Psychiatrists have detected the first case of 'climate change delusion' -- and they haven't even yet got to Kevin Rudd and his global warming guru."  Kevin Rudd, the new prime minister of Australia.  "Writing in the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, Joshua Wolf and Robert Salo of our Royal Children's Hospital say this delusion was a 'previously unreported phenomenon.'" Here's the first reported case.  "A 17-year-old man was referred to the inpatient psychiatric unit at Royal Children's Hospital Melbourne with an eight-month history of depressed mood . . . He also . . . had visions of apocalyptic events."  By the way, who else has visions of apocalyptic events?  Algore has visions of apocalyptic events.  Arnold Schwarzenegger has visions of apocalyptic events.  James Hansen of NASA has visions of apocalyptic events.  I would suggest, ladies and gentlemen, these people would also qualify to be referred as patients suffering climate change delusion.  "The patient had also developed the belief that, due to climate change, his own water consumption could lead within days to the deaths of millions of people through exhaustion of water supplies."

This piece, by the way, written by Andrew Bolt.  "Never mind the poor boy, who became too terrified even to drink. What's scarier is that people in charge of our government seem to suffer from this 'climate change delusion', too.   Here is Prime Minister Kevin Rudd yesterday, with his own apocalyptic vision: 'If we do not begin reducing the nation's levels of carbon pollution, Australia's economy will face more frequent and severe droughts, less water, reduced food production and devastation of areas such as the Great Barrier Reef and Kakadu wetlands.'"  Ladies and gentlemen, how many of you have young children in school all the way up to high school who come home every day and tell you of the latest fear that they have based on what they have been told by their deranged teachers in school? How many of you have tried to talk them out of it and your kids will not listen 'cause they heard it in school and 'cause they've seen Algore's movie and 'cause even on some of the Saturday morning cartoons or on MTV or whatever else rotgut they watch, this message is consistently pummeled into them.  So now you've got a case of a 17-year-old kid who is afraid to drink water 'cause he thinks the world is going to run out if he does, and other people will die. 

Here's another example.  This clearly, to me, qualifies as global warming climate change delusion.  I don't know where this is from.  It's an AP story:  "Megan Schroeder rides her bike or walks to school to do her part to help the planet.  She also likes the incentives that her school, Bear Creek Elementary, uses to reward kids who ditch mom or dad's car in favor of biking or walking. 'You get treats, too -- usually some kind of food. I won a bike at the awards ceremony,' said Megan, 8, of Boulder, Colo. 'Since I like animals, I want to save the environment.'"  Hello, polar bear pictures.  Hello fraudulent polar bear pictures.  Hello, fraudulent penguin pictures.  Hello fraudulent scare stories about caribou and oil pipelines. 

"Across the country, schools are encouraging families to forgo their cars to promote healthy habits, relieve traffic congestion around school buildings and reduce auto emissions. Students who live too far to walk or bike are asked to form car pools, use public transportation or walk part of the way.  … Some parents worry about their children's safety, bad weather and heavy book bags. Many find it easier to drop their kids off at school on the way to work. 'I knew there was going to be some resistance from parents,' said Sal LaSpisa, school-age childcare director at the Garfield YMCA. 'They were apprehensive.'  But it usually didn't take them long to appreciate the value of walking, he said. 'They saw not only how great it is, but how simple it is.'  Walking provides an opportunity to exercise and socialize before school, proponents say, and can have a long-term impact on health."  See, it's all wrapped up here.  This is just an effort to totally control as much of individual life and decisions as possible, starting with these little skulls full of mush just waiting to absorb all kinds of rotgut drivel and bilge. 

It's gotten to the point now where people are actually thinking that if they get in a car, they're destroying the planet, and if they walk, they're saving the planet.  A bunch of people with meaningless lives who desperately want to matter, who desperately want to so-called contribute, and so they fall into these notions of doing silly things.  We just saw, was this in New York City?  That videotape?  It was some city, and what was it called, a green cargo bike.  It was a new way of transporting cargo in cities.  It looked like a four-wheel bicycle with some guy chugging along pedaling and so forth. (interruption) It was a girl, fine, doesn't matter.  Tight in the middle of all this traffic it's doing five miles an hour while cars are trying to get around it and doing their usual 30, 35, whatever the speed limit, whatever you can go in the city, whatever the speed limit will allow, and we're going back to rickshaws!  They're taking us back to rickshaws.  Don't say they're taking us back to the horse and buggy because they don't even allow those in New York and they're trying to stamp 'em out anyway 'cause of the horsies. (doing lib impression) "Yes, it's cruel to the horsies to have to pull all those fat people through Central Park on the heavy, ugly, hideous carriages.  The fat people, they should be walking through Central Park.  These poor horses are being abused, Mr. Limbaugh."  So they don't even want to take us back to the horse and buggy -- I'm on the verge of profanity here -- better take a time-out.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: I want to share a little bit more of this column from the Herald Sun from Australia with you, written by Andrew Bolt about the official psychiatric designation now of climate change delusion.  "And here is a senior Sydney Morning Herald journalist aghast at the horrors described in the report on global warming released on Friday by Rudd's guru, Professor Ross Garnaut: 'Australians must pay more for petrol, food and energy or ultimately face a rising death toll...'"  So I guess the prime minister's new campaign slogan when he's up for reelection will be: "Pay more for food or die."  As Mr. Bolt says, "We can laugh at this -- and must -- but the price for such folly may soon be your job, or at least your cash.   Rudd and Garnaut want to scare you into backing their plan to force people who produce everything from petrol to coal-fired electricity, from steel to soft drinks, to pay for licences to emit carbon dioxide -- the gas they think is heating the world to hell.   The cost of those licences, totalling in the billions, will then be passed on to you through higher bills for petrol, power, food, housing, air travel and anything else that uses lots of gassy power. In some countries they're even planning to tax farting cows, so there's no end to the ways you can be stung.   Rudd hopes this pain will make you switch to expensive but less gassy alternatives, and -- hey presto -- the world's temperature will then fall," already as it is. 

I've got a graph here sent to me by my Official EIB Climatologist, Dr. Roy Spencer.  He has a graph that he prepares.  It's tough to describe this on the radio.  I'll send this graph up to Koko, Jr., because Koko, Sr., is on vacation.  So I'll send this up to Koko, Jr.  But it is a chart of the global average temperatures from NOAA and NASA satellites beginning in 2006.  The chart runs all the way out through 2015.  On the left side, the temperature departure from normal in Celsius degrees, Algore is predicting that by 2015, we will have increased the global average temperature by .8 degree Celsius.  However, the actual temperatures, the global average temperatures since the middle of 2006 have fallen and in fact in June of this year, just a few short days ago, the readings for that month came out, and the global average temperature in June, in May, fell almost two-tenths of a degree Celsius.  After a high in about mid-2006 of the global average temperature being .6 degrees Celsius above mean, or above the norm, it's fallen from .6 above to .2 below since 2006.  It is cooling while we're pumping all these gases out there, it is cooling off around the world. 

I have another chart here.  By the way, these are actually graphs from many, many moons ago, on a science website that depict arctic ice.  Do you know the amount of ice in the arctic this month versus this month 20 years ago is identical?  There's not less ice now than there was then, and there's not more ice than there was then.  They say it's all going to disappear, which is nonsense.  Total, 100% hoax.  Meanwhile, while all this is going on, while the Australian government is telling its citizens, "Pay more or die," which is about what we're being told here, in fact, this poor kid in Australia thinks if he drinks the world's going to die so he's killing himself by not drinking.  They had to put him in a psycho ward.  Your kid could be next, folks.  Now, in China, the ChiComs released their own global warming strategy a year ago, its own Garnaut report -- this is Rudd's guru in Australia -- "which bluntly refused to cut its total emissions.   Said Ma Kai, head of China's powerful State Council: 'China does not commit to any quantified emissions-reduction commitments ... our efforts to fight climate change must not come at the expense of economic growth.'"  The ChiComs, of all people, get it!  The ChiComs! 

If anybody ought to be leading the charge on this, it would be socialist communists, but the ChiComs know full well the disaster that awaits anybody who buys into the delusion and the requirements to fulfill the delusion as advanced by Algore.  Mr. Bolt writes, "In fact, we had to get used to more gas from China, not less: 'It is quite inevitable that during this (industrialisation) stage, China's energy consumption and CO2 emissions will be quite high.'" Damn straight.  They're growing.  They're going to expand.  Here's another instance.  India.  India has said that it will not stop its per capita emissions from growing "until they match those of countries such as the US."  Right now the emissions per capita in India are 1.02 tons.  We are at 20 tons.  So the nation of India says, screw you, we're going to keep growing and we're going to keep emitting until we equal the United States.  Now, "Given it has one billion people, that's a promise to gas the world like it's never been gassed before. ... What makes the Indian report so interesting is that unlike our Ross Garnaut, who just accepted the word of those scientists wailing we faced doom, the Indian experts went to the trouble to check what the climate was actually doing and why. Their conclusion? They couldn't actually find anything bad in India that was caused by man-made warming: 'No firm link between the documented (climate) changes described below and warming due to anthropogenic climate change has yet been established.'   In fact, they couldn't find much change in the climate at all."  As their emissions are growing, they found no change in the climate in India whatsoever.  And this is because there isn't any. 

There isn't any change in the climate of the United States.  There's no change in the climate of China, other than it's more polluted.  There's no change in the climate of Australia.  The temperature is going down worldwide.  It's the forecasts of the apocalypse.  Oh, yes.  Going to happen ten years from now, 15, 20, 30, 40, 50 years from now, they say.  This is just the lull before the storm.  And don't forget, a bunch of these doomsayers actually admitted six months or so ago that ocean patterns in the Pacific were responsible for this cooling, and they were going to delay the onset of warming for nine years, but, boy, after those nine years, Katie, bar the door, batten down the hatches because we are gonna cook.  Meanwhile, with all these emissions, somehow the earth is finding a way to cool things.  I don't believe the emissions warm the planet in the first place. I don't buy any of it.  But your kids are being sold this bill of goods, folks.  They are eating it up.  Keep a sharp eye on them.  They might soon qualify for Climate Change Delusion Syndrome. 

END TRANSCRIPT


WeAreChange Brisbane
I hold personal views, beliefs and opinions that do not necessarily reflect the beliefs and opinions of WeAreChange Brisbane as a whole.

Our Bitcoin address: 1Fzb4bp48oMr7CFzT3SbkTzKpMSvWW1X1t

Offline mr anderson

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,355
    • WeAreChange Brisbane
WeAreChange Brisbane
I hold personal views, beliefs and opinions that do not necessarily reflect the beliefs and opinions of WeAreChange Brisbane as a whole.

Our Bitcoin address: 1Fzb4bp48oMr7CFzT3SbkTzKpMSvWW1X1t

Offline mr anderson

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,355
    • WeAreChange Brisbane
Re: On Tonight's Q & A: It's not easy being Green - Temp Sticky
« Reply #90 on: July 10, 2008, 08:45:52 AM »
Total whitewash...barely touched on whether man-made Climate Change is factual.

It just rattled on and on about left / right politics, carbon trading, chaos, havoc.. etc

The vodcast will be uploaded eventually so stay tuned to the Vodcast link above.
WeAreChange Brisbane
I hold personal views, beliefs and opinions that do not necessarily reflect the beliefs and opinions of WeAreChange Brisbane as a whole.

Our Bitcoin address: 1Fzb4bp48oMr7CFzT3SbkTzKpMSvWW1X1t

Offline mr anderson

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,355
    • WeAreChange Brisbane
Re: The real climate change culprit is methane gas from cows and sheep
« Reply #91 on: July 10, 2008, 09:31:55 AM »
WeAreChange Brisbane
I hold personal views, beliefs and opinions that do not necessarily reflect the beliefs and opinions of WeAreChange Brisbane as a whole.

Our Bitcoin address: 1Fzb4bp48oMr7CFzT3SbkTzKpMSvWW1X1t

Offline mr anderson

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,355
    • WeAreChange Brisbane
Re: On Tonight's Q & A: It's not easy being Green - Temp Sticky
« Reply #92 on: July 10, 2008, 09:37:22 AM »
Andrew Bolt no doubt will blog his thoughts on this 'debate'. I'll post it with agreeing annoyance. (Despite his obvious views about Iran)
WeAreChange Brisbane
I hold personal views, beliefs and opinions that do not necessarily reflect the beliefs and opinions of WeAreChange Brisbane as a whole.

Our Bitcoin address: 1Fzb4bp48oMr7CFzT3SbkTzKpMSvWW1X1t

Offline mr anderson

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,355
    • WeAreChange Brisbane
WeAreChange Brisbane
I hold personal views, beliefs and opinions that do not necessarily reflect the beliefs and opinions of WeAreChange Brisbane as a whole.

Our Bitcoin address: 1Fzb4bp48oMr7CFzT3SbkTzKpMSvWW1X1t

Offline mr anderson

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,355
    • WeAreChange Brisbane
Garnaut rules out emissions trading petrol price link
« Reply #94 on: July 11, 2008, 04:33:48 AM »
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/07/11/2301520.htm



Video: Petrol price hikes will have 'severe consequences' (ABC News)
http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200807/r270506_1136701.asx
http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200807/r270495_1136635.asx

Audio: Forum calls for Govt action on fuel dependency (The World Today)
http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/news/audio/twt/200807/20080711-twt-02-csiro-report.mp3
http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/news/audio/twt/200807/20080711-twt-01-climate-politics.mp3

Related: Petrol report a wake-up call: environmentalists
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/07/11/2301042.htm

Petrol tipped to hit $8 a litre by 2018
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/07/11/2301042.htm


The Federal Government's climate change adviser, Ross Garnaut, has ruled out a link between an emissions trading scheme and rising petrol prices. A new CSIRO report predicts the cost of petrol could blow out to $8 per litre by 2018. The Fuel for Thought report also suggests an emissions trading program will have only a moderate impact on petrol prices.

Professor Garnaut has told a forum in Brisbane that oil is a separate issue.

"That has nothing to do with the emissions trading scheme," he said.

"That's what happens, they think as a result of increases in global oil prices and if that happens it's got nothing to do with the emissions trading scheme."

Professor Garnaut also says the trucking industry should not be compensated if an emissions trading scheme is introduced. But he says the scheme will have a minimal impact on fuel prices compared to rising oil prices.

"The people who pay the high prices should be compensated not the trucking industry," he said.

"I think there's a lot of exaggeration going on and the important thing is that when some goods and services rise there's adequate compensation in other ways for low income Australian households."

But Queensland's Transport Workers Union president Hughie Williams says the emissions trading scheme will increase fuel prices significantly. He says some trucking companies will go out of business without compensation.

"If fuel goes up cartage must go up and if cartage goes up to any of the major retail stores then up goes the price of the prices and the cost of living," Mr Williams said.

"So irrespective of what they do truck drivers have got to be reimbursed because if they don't get reimbursed they can't afford to have their truck on the road."

Professor Garnaut told the forum Queensland could be one of the nation's biggest losers if no action is taken to mitigate against climate change. He said that Queensland shares a big interest in getting it right.

"There are serious risks to the Great Barrier Reef, the drying and warming of southern Australia will have its effects through the Darling Downs and the rest of the Queensland... end of the Murray Darling system," he said.

"The warming of the state, that's already a warm state, will have significant health impacts."

'Confused and divided'

Meanwhile, the Federal Government says a split in the Opposition shows the Liberals cannot be trusted to respond to climate change. There has been a policy shift in the Opposition over an emissions trading scheme. Opposition Leader Brendan Nelson is no longer committed to the cap and trade scheme that has been favoured by the Government. That puts him at odds with his Treasury spokesman and leadership rival Malcolm Turnbull, who supports a cap and trade scheme. Climate Change Minister Penny Wong says the Opposition is confused and divided.

"It depends who in the Opposition you listen to," she said.

"If you listen to Mr Turnbull he seems to be very clear that the Opposition is committed to an emissions trading scheme, but it appears he and Dr Nelson are completely divided on this issue."
WeAreChange Brisbane
I hold personal views, beliefs and opinions that do not necessarily reflect the beliefs and opinions of WeAreChange Brisbane as a whole.

Our Bitcoin address: 1Fzb4bp48oMr7CFzT3SbkTzKpMSvWW1X1t

Offline mr anderson

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,355
    • WeAreChange Brisbane
Seeking the middle
« Reply #95 on: July 11, 2008, 06:12:17 AM »
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/seeking-the-middle-20080711-3do3.html?page=-1

Katharine Murphy
July 12, 2008


The Prime Minister has begun testing the water on his compromise approach to climate change.

KEVIN Rudd in the early months of his prime ministership hasn't always got his pitch right on the region. It's been patchy. Star turns in China, to be sure, but a wobble on Japan. An over-shoot, at the beginning at least, on his hurriedly ventilated "big" idea of a European Union-style Asia-Pacific Community. A solid and future-looking move on a new nuclear non-proliferation commission with Gareth Evans at the helm, but again a little rushed and harried in the presentation. Somewhat surprising really for a former diplomat, this struggle for elegant form and practised rhythm.

But this week at the Group of Eight meeting in Hokkaido, Rudd was back on his game. He looked comfortable. While he maintained his usual breakneck speed, he kept his presentation simple, a departure from the confused messages of recent weeks, with the Opposition taking populist potshots on petrol prices and the tough political nut of emissions trading.

Nothing much of substance happened at the G8 summit on the most significant challenge before the world — the potentially catastrophic impacts of global warming — (an eventuality, incidentally, that the Australian Prime Minister correctly and frankly predicted before the talks began).

Not much progress in the global sense, but more locally, something quite significant happened. Rudd managed to find the highest of high-level forums to practise his political message on the planet, and it is an interesting one. It is, potentially, a middle way through the mess of conflicting interests holding the environment to ransom. It is a message pitched for a Washington after George Bush, and for China and India, countries with whom Australia's economic future is now inextricably linked. In all the hullabaloo of thundering helicopters and powwows for the world's most powerful politicians in remote Japanese luxury hotels, Rudd's modest message got a bit swamped. Possibly not for the leaders for whom it was pitched, but certainly for the wider world, which was far more focused on understanding where the real powerbrokers were on the issues of substance than on the utterances of a little known middle-power leader still finding his political feet.

To understand Rudd's new framing on what is required politically on global warming, you need to understand the dynamics of the global debate on climate change. The United States, despite the lame-duck presidency of George Bush, is still in the driver's seat, and its message is clear. This problem will not be solved unless we all work to solve it and not just the rich nations. That means poorer countries will need to accept binding targets to cut their greenhouse gases just as rich countries do. Bush and his Administration have been nothing short of an abomination for a positive international agreement on climate, but there is logic as well as self-interest in his position.

Now we must enter the warring camp: the emerging economic giants of China and India. This is their century, and they won't let a policy debate on the future of the planet impact too savagely on their aspirations to become major economic and political (super)powers. So we have equally strident rhetoric from the leaders of the developing world. No nasty targets potentially clipping our wings, thanks very much, we've got an economic boom to get on with here, and a whole generation to lift out of poverty.

Enter Kevin Rudd, sandwiched uniquely between Australia's long-held emotional and strategic alliance with the United States, and a practical understanding and sympathy with the aspirations of the emerging nations of our region. Rudd is the bloke who has declared this the Asia-Pacific century. This rather grand-sounding declaration stitches together a geopolitical patchwork of Australia, the US, China and the Asian region, all with separate national interests, but with a common destiny. Rudd's idea sees America very much with Asia and Australia, not pursuing foreign policy isolationism as a reaction to recent bad decisions, such as the terrible quagmire of Iraq.

Perched on that peculiar but useful viewing platform, we heard Rudd this week beginning to road-test the language of compromise on global warming. It emerged rather suddenly, but elegantly enough from a podium in an obscure press briefing room at the G8 summit.

Rudd developed a nomenclature this week that can potentially, with frankness between heads of governments and with political will, tie the interests of the key players together. His formula works like this: rich countries adopt binding targets to cut emissions. Poor countries accept something called "measurable and verifiable actions" to achieve the same result. Yes, make a note of it, voters, because I suspect you'll be hearing it quite a bit over the next year or so. That's "measurable and verifiable actions".

It's quite similar to the Coalition government's broad position on the international climate framework, but until the G8 meeting, we hadn't really heard Rudd make the language his own. We don't know precisely what his formulation for the developing world means yet, but it could be anything from a target that dare not speak its name, to something a bit softer than a target, such as commitments on increasing energy efficiency, or boosting the use of renewables or other low emission technologies such as nuclear power in the overall energy mix. But certainly the word "target" — the simple world that has polarised the world in this debate — was not uttered once in relation to the developing world by Australia's Prime Minister in Hokkaido, or after it during his whistle-stop tour of Kuala Lumpur, and the omission was quite clearly deliberate.

The body language of Malaysia's Abdullah Badawi signalled that Rudd might be on to something with his formula. The Malaysian Prime Minister had a slightly unexpected take on the events in Hokkaido when he spoke to journalists on Thursday from his opulent offices just outside Kuala Lumpur: China and India, natural allies of Malaysia in this debate, might need to tone down their rhetoric just a bit if humanity actually wanted to fix the mess. Rich countries of course needed to do more, Abdullah opined when asked what he thought should be done to curb runaway emissions, but the region wasn't exactly helping at the moment by the stridency of the talk. If the end point was to reach an agreement, not just indulge in an exercise of asserting unfiltered national interests, then compromise may be in order. "Some on our side, China and India, have a very, very strong position on this," Abdullah said carefully. "Of course they have very persuasive, very strong arguments, but still, it does not help us to deal with the subject of climate change and greenhouse gases." Cut through the diplomatic words and you get: hey guys, you just might need to tone it down. Despite the question mark over Abdullah's longevity in Malaysian politics, Rudd would have been pleased with that observation.

Rudd was most comfortable in last year's election campaign when he pitched to the centre. Now we find him doing it again on climate. Perhaps that's what gave him a spring in his step this week as he raced across the region.

Next week, the challenge will be his Government's green paper pitching the way forward on carbon trading. Watch this space.

Katharine Murphy is national affairs correspondent. She covered Kevin Rudd's visit to Japan and Malaysia.
WeAreChange Brisbane
I hold personal views, beliefs and opinions that do not necessarily reflect the beliefs and opinions of WeAreChange Brisbane as a whole.

Our Bitcoin address: 1Fzb4bp48oMr7CFzT3SbkTzKpMSvWW1X1t

Offline Kilika

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,762
  • Thank you Jesus!
Re: The real climate change culprit is methane gas from cows and sheep
« Reply #96 on: July 11, 2008, 05:06:29 PM »
Cow farts? OMG, these people have absolutely lost their minds!
"For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows."
1 Timothy 6:10 (KJB)

Offline mr anderson

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,355
    • WeAreChange Brisbane
Flying into an apocalypse
« Reply #97 on: July 11, 2008, 10:12:47 PM »
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24006174-5000117,00.html

Chris Wallace
July 12, 2008 12:00am


IT'S that time of year - the annual migration of 737s north to Brisbane and Maroochydore airports. South Yarra-by-the-Sea (aka Noosa) takes shape as holidaying Melburnians don bathers and thongs and hoist their boards for a mid-year defrosting. One of the first things most of the holidaying Melburnians will do is line up for a coffee at the hottest caf in Hastings St, just opposite the main alleyway to Noosa beach.

Queueing is an interesting phenomenon. If you're reading this column, you're vicariously experiencing it: I'm writing it standing in a queue to buy the new Apple iPhone. The iPhone is hot, yet the sales process is not. The telco I'm dealing with seems unable to process sales in under an hour per customer. We've all settled in for a long wait.

There's one group who to date have never had to queue: polluters.

They've had an open-slather suck-it-up attitude to the environment. The Rudd Government's efforts to design an emissions trading system are kind of like the creation of a queueing system for polluters -- and that would be progress on the current "throw it into the atmosphere in bulk and damn the consequences" approach at present. My other queueing experience this week -- for coffee at that hot Hastings St caf -- got me thinking about how slow we humans often are on the uptake about important things.

Looking across Hastings St to Noosa's beachfront hotels, the literally named On The Beach caught my eye. On The Beach -- like the Neville Shute novel of the same name, set in Melbourne -- about the end of the world, which is slowly being choked by a cloud of nuclear radiation. In the novel, and in the film starring Ava Gardner (right), Melbourne is the last city on Earth still alive before the cloud hits. Turns out the threat is carbon dioxide, not nuclear radiation.

Turns out Melbourne isn't at the end of the annihilation queue but rather is scheduled for asphyxiation at the same time as the rest of the planet. And here is Melbourne, happily checked in to the On The Beach hotel in Noosa without a care in the world -- except, if you asked most of them, about the future of the planet. They'll come home soon, flying back on the 737s, back to their homes five times as big as the ones they grew up in, with four-wheel drives in the garage.

As they join in the debate about the Garnaut Report, they might give a thought to what they -- not just the Government -- might be able to do to head off the real-life Neville Shute scenario heading our way.

http://www.garnautreview.org.au/domino/Web_Notes/Garnaut/garnautweb.nsf

We won't be able to phone home if we don't.

There'll be no one left.

Chris Wallace is editor of www.breakfastpolitics.com
WeAreChange Brisbane
I hold personal views, beliefs and opinions that do not necessarily reflect the beliefs and opinions of WeAreChange Brisbane as a whole.

Our Bitcoin address: 1Fzb4bp48oMr7CFzT3SbkTzKpMSvWW1X1t

Offline mr anderson

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,355
    • WeAreChange Brisbane
Emissions of fear, greed
« Reply #98 on: July 11, 2008, 11:51:49 PM »
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24006173-5000117,00.html


Hot air over Canberra: the spectre of global warming hovers over Parliament House in the shape of a Greenpeace balloon. Picture: Belinda Pratten (Not to mention seeing Socialism and Masonry all together)

Laurie Oakes
July 12, 2008 12:00am


ACCORDING to a crusty and cynical observer of the Canberra scene, "There are two things that work in politics: fear and greed."

The way John Howard fought his most successful campaigns is proof enough of that observation. Where possible, Howard took out insurance by running on greed and fear together, but the political battle over an emissions trading system is shaping as a contest between the two.

Kevin Rudd is using fear. Brendan Nelson is pinning his hopes on greed.

The Government's climate change adviser, economics professor Ross Garnaut, set the scene for Rudd with his 600-page report recommending an emissions trading scheme to reduce the amount of carbon being pumped into the atmosphere.

http://www.garnautreview.org.au/domino/Web_Notes/Garnaut/garnautweb.nsf

Act now or face catastrophe was the Garnaut message.

Without action, jobs would be lost, thousands of people in northern Australia would die as temperatures increased, the Barrier Reef and Kakadu would be destroyed and agriculture in the Murray-Darling Basin would be impossible.

There was lots more. It was apocalyptic stuff.

Nelson's counter is to say, in effect: "Sure the planet's under threat, but think of your hip pocket. Do you really want to embrace something that will increase prices? Let others take the lead while we look after No. 1."

The Opposition Leader does not put it quite so crudely, of course, but that is the message he wants to convey.

Some radio shock jocks have also adopted the Nelson line that, by deciding to introduce an emissions trading system in 2010, Rudd is rushing ahead of the rest of the world and putting Australia's economic interests at risk. What is the point of putting a price on carbon here, they say, unless the major emitters -- particularly the US and China -- are prepared to do the same.

But there are strong arguments for Australia to act now, as some of Nelson's more principled colleagues acknowledge.

Here are a few of them.

First, because of the Mandarin-speaking Rudd's understanding of China and Australia's close relationship with the US, he is in a unique position to influence Washington and Beijing on the issue. Republicans and Democrats I met in Washington recently told me Rudd can play a role in bringing the US and China together on climate change once George W. Bush is replaced in the White House by either Barack Obama or John McCain.

Rudd understands this, and is preparing to act as a go-between.

It is a major reason he is attending the opening of the Olympic Games.

He wants to keep his "in" with China's leadership so he can engage in effective climate change shuttle diplomacy between Beijing and Washington. But Rudd would have no credibility as an intermediary if Australia failed to show it was prepared to take action itself.

Second, starting early is more likely to give Australia an advantage than to damage its economic interests. This is why Treasury under Peter Costello wanted the Howard government to commit itself to an emissions trading system back in 2003. Documents I have seen from that time show Treasury recommended the Government "agree that Australia could move to a mandatory national emissions trading scheme, some time after 2008, even if equivalent mitigation action has not been taken by our major trading partners".

Treasury said early action would "reduce uncertainty for industry about how a lower emissions signature will be achieved and thus position the economy for any long-term structural change".

It said: "Many greenhouse-intense processes, such as electricity generation, involve long-lived assets -- a power station has an economic life of up to 60 years.

"It is desirable that investment decisions in greenhouse-intense industries consider possible future emissions constraints."

Costello's Treasury also advised that: "Early action on climate change is likely to strengthen Australia's international reputation and assist with future bilateral and multilateral climate change negotiations."

Costello put the recommendation to Cabinet but Howard scuttled it, costing us nearly five years in preparation time.

Howard eventually reversed his position and committed his government to an emissions trading system in the run-up to the election last year. Third, getting in early will enable Australia to influence the kind of carbon-pricing system other countries adopt.

As the Howard government's policy document said: "Our first-hand experience in implementing a range of domestic measures, including an emissions trading system and various technology and energy efficiency measures, will be invaluable to others."

Fourth, Australia will not be the odd one out. A significant part of the world has moved or is moving on emissions trading.

Trading operates in Europe and several US states. New Zealand is embarking on it and Japan plans to.

The next US president -- whether Obama or McCain -- will be in favour of it.

Also, Australia will have the option of starting its scheme with a very low carbon price, then cranking it up as an international system develops. A low initial price makes sense anyway as a means of winning public acceptance. This is what the Howard government planned to do -- have an innocuous carbon price at first so that voters would say, "Well, that wasn't so bad."

Fortunately for Rudd, Nelson's blatantly opportunistic approach to the debate over emissions trading has again exposed his leadership shortcomings. Nelson lacks the smarts and the subtlety to cloak his populism with an appearance of principle.

He lacks the self-discipline to stick to an agreed position.

"We should not start an emissions trading scheme in Australia until we are absolutely confident . . . that the rest of the world has set a date for dealing with climate change," he said on Monday. That came as a surprise to colleagues. There had been a decision that the coalition would stick to the position adopted by the Howard government to introduce an emissions trading system by 2012 irrespective of other countries.

But even after shadow treasurer Malcolm Turnbull, deputy leader Julie Bishop and environment spokesman Greg Hunt corrected him publicly, Nelson was still proclaiming that a starting date should be subject to "firm commitments from the rest of the world in terms of what they are going to do".

That resulted in an embarrassing TV appearance by Turnbull on Wednesday in which he told an interviewer: "We've discussed this in our leadership group with Brendan Nelson, we've been through it last week, we've been through it this week. I've spoken to Brendan at some length about this. I spoke to Peter Hendy, his chief of staff, earlier this evening."

His frustration was palpable.

Turnbull must have been at screaming point yesterday when Nelson suddenly started talking about abandoning the kind of scheme now getting international support and moving in a new direction altogether.

That really would leave Australia out.

Fear and greed might work in politics, but confusion and disunity do not.

Laurie Oakes is political editor for the Nine Network. He appears each week on the Sunday program and his column appears in the Herald Sun every Saturday.
WeAreChange Brisbane
I hold personal views, beliefs and opinions that do not necessarily reflect the beliefs and opinions of WeAreChange Brisbane as a whole.

Our Bitcoin address: 1Fzb4bp48oMr7CFzT3SbkTzKpMSvWW1X1t

Offline mr anderson

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,355
    • WeAreChange Brisbane
Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
« Reply #99 on: July 12, 2008, 05:00:15 AM »
US: Climate change too complex for action

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,24009386-23109,00.html
From correspondents in Washington

July 12, 2008 05:09pm
Agence France-Presse


THE Bush administration has made clear it is postponing any regulatory action on greenhouse gas emissions believed to be responsible for global warning, citing "the complexity and magnitude" of the issue.

The decision follows last year's ruling by the US Supreme Court, which said that the Environmental Protection Agency must devise ways to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions from motor vehicles under the Clean Air Act.

But the EPA said in a 588-page report released yesterday that given "the complexity and magnitude of the question", there were doubts whether "greenhouse gases could be effectively controlled under the Clean Air Act".

EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson said that rather than attempt to forge a consensus "on matters of great complexity, controversy, and active legislative debate," he had decided to publish the views of other agencies and to seek comment on them during a 120-day review period.

The delay, observers indicate, means that any substantive regulatory action will be almost certainly left to the next administration.

"One point is clear: the potential regulation of greenhouse gases under any portion of the Clean Air Act could result in an unprecedented expansion of EPA authority that would have a profound effect on virtually every sector of the economy and touch every household in the land," Mr Johnson wrote.

In a political blow to President George W Bush, the Supreme Court ruled in April 2007 that the EPA must consider greenhouse gases as pollutants and deal with them.

The ruling came in response to legal action undertaken by Massachusetts and a dozen other states and environmental groups that went to court to determine whether the agency had the authority to regulate greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide emissions.

The Bush administration has fiercely opposed any imposition of binding emissions limits on the nation's industry and has refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol on reducing greenhouse gas blamed for global warming.

Environmentalists have alleged that since President Bush came to office in 2001, his administration has ignored and tried to hide looming evidence of global warming and the key role of human activity in climate change.

At a hearing in November 2006, Massachusetts argued that it risked losing more than 4.5 metres of land all along its coastline if the sea level should rise by 30 centimetres.

But the Bush administration, backed by nine states and several auto manufacturers, urged the court not to intervene, arguing that if the situation was so dire it could not be solved by a simple legal decision.

It further argued that reducing emissions from new US motor vehicles would have only a minor effect on global climate change.

While the court's decision is unlikely to change US policy, it has ramifications on several other ongoing issues, such as the agency's refusal to regulate emissions from electricity plants which produce some 40 per cent of US carbon dioxide emissions. Motor vehicles are responsible for just 20 per cent.

The EPA's decision to again delay action has sparked sharp criticism from congressional Democrats.

"The Bush administration decision today to effectively reject regulation of global warming pollution under the Clean Air Act creates a clear and present danger to the American people," said Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer of California, who chairs the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

"Despite the Supreme Court's finding that EPA was ducking its responsibility under the law to control global warming emissions, the Bush administration continues to block all action," she added.
WeAreChange Brisbane
I hold personal views, beliefs and opinions that do not necessarily reflect the beliefs and opinions of WeAreChange Brisbane as a whole.

Our Bitcoin address: 1Fzb4bp48oMr7CFzT3SbkTzKpMSvWW1X1t

Offline mr anderson

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,355
    • WeAreChange Brisbane
Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
« Reply #100 on: July 12, 2008, 11:21:58 PM »
1000 polluters to be made to pay up

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,24012491-2,00.html

    * Penny Wong to outline emissions trading plan
    * Says up to 1000 polluters will be involved
    * FAQ: Why you'll pay for their pollution


ABOUT 1000 of the nation's biggest polluters will be required to purchase permits under an emissions trading scheme (ETS), Climate Change Minister Penny Wong has said. The Federal Government will release on Wednesday a Green Paper on an ETS, which is likely to include a proposed model. Senator Wong has said the Government estimated about 1000 Australian business would be required to take part in the scheme.

"The government puts a limit on how much carbon pollution is permitted, we issue permits up to that limit for companies, and it is each of those permits which creates a price, therefore an incentive to reduce pollution," Senator Wong said on ABC Television.

"We anticipate approximately ... 1000 Australian companies will be required to take permits under this scheme.  Obviously, we will focus primarily on the large polluters."

Following a week of confusion, Dr Nelson yesterday agreed to support a scheme but said he wanted Australia to put more pressure on the world's largest polluters to follow suit. Senator Wong said the Opposition's policy position on climate change was still unclear.

"I'm not quite sure what Dr Nelson's position is, it seems to have changed a number of times in the last week," Senator Wong said.

Ms Wong said the government was conscious of the rest of the world but was committed to a 2010 start-up date.

"This country has a very clear economic interest in a strong global agreement. We have to push very strongly the international agreement, and we also have to implement an effective domestic policy. We are very aware ... that the longer you delay the higher the costs are likely to be."
WeAreChange Brisbane
I hold personal views, beliefs and opinions that do not necessarily reflect the beliefs and opinions of WeAreChange Brisbane as a whole.

Our Bitcoin address: 1Fzb4bp48oMr7CFzT3SbkTzKpMSvWW1X1t

Offline mr anderson

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,355
    • WeAreChange Brisbane
Top 1000 polluters to need permits
« Reply #101 on: July 13, 2008, 09:50:17 PM »
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24014870-601,00.html

Matthew Franklin and David Uren | July 14, 2008


PENNY Wong has assured businesses they will not face a GST-style red tape tangle when the Rudd Government introduces its planned emissions trading scheme to tackle climate change.

The Climate Change Minister revealed yesterday that only the 1000 biggest polluters of the business world - such as power companies - would have to purchase emissions permits under the system.

But she also insisted the ETS, the subject of a green paper to be released on Wednesday, would encompass the entire economy.

Senator Wong's comments came as the Make Poverty History movement called for the Government to create a new migration category for climate change refugees - Pacific Island resident whose homes are likely to be inundated by rising sea levels.

The Climate Institute think tank also released a report warning that Australia needed to do much more on energy efficiency to maximise its response to climate change.

Senator Wong's long-awaited green paper will give the first real indication of the detail of the Government's ETS plan and will come less than a fortnight after its climate change adviser, Ross Garnaut, released a draft report recommending a comprehensive scheme to begin in 2010. Government sources said it would focus not only on emissions trading, but would cover a broader agenda as part of a carbon pollution reduction scheme.

Interviewed on ABC television yesterday, Senator Wong said the Government would put a limit on permitted carbon pollution and issue permits up to that limit to big polluters.

"It is the issue of those permits which creates a price, therefore an incentive to reduce pollution," she said. "We'd anticipate approximately 1000 Australian companies would be required to obtain permits under the scheme. Obviously, we'll focus primarily on the large polluters."

She said some people had been suggesting the scheme would be as disruptive as the introduction of the GST. "Well that involved two million, I think, Australian companies. Here we're talking about around about 1000 Australian companies."

But Senator Wong said the effect of the permits would wash through the community in a "whole-of-economy approach".

Under the new arrangements, about 1000 companies would report on their greenhouse gas emissions. These are corporate groups that emit 125,000 tonnes a year of greenhouse gas, or have individual plants emitting 25,000 tonnes of gas a year (about the same as 6200 vehicles).

Companies which produce or consume more than 500 terajoules of energy, or have individual plants using or producing 100 terajoules (about the same as 1900 households) would also have to report.

Economist Brian Fisher said that even though only 1000 permits would be issued, the effect would be be felt widely.

Dr Fisher, director of Concept Economics, said the Government had said the emissions trading system would cover as many sectors of the economy as possible and had not resiled from its goal of 60 per cent emissions cuts below the level of 2000 by 2050.

"These are deep, long-term cuts and to achieve them you have to decarbonise large sections of Australian business," he said.

"The indirect effects of an increase in the cost of fossil fuel will cascade throughout the economy.

"It is not the bureaucratic imposition which is worrying, because it will affect a small number of firms. Rather, it is the indirect impact of the increases in fossil fuel prices and the possibility that various major employers will find it more sensible to shift operations offshore where they won't be subject to these impositions."

Make Poverty History, a coalition of churches and welfare and environmental groups, argues in its report that Kevin Rudd should provide global leadership in persuading other nations to accept climate change refugees.

It says the Pacific nation of Tuvalu has already lost about 1m of land around its circumference to rising sea levels and that the people of the Carteret Islands are planning permanent relocation to Bougainville. The report says Australia must be prepared to accept migrants.

"Relocation of people is a last resort," said MPH spokesman James Ensor. "But Australia needs to be better prepared for that ... and implementing a quota for climate change refugees is a big part of that."

While people were worried about the cost of dealing with climate change, they should see beyond their borders to understand whole nations were threatened.

The Climate Institute's report on energy efficiency, released last night, finds that only the US and Canada are less efficient than Australia among a group of nine OECD nations studied in a report prepared by consultant McLennan Magasanik Associates.
WeAreChange Brisbane
I hold personal views, beliefs and opinions that do not necessarily reflect the beliefs and opinions of WeAreChange Brisbane as a whole.

Our Bitcoin address: 1Fzb4bp48oMr7CFzT3SbkTzKpMSvWW1X1t

Offline mr anderson

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,355
    • WeAreChange Brisbane
Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
« Reply #102 on: July 14, 2008, 12:20:27 AM »
Economist lays down the law on climate science

GREENCHIP: Matthew Warren | July 14, 2008

THE Rudd Government is just one input into his thinking on climate change, Ross Garnaut told a National Press Club lunch on July 4. The tail is now wagging the dog.

Garnaut is working for Kevin Rudd in name only. The separation is all but complete. He has undergone a transformation over the past six months, from eminent trade economist and ambassador to activist academic: the new expert voice of climate change policy in Australia.

On Friday July 4, Garnaut released his complex and detailed 537-page draft advice on climate change policy and on July 7 he began a whirlwind public lecture tour of the capitals to share it with the public.

Garnaut is not the minister and his report is not even draft government policy. He is an adviser to the federal Government and his public meetings were arranged without its assent or endorsement. The last unelected citizens to play to sell-out town hall meetings around the country were The Beatles in 1964.

Justified as a fast-track exercise in consultation, this was a statement of political intent. Garnaut is a player. During the lectures he dismissed criticism of his report from NSW Treasurer Michael Costa because of his scepticism of climate science.

Garnaut has abandoned the pro-forma of previous independent policy review processes such as the Parer review of energy markets in 2002 or the Ralph review of business taxation by businessman John Ralph in 1999. They sought to progress thinking on their equally complex drafts by listening intently to feedback provided through a further round of comments, or at the very least, public hearings around the country.

Garnaut, however, has not appeared particularly interested in feedback from the outset.

Despite receiving more than 4000 submissions this year he has acceded on only one aspect of policy design since March: that there may be some consideration of a two-year interim start.

Garnaut's office claims the public meetings were viewed as the most effective way of getting feedback on the draft report in limited time. The claim is farcical.

Having posted the report on the web at Friday lunchtime, Garnaut was in Perth town hall the following Monday morning delivering a 40-minute lecture and fielding questions from a hall filled mainly by interested retirees, mums and dads, and activists.

Electricity generators and emissions-intense, trade-exposed industries have been most critical of Garnaut's reasoning. They have the most to lose from his proposals and are among the most expert contrary voices in the debate. Garnaut met them at the start of the review process and read their submissions. What else is there to learn?

Last week, these vested interests apparently had their chance to queue up and ask a question along with everyone else. There is no other formal consultation or opportunity for them to feed into the final versions of Garnaut's report due at the end of August and September. Debate is effectively over.

This ideological stand-off represents a fundamental failure of the Garnaut review process. Major generators will continue to argue that Garnaut's plan for a fast start to emissions trading will be brutally effective, almost immediately shutting down all of Victoria's brown coal power stations.

They have been showing anyone who will listen their own energy market modelling that shows all La Trobe Valley generators unable even to cover costs above a carbon price of $15 a tonne. Because of this, trade-exposed energy-intense industries warn of the calamitous economic effects of skyrocketing electricity prices.

From the outset, Garnaut has dismissed such pleas like a disinterested soccer referee waving away a dive in the penalty box. He claims they have had plenty of time to prepare for this transition, and last week he twice accused generators of going slow on developing clean coal technology to improve their case of compensation. It's an unusual accusation given the most optimistic projections suggest it will not be operating until 2020.

Garnaut has instead maintained his confidence in the market to resolve problems smoothly and his view that compensation should be granted only in exceptional circumstances. Given the scale of the problem, the trading scheme should embrace global prices as quickly as possible.

This leaves Kevin Rudd with a multibillion-dollar game of chicken: believe the generators and risk paying out billions in unnecessary compensation, or believe Garnaut and risk multibillion-dollar losses across the economy and the political fallout of skyrocketing energy prices.

This political headache is entirely of Rudd's creation.

He appointed the eminent trade economist during last year's election campaign and put him on a pedestal in the front room of Labor's climate change strategy, armed with the broadest terms of reference, which have translated into a licence to say anything.

Garnaut will still be around after his final report in September. He will be approached by journalists every time the Government does anything contrary to his advice. On current form, he will be only too keen to inform the nation of his views.
WeAreChange Brisbane
I hold personal views, beliefs and opinions that do not necessarily reflect the beliefs and opinions of WeAreChange Brisbane as a whole.

Our Bitcoin address: 1Fzb4bp48oMr7CFzT3SbkTzKpMSvWW1X1t

Offline mr anderson

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,355
    • WeAreChange Brisbane
Rudd talks tough on climate change
« Reply #103 on: July 14, 2008, 06:03:45 AM »
http://news.theage.com.au/national/rudd-talks-tough-on-climate-change-20080714-3em9.html

Climate Change mentioned: 7 times

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd is talking tough on climate change as the government prepares to launch a major paper on emissions trading on Wednesday. The much anticipated "options paper" will sketch out how emissions trading will work, and give hints as to which sectors of the economy will be hardest hit.

On Monday, Mr Rudd seized upon a CSIRO report on the once mighty Murray River to talk up the need for urgent action on climate change. This is despite the report pointing the finger at irrigators, rather than climate change, for the worst of the Murray's problems.

"Tackling the problems in the Murray-Darling Basin requires serious action on climate change," Mr Rudd said as he visited the Hume Dam on the Murray River, near Albury.

"We're moving to tackle climate change with a new scheme to reduce the carbon pollution that causes climate change."

Mr Rudd also revealed a new name for the Emissions Trading Scheme - it's now called the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.

The CSIRO report predicts a drier future for the Murray River region - which covers southern NSW and northern Victoria - under climate change. Under the "most likely" climate scenario, water levels would drop by 14 per cent by 2030.

The worst case scenario predicts a 41 per cent drop in water levels, while the flow of water out of the Murray's mouth would be slashed by almost 70 per cent.But the report shows climate change is not entirely to blame for the parlous state of the Murray-Darling basin. Over half the water in the basin - 56 per cent of it - is taken out for development each year, an amount labelled "extremely high".

Dr Tom Hatton, director of the CSIRO's Water for a Healthy Country Flagship, said over-extraction was a major factor in the state of the Murray-Darling.

"Even if the climate isn't changing, we've changed the river," Dr Hatton told AAP.

"It would be up to our democracy, having done that math, what they wanted to do about it."

Victorian Farmers' Federation (VFF) water spokesman Richard Anderson said irrigators should not be blamed for the Murray-Darling's problems, which he said had been caused by the drought. Mr Anderson said irrigators had been set a cap on how much water they could extract and had kept below that cap.

He said the cap "may well be" too high, but it was to be reviewed in the coming years. Drier conditions, partly caused by climate change, would lead to new plans for irrigators, Mr Anderson said. Meanwhile, a new report warned emissions trading could cost 15,000 jobs in Australia's aluminium sector.

The Australian Workers' Union (AWU) report warned if the emissions trading scheme (ETS) was poorly designed, it could force smelters and refineries offshore. The report recommends a partial exemption of the aluminium industry from the proposed ETS for up to five years to allow it to invest in carbon neutral energy sources.

But a report by the Climate Institute shows Australia's energy productivity lags far behind other developed countries across many sectors of the economy. When it comes to manufacturing, Australia is the second most inefficient of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries. Australia has the third most energy-hungry economy, after Canada and the US, and the third highest energy use per passenger kilometres travelled.

Many modern aluminium smelters overseas had better efficiency standards, institute chief executive John Connor said.

The only person not having their say on emissions trading this week is Opposition Leader Brendan Nelson, who is on leave.

© 2008 AAP
WeAreChange Brisbane
I hold personal views, beliefs and opinions that do not necessarily reflect the beliefs and opinions of WeAreChange Brisbane as a whole.

Our Bitcoin address: 1Fzb4bp48oMr7CFzT3SbkTzKpMSvWW1X1t

Offline TruthHunter

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 637
Re: Rudd talks tough on climate change
« Reply #104 on: July 14, 2008, 07:43:05 AM »
Rudd is a hypocrite. He talks about climate change, while at the same time his country is the largest exporter of coal in the world and their two biggest customers are India and China who openly defy the world by building coal fired electricity plants at a record pace. A bit of a contradiction, there.

Offline mr anderson

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,355
    • WeAreChange Brisbane
More coal protest arrests at Newcastle
« Reply #105 on: July 14, 2008, 09:41:07 AM »
http://news.smh.com.au/national/more-coal-protest-arrests-at-newcastle-20080714-3eos.html

July 14, 2008 - 7:22PM


Police arrested another nine people on Monday as climate change protests continued at the Newcastle port for a sixth day.

The latest arrests follow 37 on Sunday, with environment groups aiming to shut down coal exports from Newcastle, the world's biggest coal port.

Five activists chained themselves to a conveyor belt at the Kooragang coal export terminal at the port about 6am (AEST) Monday, halting coal loading for more than two hours.

The five were arrested and later charged with entering enclosed lands.

In the second action, four protesters sat on the tracks at the Carrington terminal at about 4pm, forcing a coal train to stop before padlocking themselves to the train.

Police were called in to cut the group free after about an hour, with charges expected to be laid later Monday.

In similar actions on Sunday, around 1,000 people marched on the Carrington terminal, with 100 scaling or cutting through fences to enter the rail corridor, bringing the busy facility to a standstill.

Protesters from across Australia have converged on Newcastle for the protest, labelled "Camp for Climate Action".

Spokeswoman Georgina Wood said the number of people involved showed a growing support for non-violent direct action.

"It signals a lot of frustration," she said.

"There's a lot of willingness to change in the community and that isn't being matched by governments.

"Coal exports are the biggest contribution to climate change."
WeAreChange Brisbane
I hold personal views, beliefs and opinions that do not necessarily reflect the beliefs and opinions of WeAreChange Brisbane as a whole.

Our Bitcoin address: 1Fzb4bp48oMr7CFzT3SbkTzKpMSvWW1X1t

Offline mr anderson

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,355
    • WeAreChange Brisbane
Wikipropaganda - Spinning green
« Reply #106 on: July 14, 2008, 09:51:30 AM »
http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=NjU1ZDBhOGExOWRlNzc5ZDcwOTUxZWM3MWU2Mjc5MGE=

July 8, 2008
By Lawrence Solomon


Ever wonder how Al Gore, the United Nations, and company continue to get away with their claim of a “scientific consensus” confirming their doomsday view of global warming? Look no farther than Wikipedia for a stunning example of how the global-warming propaganda machine works.

As you (or your kids) probably know, Wikipedia is now the most widely used and influential reference source on the Internet and therefore in the world, with more than 50 million unique visitors a month.

In theory Wikipedia is a “people’s encyclopedia” written and edited by the people who read it — anyone with an Internet connection. So on controversial topics, one might expect to see a broad range of opinion.

Not on global warming. On global warming we get consensus, Gore-style: a consensus forged by censorship, intimidation, and deceit.

I first noticed this when I entered a correction to a Wikipedia page on the work of Naomi Oreskes, author of the now-infamous paper, published in the prestigious journal Science, claiming to have exhaustively reviewed the scientific literature and found not one single article dissenting from the alarmist version of global warming.

Of course Oreskes’s conclusions were absurd, and have been widely ridiculed. I myself have profiled dozens of truly world-eminent scientists whose work casts doubt on the Gore-U.N. version of global warming. Following the references in my book The Deniers, one can find hundreds of refereed papers that cast doubt on some aspect of the Gore/U.N. case, and that only scratches the surface.

Naturally I was surprised to read on Wikipedia that Oreskes’s work had been vindicated and that, for instance, one of her most thorough critics, British scientist and publisher Bennie Peiser, not only had been discredited but had grudgingly conceded Oreskes was right.

I checked with Peiser, who said he had done no such thing. I then corrected the Wikipedia entry, and advised Peiser that I had done so.

Peiser wrote back saying he couldn’t see my corrections on the Wikipedia page. I made the changes again, and this time confirmed that the changes had been saved. But then, in a twinkle, they were gone again. I made other changes. And others. They all disappeared shortly after they were made.

Turns out that on Wikipedia some folks are more equal than others. Kim Dabelstein Petersen is a Wikipedia “editor” who seems to devote a large part of his life to editing reams and reams of Wikipedia pages to pump the assertions of global-warming alarmists and deprecate or make disappear the arguments of skeptics.

I soon found others who had the same experience: They would try to squeeze in any dissent, or even correct an obvious slander against a dissenter, and Petersen or some other censor would immediately snuff them out.

Now Petersen is merely a Wikipedia “editor.” Holding the far more prestigious and powerful position of “administrator” is William Connolley. Connolley is a software engineer and sometime climatologist (he used to hold a job in the British Antarctic Survey), as well as a serial (but so far unsuccessful) office seeker for England’s Green party.

And yet by virtue of his power at Wikipedia, Connolley, a ruthless enforcer of the doomsday consensus, may be the world’s most influential person in the global warming debate after Al Gore. Connolley routinely uses his editorial clout to tear down scientists of great accomplishment such as Fred Singer, the first director of the U.S. National Weather Satellite Service and a scientist with dazzling achievements. Under Connolley’s supervision, Wikipedia relentlessly smears Singer as a kook who believes in Martians and a hack in the pay of the oil industry.

Wikipedia is full of rules that editors are supposed to follow, and it has a code of civility. Those rules and codes don’t apply to Connolley, or to those he favors.

“Peisers crap shouldn’t be in here,” Connolley wrote several weeks ago, in berating a Wikipedian colleague during an “edit war,” as they’re called. Trumping Wikipedia’s stated rules, Connelly used his authority to ensure Wikipedia readers saw only what he wanted them to see. Any reference, anywhere among Wikipedia’s 2.5 million English-language pages, that casts doubt on the consequences of climate change will be bent to Connolley’s bidding.

Nor are Wikipedia’s ideological biases limited to global warming. As an environmentalist I find myself with allies and adversaries on both sides of the aisle, Left and Right. But there is no doubt where Wikipedia stands: firmly on the Left. Try out Wikipedia’s entries on say, Roe v. Wade or Intelligent Design, and you will see that Wikipedia is the people’s encyclopedia only if those people are not conservatives.

— Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Energy Probe and author of The Deniers.
WeAreChange Brisbane
I hold personal views, beliefs and opinions that do not necessarily reflect the beliefs and opinions of WeAreChange Brisbane as a whole.

Our Bitcoin address: 1Fzb4bp48oMr7CFzT3SbkTzKpMSvWW1X1t

Offline mr anderson

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,355
    • WeAreChange Brisbane
PM's $5bn green gamble against Treasury advice
« Reply #107 on: July 14, 2008, 09:12:44 PM »
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,24022090-421,00.html

    * PM to announce $5 billion carbon emissions plan
    * Storing carbon in seabed not favoured by Treasury
    * The latest climate change news


PRIME Minister Kevin Rudd is set to announce a controversial $5 billion scheme to slash carbon emissions.

The plan, which will call for carbon to be captured and stored in forests and oceans, will be outlined in the Government's discussion paper on its planned emissions trading scheme to be released tomorrow, Treasury sources said.

But the same sources said the Rudd Government would be going against Treasury advice if the expensive scheme to store carbon in the seabed or in deeply submerged subterranean strata went ahead.

They said Treasury had warned against announcing such a proposal because the carbon sequestration technology was largely untried.

"This is another theoretical approach to a problem," one source said. "Not only is it very costly, no one knows whether it is a realistic storage solution for carbon emissions.

"The Rudd Government appears determined to proceed, however, even though Treasury asked that, at the minimum, it refrain from taking such action until after next year's UN summit on climate change in the Danish capital Copenhagen meeting, when it will be seen what measures other developed nations may take."

The use of so-called "carbon sinks" can take the form of storing carbon in plants and soils, oceans or buried in deep rock deposits.

Resources Minister Martin Ferguson is on the record as saying there are good arguments for implementing carbon sequestration.

Mr Ferguson said sequestration would encourage investment and commercialisation of the technology, which was a safe way to allow continued carbon-based power generation with reduced environmental impact.

His draft sequestration legislation sets up a framework for access to Commonwealth waters, defined as beginning three nautical miles offshore, as well as multiple-use agreements allowing the continuation of other commercial activities such as fishing and oil drilling.

He said Commonwealth body Geoscience Australia had identified numerous sites where greenhouse gases could be stored. And he nominated high-carbon emission areas of Victoria, Western Australia and southern and central Queensland as having "adequate storage capacity nearby".

The carbon storage row comes after Mr Rudd previously ignored Treasury advice, and that of three other ministries, when he pushed ahead with the Government's FuelWatch program.

In Opposition, he was critical of the Howard Government for ignoring Treasury and pledged that his government would be more receptive to advice from its bureaucrats.

Emissions scheme 'could cost jobs'

Treasury is not the only body concerned at the possible effects of the Government's Green Paper on climate change.

Australia's largest trade union, the Australian Workers Union, has released a report that predicts 15,000 jobs could be lost in the aluminium sector alone if the penalties contained in the ETS drive the industry offshore.

AWU national secretary Paul Howes said regional communities and economies would be crippled at a potential cost of up to $1.12 billion.

"We know, by keeping good jobs in industries like aluminium smelters and refineries here in Australia, we are actually helping in the battle against greenhouse gases," he said.

Environmentalists, however, say that Australians would not suffer if the aluminium sector closed and the industry went offshore to more modern plants. Climate Institute chief John Connor told the ABC yesterday that many foreign aluminium smelters were more efficient.

Farmers also expressed their concern that the discussion paper might pick an "arbitrary" date for the inclusion of agriculture in an ETS.

Opposition Leader Brendan Nelson will cut short his week-long holiday to lead the Opposition's response to the Government's climate change Green Paper.
WeAreChange Brisbane
I hold personal views, beliefs and opinions that do not necessarily reflect the beliefs and opinions of WeAreChange Brisbane as a whole.

Our Bitcoin address: 1Fzb4bp48oMr7CFzT3SbkTzKpMSvWW1X1t

Offline mr anderson

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,355
    • WeAreChange Brisbane
SBS presents the new climate change cult
« Reply #108 on: July 14, 2008, 09:19:29 PM »
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PcHekjSqLd0

SBS is running “askmorenow” commercials warning about global warming, placed by the woman giving the lecture above - conducted like a typical session with Profit of Doom Al Gore.

Some may dismiss Ching Hai as just another cult leader, with just another tale of global warming apocalypse:

    According to most of her followers, Ching Hai is not only a saintly philanthropist who took the Vietnamese refugees in Hong Kong under her wing, she is also the living Buddha and Jesus Christ—Ching Hai is God incarnate.

But this is a woman who has made a valuable contribution to the Garnaut report on climate change, which she endorses and publicises.

Hmm. When a cult leader starts to sound like Kevin Rudd’s climate guru, we have a problem. And reader Tony also has a question: Why is the SBS running ads from a cult? Or can’t it tell the difference between religious nutters and global warming fanatics?
WeAreChange Brisbane
I hold personal views, beliefs and opinions that do not necessarily reflect the beliefs and opinions of WeAreChange Brisbane as a whole.

Our Bitcoin address: 1Fzb4bp48oMr7CFzT3SbkTzKpMSvWW1X1t

Offline mr anderson

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,355
    • WeAreChange Brisbane
Re: SBS presents the new climate change cult
« Reply #109 on: July 14, 2008, 09:31:08 PM »
Not to mention blaming livestock especially for emissions.
WeAreChange Brisbane
I hold personal views, beliefs and opinions that do not necessarily reflect the beliefs and opinions of WeAreChange Brisbane as a whole.

Our Bitcoin address: 1Fzb4bp48oMr7CFzT3SbkTzKpMSvWW1X1t

Offline mr anderson

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,355
    • WeAreChange Brisbane
Alarm on carbon trading scheme
« Reply #110 on: July 14, 2008, 09:40:32 PM »
http://www.theage.com.au/environment/alarm-on-carbon-trading-scheme-20080714-3f3w.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

ONE of the world's best-known economists, Jeffrey Sachs, has warned Australia against using an emissions trading scheme to tackle climate change, saying it would never win global support.

On the eve of the Rudd Government releasing its blueprint for emissions trading, Professor Sachs said the concept was "highly disliked" by China and other developing countries, and they would never agree to it.

Professor Sachs, economic adviser to United Nations secretary-general Ban Ki-Moon, and author of the best-seller The End of Poverty, made the warning yesterday at a conference at the Australian National University. Standing alongside the Government's climate change adviser Ross Garnaut, who wants Australia to adopt emissions trading, Professor Sachs declared that:

â–  There would never be a global agreement to introduce emissions trading or carbon taxes to tackle climate change.

â–  The world instead should seek agreement on goals, and plans to develop and share new technologies, then leave each country to decide how much of the burden it would take on, and how.

â–  Australia should introduce a carbon tax as a simpler and less rort-prone system, and invest the proceeds in the development of new technology.

Professor Sachs said any attempt to get an international agreement had to start with the West assuring developing countries that their goals to achieve economic development would take priority over tackling climate change. "I think nobody is going to like this (emissions trading), frankly," Professor Sachs told the ANU's annual China Update.

"It's such a mess administratively. It covers only a fraction of what needs to be covered. It's hard to implement. It's hard to monitor. It's not transparent, it's highly manipulative - which is why the banks love it.

"I can't ever believe we're going to get global agreement on these mechanisms. We're going to get agreement by showing a path, and saying to (nations like) China, first, we understand that your desire to catch up (in living standards) is non-negotiable.

"Yes, we need (carbon) pricing. I actually believe it will come country by country, and not by a global agreement."

Professor Garnaut quickly disagreed, warning that without global agreement, every country would put its own interests first. "China is an essential part of the solution to the problem," he said.

In a paper with ANU colleagues Frank Jotzo and Stephen Howes, Professor Garnaut warned that under business as usual, China's carbon dioxide emissions would more than treble by 2030 - when they would make up 37% of global emissions, three times those of the United States.

"With China's emissions now growing at more than 10% a year, they urged it to adopt the goal of cutting emissions growth to half the growth in GDP - slowing emissions growth to 3% to 4% a year over the medium term."

But another world-renowned ANU climate change economist, Warwick McKibbin, endorsed most of Professor Sachs' critique, while warning that without a long-term carbon price, business would not invest to develop clean technology.

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd made a surprise appearance to close the conference, but steered away from any mention of climate change.

Earlier, he used a visit to the drought-hit Hume Dam near Albury-Wodonga to bolster his case for a robust emissions trading system.

Brandishing a new CSIRO report predicting water inflows into the Murray River will continue to drop dramatically over the next 20 years, Mr Rudd said: "The situation in the Murray Darling Basin demonstrates that doing nothing on climate change is not an option."

Mr Rudd also appeared to be rebranding emissions trading before tomorrow's green paper, repeatedly referring to it as a "carbon pollution reduction scheme", a term also adopted by Climate Change Minister Penny Wong.

The CSIRO report says water extraction along the Murray has reduced the flow reaching the mouth of the river by 61%. Its best estimate predicts the availability of surface water in the river will fall by another 14% by 2030, with a worst-case scenario predicting a fall of 41%.

Inflows into the Murray over the past decade have already been less than those predicted for 2030 under climate change.

Opposition Leader Brendan Nelson, meanwhile, has decided to break his week's leave to respond to the Government green paper. This followed bad publicity after his office said he would be on leave when the paper was released.

Support in the electorate for emission trading appears high, with new polling showing 75% of respondents believe Australia should move to emissions trading even if other countries do not. Of Coalition voters polled, 58% supported an early move to emissions trading, despite Dr Nelson saying last week that Australia should not move before major emitters. The poll, conducted by Essential Research, found just 10% of respondents were sceptical about climate change.

With CHRIS HAMMER, MICHELLE GRATTAN
WeAreChange Brisbane
I hold personal views, beliefs and opinions that do not necessarily reflect the beliefs and opinions of WeAreChange Brisbane as a whole.

Our Bitcoin address: 1Fzb4bp48oMr7CFzT3SbkTzKpMSvWW1X1t

Offline mr anderson

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,355
    • WeAreChange Brisbane
Climate Change Coalition and I
« Reply #111 on: July 15, 2008, 01:07:56 AM »
Me:



Response
Steve Posselt

So, let’s have a look at what these graphs say. Please bear in mind though, this is quite a dangerous thing to do. If you want to look at climate science then talk to a climate scientist. This guy wants Al Gore to debate global warming with a professor of marketing. He fails to understand that it is experts and peer reviewed papers that he needs to look at rather than claims from ill-informed people who do not understand the science involved.

Firstly the data is for thirty years approximately. We know that there is little mixing between the southern and the northern hemisphere. We also know that there is a lot more activity, people and land in the northern hemisphere. Have a look at the picture of the earth at night which is in many publications.

The graphs below show a strong trend upwards in the northern hemisphere and a weaker one in the southern hemisphere. But this is just a casual observation looking at areas below the line and those above. The only way that anything meaningful can be gained from these graphs is a regression analysis or some other mathematical analysis and perhaps test for statistical significance. Maths has come a long way since I used to fit regression curves thirty years ago so really it is only a mathematician who can say what these curves mean. I will continue to be advised by experts in their field and take little notice of enthusiastic amateurs.

Cheers,

Steve

Me:

Steve,

Thanks for the quick reply.

I urge you to contact Dr. Timothy Ball; Chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project, is a Victoria-based environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. timothyball@shaw.ca

Kind regards.

Steve Posselt

Uncertainty and the role of sceptics

Genuine questioning and scepticism in science is good: it is one of the ways that science progresses, leading to the critical examination of assumptions and conclusions, and eventually the substitution of newer and more reliable theories for older ones that are less robust. This is the scientific method of hypothesis testing and development of new paradigms. However, challengers need to apply their critical faculties to both sides of an argument, and to admit uncertainties that may work for or against any particular proposition.

It is a safe generalisation that in a world of many uncertainties, one test of whether a scientist, or scientific challenger, is open to all the evidence and therefore unprejudiced is whether they say ‘on the one hand this, and on the other hand that’. While such admissions of uncertainty are often used to put down scientists, genuine scientists seldom make statements without some qualification or caveat because there are usually at least two sides to any complex argument. People who admit to only one side are usually either biased or taking a ‘devil’s advocate’ role.

Some genuine sceptics (often academic scientists) take the ‘devil’s advocate’ position to stimulate debate and test propositions. This is bolstered by one traditional academic view of science as a process leading to a body of tested propositions or theories that can be regarded as ‘truths’ (at least until subsequently disproved). This view, in statistical terms, traditionally requires that a proposition be established at the 95 or 99% probability level (that is, 95 or 99 chances out of 100 that it is true, respectively) before it can be regarded as established. On this basis one or two pieces of contrary evidence is usually enough to discredit a proposition. Such a view protects the limited body of ‘truth’ from any falsehood, but may end up denying as unproven many propositions that might be true. For example, if a proposition has been shown to have an 80% chance of being true, this view would reject it as unproven, when in fact it may well be true and could have serious consequences.

This academic view of science takes little account of the relative consequences of whether a proposition is true or false, and fails to acknowledge that decisions on practical matters may require us to act despite uncertainty. If this view were adopted in daily life we would seldom insure against accidents because they are not certain to happen to us. It ignores the concept of risk, that is, that in making practical decisions we weigh the probability of an event against its consequences. Policy-relevant or applied scientific advice must take account of risk even when it is less than 95% certain.

Another problem with this view that ‘it must be proven beyond reasonable doubt’ is that in practical matters outside the laboratory it is often difficult to find counter-evidence of a proposition that is any more certain than each individual line of evidence for the proposition. We cannot then automatically use a single apparently inconsistent ‘observation’ or published paper to ‘disprove’ a proposition: we need to test the contrary line of evidence at least as rigorously as the supporting evidence, and decide on a balance of evidence, considering all the uncertainties. For example, if we have ten sets of observations pointing to global warming (land temperatures, ocean temperatures, sea ice, glaciers, snow cover, plant flowering dates, bird distributions, dates of river ice break-up, bore hole temperatures, melting permafrost), and one which does not (some satellite data), do we simply conclude that the ten sets are wrong, or do we look critically at the reliability of all the evidence and decide which is more likely?

The devil’s advocate position is legitimate in a purely scientific debate, where there is plenty of time for contending arguments to be put and an eventual decision reached by the scientific community as a whole. However, where critical policy issues or urgent decisions are at stake, responsible scientists will give balanced advice, admitting and taking into account uncertainties on both sides of any debate.

In the current debate about the reality, seriousness and urgency of climate change, governments, through the IPCC, requested a pro tem consensus position, based on the balance of evidence. The conclusions from the IPCC have always been subject to uncertainty, always subject to revision, and as the science has progressed the conclusions have been expressed more and more explicitly in terms of estimated ranges and probabilities.

A number of people have emerged who deny there is significant human-induced global warming and treat science like a debate in which they apparently see their job as to selectively use any possible argument against a proposition to which they are opposed for non-scientific reasons, instead of looking at the balance of evidence. In adversarial politics, where ‘point-scoring’ is common, and often accepted as legitimate, such selective use of evidence is often condoned, even if its source is dubious and its veracity in doubt. However, in a debate affecting world affairs, economies and human welfare, debate should be responsibly directed at finding the balance of evidence, the testing of all statements, and the free admittance of all doubts and uncertainties, whether they favour a particular proposition or not. In this context, one-sided challengers should more accurately be labelled ‘contrarians’ rather than sceptics, since they are sceptical of one position but do not also question the contrary.

Examining the projection of global warming by 2100 in the range of 1.1 to 6.4ºC, made by the IPCC in its Fourth Assessment Report in 2007, a genuine sceptic may well say that the range of uncertainty has been underestimated. But what some contrarians argue is that the warming may be (or is definitely) less than 1.1ºC because of some selected uncertainty. How often do you hear these same contrarians argue that due to uncertainty it might equally well be greater than 6.4ºC?

An Australian mathematician, Ian Enting, has described the comon sceptics’ arguments in a book called “Twisted: The Distorted Mathematics of Greenhouse Denial”. Enting argues that the sceptics’ arguments preclude them from being taken as a valid alternative view of the science because of distortion of the data, inconsistencies between arguments, and discrepancies between what individuals commonly tell the media and what the same individuals say when subject to greater scrutiny. He characterises much of the sceptics’ behaviour as public relations, and quotes Richard Feynman, the American Nobel Prize winner, as saying “… reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.” Reality, in the form of recent observations, indeed tells us that climate change is happening, and doing so faster than even the IPCC has predicted.

It is invidious to ascribe motives to particular individuals, and in most cases I will not do that here. However, we can think of a number of possible underlying positions or interests, related to the enhanced greenhouse effect and its impacts, which may motivate or explain the positions held and arguments used by some contrarians.

One such prejudice comes from people, often scientists in disciplines other than climatology, who are not convinced of the value of predictive modelling in the physical and mathematical sciences. Sometimes such people think of a ‘model’ as merely a theoretical framework to explain a set of observations, rather than a set of well-tested mathematical non-linear equations that can be used to project behaviour of physical and chemical systems forward in time. Such people may be deeply suspicious of any claim to use a ‘model’ to predict future behaviour, even of a purely physical phenomenon, however simple or complex. The fact is, of course, that such predictive models do exist and are used routinely for many practical purposes such as daily weather forecasting, predicting the tides, and predicting the motions of the planets. Climate projections are just more complex, and admittedly more uncertain, than some of these examples. Climatologists are well aware and open about the uncertainties. If climatologists are doing their job well, they build their models carefully, test the model’s components and overall performance, and carefully estimate their reliability and possible errors. This is part of a climatologist’s job description.

Another question raised by some contrarians comes from those familiar with the geological and other paleo-evidence of past natural changes in climate, which clearly were large, and not the result of human influence. These contrarians say that if such changes happened naturally in the past, why should any changes occurring now be due to human influence? Or else they argue that, since life survived such changes in the past, it will survive similar changes in the future, so why worry about it? However, while natural climate change has happened before and can happen again, this does not rule out the simultaneous occurrence of human-induced climate change. Moreover, human-induced climate change may be more immediate and rapid than past changes, and it would happen at a time when there are an unprecedented six billion human beings alive on Earth. Considering the consequences to such a human population if it had existed during the last glacial cycle should dispel any equanimity about the consequences of imminent rapid climate change.

Another class of contrarian is those who are driven by economic and political judgements. A case in point is the best-selling book The Skeptical Environmentalist by the Danish statistician Bjørn Lomberg, whose reasoning is quite explicit. Lomberg takes the position that many environmental issues have been exaggerated and proceeds selectively to produce statistics pointing to environmental improvements in recent decades (many the result of agitation by the environmental movement). Considering the enhanced greenhouse effect, Lomberg, while tending to downplay the risks from climate change, concedes that it is a reality. His argument is not that human-induced climate change is not happening, but rather that it is manageable, and that reducing greenhouse gas emissions would be prohibitively expensive.

Lomberg in his more recent book Cool It, aimed specifically at concern about climate change, again claims that the impacts of climate change will be negligible and easily dealt with, and that emissions reductions are not urgent and will be enormously costly. These claims are not true, as is evident later in this book. His claims are value-judgements based on discounting the more severe possible impacts, technological optimism regarding our adaptive capacity, and technological pessimism regarding our ability to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at low cost. His arguments have been roundly debunked on the Grist website and elsewhere.

An open letter by a large group of sceptics (many without relevant expertise) addressed to the Secretary-General of the United Nations at the Bali conference in December 2007 made sweeping assertions that recent observed climate changes are entirely natural, cannot be stopped, and that the cost of meaures to reduce emissions would be prohibitive. They advocated that money should instead be spent on building resilience to climate change. Once again, they clearly either did not read, or took little notice of and completely dismissed the detailed studies reported in the 2007 IPCC report, and many of their claims are confounded later in this book.

Some of the more extreme contrarians have characterised ‘environmentalism’ as a new religion or ideology, or as some new form of totalitarianism. Variously, such contrarians may hold beliefs about ‘environmentalists’ whom they see as wishing to halt ‘progress’ or ‘development’ for ideological reasons. They tend to ascribe ulterior motives to proponents with a genuine concern about human-induced climate change, and do not accept the need to consider the supporting evidence on its merits. It is true that some environmental alarmists do highlight as fact extreme disaster scenarios that may be uncertain to occur (and thus suffer these alarmists from some of the same selective characteristics as ‘contrarians’). However, this does not excuse the selective denial by contrarians of more likely possibilities. Moreover, recent evidence suggests that some of the scenarios for climate change once thought ‘extreme’ (even by me) are not as unlikely as scientists thought just a few years ago (see Chapter 5). So-called ‘extreme’ environmentalism is often a matter of a low tolerance of even small probabilities of large adverse impacts. It is in such cases a value judgement about risk tolerance.

Other contrarians are deeply suspicious of the motives and integrity of climate scientists. Allied with this is often a deep suspicion of international climate science as too much influenced by funding and government (despite there being no concensus amongst governments on many matters related to climate change). They especially suspect the IPCC as deeply biased and flawed and accuse it of censoring or doctoring its reports. This is quite contrary to the rigorous open reviews and other procedures adopted by the IPCC to safeguard against bias, and the fact that its reports have to be approved by a whole range of governments with many different views and interests.

Beyond all these possible motivations for contrarian prejudice are those who have a real or perceived economic interest in denying that human-induced climate change is a reality. Some of these genuinely believe the enhanced greenhouse effect is not so, while others fail to see any urgency and seek to delay action for their own (and possibly others’) economic benefit.

Occasionally individual contrarians are accused of arguing the way they do purely for their own economic benefit, in order to receive payments from fossil fuel industries or other interests and lobbies such as politically conservative think tanks. In many individual cases I know, it seems to me that such contrarians do not seek out payments; rather, such economic or political lobby groups seek out contrarians and pay to promote their contrarian views through grants, paid tours, publications, testimonies and so forth. These sponsored contrarians may in a sense be hired guns, but they were often contrarians, or even genuine sceptics, first, and are usually genuine in their beliefs. This makes them more convincing through their sincerity, but no more correct.

The economic self interest argument is often used against those scientists who believe there is a real problem of human-induced climate change, namely that scientists say these things because it gets them grants or pays their salaries. This is the charge of lack of integrity and ascribing of ulterior motives to do bad science that most offends the contrarians when applied to them. In the case of the climatologists engaged in the science it is an ironic argument for scientists in countries such as the United States and Australia, where governments in the recent past have not always welcomed explicit policy-related conclusions and recommendations that question government inaction.

The public perception of the debate over climate change has been shaped by the media’s common adherence to a doctrine of ‘balanced reporting’. This tends to give equal space to the considered judgements of the scientific community, expressed in peer-reviewed publications such as the IPCC reports, and the often completely un-refereed opinions or advocacy of a contrarian minority. Although this is changing in some cases, there has been a media tendency for giving equal space to unequal scientific arguments, which often misrepresents the balance of evidence and plays into the hands of vested interests opposed to any real action to limit climate change.

Peer review is the process in which scientists normally submit their research findings to a journal, which sends the draft paper out to be assessed for competence, significance and originality by independent experts in the relevant field. These experts do not necessarily agree with the conclusions, but if they agree that the arguments and conclusions are worthy of consideration, then the paper is published. The peer review system means that statements based on such papers tend to be more reliable than other kinds of statements or claims. Claims made by politicians, newspaper columnists, special interest think tanks and campaign groups are not normally subject to such independent quality review beforehand, but are often given equal weight in media reports.

Peer review is not perfect and does not guarantee correctness. It is just the first stage: a hypothesis or argument that survives this first test is still subject to further testing by other scientists. However, peer-reviewed papers and reports can be considered to be more than an opinion, and should not be lightly dis­missed in favour of untested opinions. An awareness of the peer-review system and the sources of information can help the media, the public and decision-makers to distinguish between arguments derived from well-based scientific judgements and those arising from un-checked personal opinions.

Me:

Steve,

Thanks for the article or Op.

I'm reading it as I finish this message. I thought since we are exchanging information I can recommend a documentary. It's not Global Warming Swindle or An Inconvenient Truth, obvious bias :)

Rather the film I'm talking about is free here ; 1hr 20mins long. (Global Warming or Global Governance)

A quick comment on the article as I glanced at it; The average environmentalist and sceptic are good people with the best of intentions. Everyone wants to do their part, especially locally or more specifically at home. To be a sceptic is to accept that the debate is over..

I myself do not discount Climate Change, it is happening, rather it is natural.

We can all agree that the Earth is roughly 4 Billion years old? My question to you is how can human beings in the last 1000 years that we have become increasingly industrialised can affect a 4 billion year old climate system to an extent we make it uninhabitable?

Once again we value your correspondence.
WeAreChange Brisbane
I hold personal views, beliefs and opinions that do not necessarily reflect the beliefs and opinions of WeAreChange Brisbane as a whole.

Our Bitcoin address: 1Fzb4bp48oMr7CFzT3SbkTzKpMSvWW1X1t

Offline mr anderson

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,355
    • WeAreChange Brisbane
Re: Climate Change Coalition and I
« Reply #112 on: July 15, 2008, 02:11:20 AM »
Response
Steve

Matt,

How can we do it? We have burnt more than half of what nature stored over millions of years. All this in 200 years, in an atmosphere that is as thick to the earth as a skin is to an apple. It is arrogant to think that we didn’t do it. You need to get your head around peak oil. It is absolute fact, not fiction. My estimate is that we will need to ration oil in around ten years.

I have to go out but will send you some slides from my presentations tomorrow. One shows unequivocally that warming is due to man.

Steve


Me:
Steve,

Absent from the list you mentioned are cross-species, chimeras, bioweapons, chemtrailing, GMO which are even a greater threat I would believe.

I've got several links regarding peak oil that are informative that I think you should look at:

http://www.rense.com/general78/expeak.htm

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article4133668.ece

http://seekingalpha.com/article/82236-the-peak-oil-myth-new-oil-is-plentiful

Paul Joseph Watson | October 12 2005

Peak oil is a scam designed to create artificial scarcity and jack up prices while giving the state an excuse to invade our lives and order us to sacrifice our hard-earned living standards.

Publicly available CFR and Club of Rome strategy manuals from 30 years ago say that a global government needs to control the world population through neo-feudalism by creating artificial scarcity. Now that the social architects have de-industrialized the United States, they are going to blame our economic disintegration on lack of energy supplies.

Globalization is all about consolidation. Now that the world economy has become so centralized through the Globalists operations, they are going to continue to consolidate and blame it on the West's "evil" overconsumption of fossil fuels, while at the same time blocking the development and integration of renewable clean technologies.

In other words, Peak oil is a scam to create artificial scarcity and drive prices up. Meanwhile, alternative fuel technologies which have been around for decades are intentionally suppressed.

Peak oil is a theory advanced by the elite, by the oil industry, by the very people that you would think peak oil would harm, unless it was a cover for another agenda. Which from the evidence of artificial scarcity being deliberately created, the reasons for doing so and who benefits, it's clear that peak oil is a myth and it should be exposed for what it is. Another excuse for the Globalists to seize more control over our lives and sacrifice more American sovereignty in the meantime.

The lies of artificial scarcity

The crux of the issue is that if oil was plentiful in areas in which we are being told by the government and the oil companies that it is not, then we have clear evidence that artificial scarcity is being simulated in order to drive forward a myriad of other agendas. And we have concrete examples of where this has happened.

Three separate internal confidential memos from Mobil, Chevron and Texaco have been obtained by The Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights.

These memos outline a deliberate agenda to gouge prices and create artificial scarcity by limiting capacities of and outright closing oil refineries. This was a nationwide lobbying effort led by the American Petroleum Institute to encourage refineries to do this.

An internal Chevron memo states; "A senior energy analyst at the recent API convention warned that if the US petroleum industry doesn't reduce its refining capacity it will never see any substantial increase in refinery margins."

The Memos make clear that blockages in refining capacity and opening new refineries did not come from environmental organizations, as the oil industry claimed, but via a deliberate policy of limitation and price gouging at the behest of the oil industry itself.

The mystery of Eugene Island 330 and self-renewing oil supplies

Eugene Island is an oil field in the gulf of Mexico, 80 miles off the coast of Louisiana. It was discovered in 1973 and began producing 15,000 barrels of oil a day which then slowed to about 4,000 barrels in 1989.

But then for no logical reason whatsoever, production spiked back up to 13,000 barrels a day.

What the researchers found when they analyzed the oil field with time lapse 3-D seismic imaging is that there was an unexplained deep fault in the bottom corner of the computer scan, which showed oil gushing in from a previously unknown deep source and migrating up through the rock to replenish the existing supply.

Furthermore, the analysis of the oil now being produced at Eugene Island shows that its age is geologically different from the oil produced there after the refinery first opened. Suggesting strongly that it is now emerging from a different, unexplained source.

The last estimates of probable reserves shot up from 60 million barrels to 400 million barrels.

Both the scientists and geologists from the big oil companies have seen the evidence and admitted that the Eugene Island oil field is refilling itself.

This completely contradicts peak oil theory and with technology improving at an accelerating pace it seems obvious that there are more Eugene Islands out there waiting to be discovered. So the scientific community needs to embrace these possibilities and lobby for funding into finding more of these deep source replenishing oilfields.

The existence of self-renewing oil fields shatters the peak oil myth. If oil is a naturally replenishing inorganic substance then how can it possibly run out?

The future of oil

This year in particular we have seen a strong hike in oil prices and are being told to simply get used to it because this is the way it is going to be. In the wake of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita gas prices have shot up amid claims of vast energy shortages. Americans are being asked to turn off lights, change thermostat settings, drive slower, insulate homes and take other steps. Meanwhile the oil companies continue to make record profits.

Flying in the face of the so called peak oil crisis are the facts. If we are running out of oil so quickly then why are reserves being continually increased and production skyrocketing?

In the 1980s OPEC decided to switch to a quota production system based on the size of reserves. The larger the reserves a country said it had the more it could pump.

Earlier this year Saudi Arabia reportedly increased its crude reserves by around 200 billion barrels. Saudi oil Is secure and plentiful, say officials.

"These huge reserves enable the Kingdom to remain a major oil producer for between 70 and 100 years, even if it raises its production capacity to 15 million barrels per day, which may well happen during the next 15 years,"

Is this the normal course of behavior if we are currently at the peak for oil production? The answer is no, it's the normal course of action for increasing production.

There have also been reports that Russia has vastly increased its reserves even beyond those of Saudi Arabia. Why would they do this if they believed there would be no more oil to get hold of? It seems clear that Russia is ready for unlimited future production of oil.

There is a clear contradiction between the peak oil theory and the continual increase in oil reserves and production.

New untapped oil sources are being discovered everywhere on earth. The notion that there are somehow only a few sources that the West is trying to monopolize is a complete myth, promulgated by those raking in the massive profits. After all how do you make huge profits from something available in abundance?

A Wall Street Journal article by Peter Huber and Mark Mills describes how the price of oil remains high because the cost of oil remains so low. We are not dependent on the middle east for oil because the world's supplies are diminishing, it is because it is more profitable to tap middle east supplies. Thus the myth of peak oil is needed in order to silence the call for tapping the planet's other plentiful reserves.

Richard Branson has even stated his intention to set up his own refinery because the price of oil is artificially being kept high whilst new sources are not being explored and new refineries not being built.

"Opec is effectively an illegal cartel that can meet happily, nobody takes them to court," Branson has said. "They collude to keep prices high."

So if more refineries were built and different resources tapped, the oil prices would come down and the illegal cartel OPEC would see profits diminish. It is no wonder then that the argument for peak oil is so appealing to OPEC. If no one invests to build refineries because they don't believe there is enough oil, then who benefits? OPEC and the oil elites of course.

It seems that every time there is some kind of energy crisis, OPEC INCREASES production. The remarkable thing about this is that they always state that they are doing it to ease prices, yet prices always shoot up because they promulgate the myth that they are putting some of their last reserves into the market. Analysts seem confused and always state that they don't believe upping production will cut prices.

In a recent report the International Monetary Fund projected that global demand for oil by 2030 would reach 139 million barrels a day, a 65 percent increase.

"We should expect to live with high and volatile oil prices," said Raghuram Rajan, the IMF's chief economist. "In short, it's going to be a rocky road going forward."

Yet independent analysts and even some within OPEC seem to believe that the demand for oil is diminishing. Why the contradiction?

The peak oil and demand myth is peddled by the establishment-run fake left activist groups, OPEC and globalist arms such as the IMF.

Rolling Stone magazine even carried an article in its April issue heavily biased towards making people believe the peak oil lie.

The Scientific evidence also flies in the face of the peak oil theory. Scientific research dating back over a hundred years, more recently updated in a Scientific Paper Published In 'Energia' suggests that oil is abiotic, not the product of long decayed biological matter. Oil, for better or for worse, is not a non-renewable resource. It, like coal, and natural gas, replenishes from sources within the mantle of earth.

No coincidence then that the Russians, who pioneered this research have pumped expenditure into deep underground oil excavation.

We have previously scientifically exposed the scam behind peak oil. Here is a 1 hour+ audio clip featuring Alex Jones' comments on peak oil and then the analysis of respected scientific commentator Dr. Nick Begich who presents evidence to suggest the idea of Peak oil is artificial.

A dangerous fallout precedent being set is that people on both the left and right believe wars are being fought in order to tap the last reserves of oil on the planet. The "coalition of the willing", whoever they may be for any given war, will not pay particular attention to refuting this claim because it allows them a reason to start and continue said war.

Even though many will see it as immoral, many will subconsciously attach it as a reason for the war. In reality the war is purely for profit, power and control, oil can be a part of that, but only if the peak oil claim is upheld.

If we continue to let the corrupt elite tell us we are wholly dependent on oil, we may reach a twisted situation whereby they can justify starvation and mass global poverty, perhaps even depopulation, even within the western world due to the fact that our energy supplies are finished.

Peak oil is just another weapon the globalists have in their arsenal to move towards a new world order where the elite get richer and everyone else falls into line.

I look forward to those presentation clips, thankyou.
WeAreChange Brisbane
I hold personal views, beliefs and opinions that do not necessarily reflect the beliefs and opinions of WeAreChange Brisbane as a whole.

Our Bitcoin address: 1Fzb4bp48oMr7CFzT3SbkTzKpMSvWW1X1t

Offline mr anderson

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,355
    • WeAreChange Brisbane
Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
« Reply #113 on: July 15, 2008, 06:40:55 AM »
WeAreChange Brisbane
I hold personal views, beliefs and opinions that do not necessarily reflect the beliefs and opinions of WeAreChange Brisbane as a whole.

Our Bitcoin address: 1Fzb4bp48oMr7CFzT3SbkTzKpMSvWW1X1t

Offline mr anderson

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,355
    • WeAreChange Brisbane
Rudd Government's 'Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme' - Green Paper
« Reply #114 on: July 15, 2008, 11:11:33 PM »
Media Release: http://www.environment.gov.au/minister/wong/2008/pubs/mr20080716.pdf

Full report http://www.pmc.gov.au/publications/greenpaper/docs/greenpaper.pdf

http://www.pmc.gov.au/publications/greenpaper/

The Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Green Paper canvasses options and preferred approaches on issues, such as which industry sectors will be covered and how emission caps will be set. It also includes ways to address the impacts on Australian households, emissions-intensive trade-exposed industries and other strongly affected sectors.

Submissions and comments are being sought on the design of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.
Alternate web site

PDFs of the Green Paper are also available on the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet web site at: www.pmc.gov.au/publications/greenpaper
Public information sessions

The Department of Climate Change is holding public information sessions in capital cities around the country to discuss the Green Paper. The public information sessions will also cover the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Scheme that came into effect on 1 July 2008.

Members of the public are invited to register to attend a session in the following cities, dates and times:
Location   Date           Time

Canberra   21 July   9:00 am – 12:45 pm
Sydney   22 July   1:00 pm – 4:45 pm
Melbourne   22 July   9:00 am – 12:45 pm
Perth           24 July   9:00 am – 12:45 pm
Brisbane   25 July   9:00 am – 12:45 pm
Adelaide   28 July   9:00 am – 12:45 pm
Hobart   28 July   9:00 am – 12:45 pm
Darwin   28 July   9:00 am – 12:45 pm

To register please phone 1800 057 590 Monday-Friday from 14 July between the hours of 8:30 am - 7:00 pm AEST. Venue details will be provided when you register. Please note that seating is limited.

A series of public information sessions will be held in major regional centres around Australia in August 2008.

(Temp Sticky.)
WeAreChange Brisbane
I hold personal views, beliefs and opinions that do not necessarily reflect the beliefs and opinions of WeAreChange Brisbane as a whole.

Our Bitcoin address: 1Fzb4bp48oMr7CFzT3SbkTzKpMSvWW1X1t

Offline mr anderson

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,355
    • WeAreChange Brisbane
Re: Rudd Government's 'Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme' - Green Paper
« Reply #115 on: July 15, 2008, 11:16:30 PM »
Climate Minister Penny Wong warns of climate inaction

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,24028852-29277,00.html

July 16, 2008 12:51pm
Article from: AAP


CLIMATE Minister Penny Wong has warned of the cost of continuing to pour carbon pollution into the atmosphere, despite unveiling what was by her own admission a gentle approach to emissions trading.

Releasing the Rudd Government's green paper on emissions trading, Senator Wong said the time for action on climate change was now.

"We confront a daunting reality: we cannot continue to pour carbon pollution into the atmosphere as if there is no cost,'' Senator Wong told the National Press Club in Canberra.

"The 12 hottest years in history have all been in the last 13 years.

"As one of the hottest and driest continents on earth, Australia's economy and environment will be one of the hardest and fastest hit by climate change if we dont act now.''

The green paper sets out options and identifies the Government's disposition and preferred position on emissions trading and the support proposed to help households and businesses adjust.

An emissions trading scheme was at the heart of the Government's approach to tackling climate change, Senator Wong said.

"Companies can buy and sell permits from each other depending on how much they value them, thereby enabling the market to find the most efficient ways to reduce carbon pollution.''

This was the most efficient, lowest cost and most economically responsible way to reduce carbon pollution, but any move to tackle climate change was not without costs.

More to come
WeAreChange Brisbane
I hold personal views, beliefs and opinions that do not necessarily reflect the beliefs and opinions of WeAreChange Brisbane as a whole.

Our Bitcoin address: 1Fzb4bp48oMr7CFzT3SbkTzKpMSvWW1X1t

Offline mr anderson

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,355
    • WeAreChange Brisbane
Re: Rudd Government's 'Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme' - Green Paper
« Reply #116 on: July 15, 2008, 11:18:13 PM »
Tax cuts and benefits to offset rising costs

http://www.news.com.au/business/money/story/0,25479,24028655-14327,00.html

 By Kate Perry with wires July 16, 2008 12:30pm

    * The Government will cut petrol taxes to offset higher costs
    * Trading scheme will come into force in 2010
    * More personal finance news in our Money section


YOUR living expenses will rise by just under 1 per cent in the first year of the Rudd Government's  proposed scheme to cut the amount of pollution Australia produces

The Government today unveiled details of its emissions trading scheme which will come into force in 2010 – just in time for the next general election.

Emission trading schemes are aimed at reducing pollution by way of financial incentives and penalties for companies and industries. Higher costs are supposed to encourage companies to become more energy efficient. Because they're likely to pass on higher costs by way of price hikes, it's also supposed to make consumers think twice about paying more for energy-hungry goods and services.

But the Government has adopted a softly-softly approach to the hip pocket, anxious not to further upset Australians already struggling with soaring living costs and record petrol prices. It plans to offset higher prices with measures which include higher welfare payments and petrol tax cuts.

Low-income earners will be given cash payments to make up for price rises. Pensioners, carers and seniors will have their welfare payments increased, and other low-income earners will get tax breaks and increased payments from the government.

The scheme also aims to placate middle-income earners, who will get financial assistance.

Bowser relief

The Government has also announced it will cut petrol taxes to ensure motorists are not left out of pocket. Drivers have already seen petrol prices rise by 30c a litre this year, and a recent research report by CSIRO said prices could surge as high as $8 a litre over the next decade.

Currently you pay about 38c a litre by way of a petrol excise tax. The Government will reduce this on a cent-for-cent basis to cover any petrol price increases associated with the scheme.

Without the petrol tax offset, a relatively low price of $20 a tonne for carbon would add about another 6c a litre to the price of petrol. The amount of the petrol offset will initially be set for three years and reviewed periodically after that. It is estimated that the move will cost the Government up to $1 billion a year in lost revenue.

The offset goes against advice the Government received from climate change adviser Ross Garnaut. He argued that  petrol prices should rise so people use less fuel.

What is an excise tax?

Excise taxes are imposed on certain goods produced in Australia – as opposed to imported goods which are slugged with a customs tax. The fuel excise tax is used to help repair old roads and fund new ones. Environmental concerns were partly behind the introduction of the tax – making sure Australian fuel prices are in line with world levels is seen as a way of keeping fuel consumption in check.

Cap-and trade


The Government has proposed a ‘cap-and-trade’ emissions trading system. The Government will set a ‘cap’ that limits the amount of pollution a sector can spew out. That cap is then divided up into individual permits which companies can trade amongst themselves. This means if a company can reduce its pollution at a low cost it can then sell its extra permits to a company that faces higher costs.

Only 1000 of the biggest polluters will be affected. They will require a permit for every tonne of carbon pollution created.
WeAreChange Brisbane
I hold personal views, beliefs and opinions that do not necessarily reflect the beliefs and opinions of WeAreChange Brisbane as a whole.

Our Bitcoin address: 1Fzb4bp48oMr7CFzT3SbkTzKpMSvWW1X1t

Offline mr anderson

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,355
    • WeAreChange Brisbane
WeAreChange Brisbane
I hold personal views, beliefs and opinions that do not necessarily reflect the beliefs and opinions of WeAreChange Brisbane as a whole.

Our Bitcoin address: 1Fzb4bp48oMr7CFzT3SbkTzKpMSvWW1X1t

Offline mr anderson

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,355
    • WeAreChange Brisbane
CarbonWatch - Paying plenty to do nothing
« Reply #118 on: July 16, 2008, 03:31:57 AM »
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/
Andrew Bolt – Wednesday, July 16, 08 (04:36 pm)


Such a cost, to tackle a warming that stopped a decade ago - and won’t be affected by whatever we do:

    ELECTRICITY prices will jump 16 per cent and gas 9 per cent from day one of a carbon emissions trading scheme, it was revealed today.

    The increases, which will spark tax breaks and compensation for lower and middle-income families, were detailed by the Rudd Government today.

    The Government’s climate change Green Paper, released by Climate Change minister Penny Wong, says a $20-a-tonne carbon price will also cause a one-off 0.9 per cent jump in the rate of inflation. - http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24028835-661,00.html


And how ineffectual even this sacrifice will be. Not only is petrol effectively exempted from the scheme, by lowering the excise to compensative for any increase to the cost, but the other huge emitters get compensation, too:

    Existing coal-fired power stations have been promised direct assistance to ensure their viability.

The compensation for petrol does have an end date, however:

    CLIMATE Change Minister Penny Wong today warned that the pledge to offset increases in petrol prices as a result of the carbon trading scheme with a dollar-for-dollar reduction in excise only extends to 2013. - http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24029338-601,00.html

Why 2013? Because the Government can then reject allegations that a vote for Rudd in 2010 is a vote for higher petrol prices. No, the Government will say, the higher petrol prices will happen in the term after that. And when the next election comes around, it will repeat the circus to avoid the slogan: “A vote for Gillard is a vote for higher petrol prices.”

Which means it’s highly unlikely that petrol, responsible for 15 per cent of our emissions will ever be hit with a real green tax. Which in turn means the Rudd Government will have no chance at all of reaching its goal of cutting emissions by 20 per cent by 2020.

Not when it has:

    - effectively removed petrol from its emissions trading scheme.
    - agreed to compensate brown coal power stations to keep them running
    - banned nuclear power
    - no plans to build more hydro schemes
    - no proved “clean coal” technology for coal-fired plants
    - record immigration
    - no hope of reaching its 20 per cent renewable power by 2020, which will essentially require us building the equivalent of about 10 wind generators for every kilometre between Perth and Sydney, and in just 12 years.


FuelWatch was the tiddler compared to CarbonWatch.
WeAreChange Brisbane
I hold personal views, beliefs and opinions that do not necessarily reflect the beliefs and opinions of WeAreChange Brisbane as a whole.

Our Bitcoin address: 1Fzb4bp48oMr7CFzT3SbkTzKpMSvWW1X1t

Offline Brocke

  • Eleutherophiliac & Drapetomaniac
  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,775
  • I am not a number, I am a free man!
    • Vimeo page
Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
« Reply #119 on: July 16, 2008, 07:46:44 PM »
New buzzword at this year's Farnborough air show is 'sustainability'
By Micheline Maynard
Wednesday, July 16, 2008

FARNBOROUGH, England: Every afternoon this week at the Farnborough International Airshow, jet fighters have lined up behind commercial jets, like the enormous Airbus A380, and the latest in helicopters and sleek private planes, waiting to hurtle into the sky under the gaze of the aviation industry's elite.

But beyond the runway, the industry claims to have a different priority. Inside Boeing's exhibit, the star attraction is a vivid green 75 gallon, or 284 liter, tank of algae, the potential feeding ground for a jet-fuel substitute.

Nearby sit recycling bins, sponsored by Bombardier, declaring, "A new planet, a new plane" - meaning its new CSeries jet.

Even the tail of the A380 promises, "a better environment, inside and out," in various shades of green lettering, in case anyone might miss the point.

With record high jet fuel prices threatening to change every aspect of aviation, sustainability is the buzzword at Farnborough this year, and it is echoing as loud as the planes screaming by overhead.

"It's a matter for survival," Giovanni Bisignani, director general of the International Air Transport Association, an industry trade group, said at an environmental conference on Wednesday.

Yet, the dual mission strikes an uneasy balance.

On one hand, aircraft and military companies are eager to perpetuate their reputation for producing powerful machines that are able to zoom aloft in a few seconds' time and perform heart-stopping aerobatics. On the other, all their customers, whether airlines, corporate titans or the military, are clamoring for help in battling fuel prices.

With air traffic forecast to swell, regulators including the European Commission are applying pressure to make planes quieter, cleaner and more efficient, threatening penalties if they fall short.

"Our customers are under hellish pressures to come up with improvements," said Tom Williams, an Airbus executive vice president, who runs its airplane programs.

There are no inexpensive or easy solutions.

The lighter-weight materials, new fuels and engineering work that promise to make planes more environmentally friendly mean more expense and time spent on development. That includes the billions of dollars that engine makers are spending to develop new products, whose costs will have to be factored into the price of new planes.

All that could make it hard for the manufacturers to offer the discounts that their big customers have come to expect, and potentially wiping out the savings that such planes might offer.

"It's a bitter split," Williams said.

Despite that, the need to be seen as environmentally aware has overshadowed the billion-dollar aircraft orders that usually take center stage here.

Bisignani said the industry was late to realize it needed to do more to emphasize its environmental credentials, leaving it open for attacks from environmental groups and threats of new taxes from Europe and elsewhere.

The situation has left some carriers resentful. "Aviation should not be treated as a pariah," Tony Tyler, the chief executive of Cathay Pacific, said at the environmental conference. "Everybody understands our obligations. Everyone is taking it very seriously."

Manufacturers across the show are emphasizing their green credentials - a sharp contrast to the thinking at the last Farnborough show in 2006, when Boeing's technology experts insisted to colleagues that it was impossible to develop fuels that could substitute for the kerosene used to power jet planes.

Now, Boeing is conducting tests with four airlines - Virgin Atlantic, Japan Airlines, Air New Zealand, and Continental - to see what may work best as an alternative fuel. British Airways, meanwhile, has invited energy producers to bring it fuels that it is testing in laboratory conditions, its chief executive, Willie Walsh, said here.

Corn-based ethanol, which has been embraced by the Detroit automakers, is out of consideration because it freezes at high altitudes and does not provide the power a jet plane needs. But Embraer, the Brazilian manufacturer, has run a test flight of a turbo-prop plane powered by ethanol, and says it thinks it can be an option some day for short flights at lower altitudes.

For its part, Boeing wants a fuel that does not threaten the food supply, taint water or require that land be cultivated, said Billy Glover, Boeing's director for environmental performance.

Scott Carson, the chief executive of Boeing Commercial Airplanes, likens the industry's quest for biofuels to efforts to send a man to the moon.

"We didn't know how to do that then, and we don't know now," Carson says in a video that runs continuously at Boeing's display. "But we'll do it."

Development efforts are "so promising, and so close" to developing a new biofuel that could be derived from algae or another plant life, like jatropha, a tropical plant whose seeds are rich in oil, Carson said Tuesday night.

The algae, grown by researchers at Arizona State University, doubles in size every 24 hours, explained Darrin Morgan, the director for business analysis for environmental strategy at Boeing. (He looked pained when asked if the plant life was genuine. "It's the real deal. We wouldn't give you green food dye," Morgan said.)

New fuels are just part of the effort. Engines are a key element, since they can yield significant improvements in fuel economy and reductions in carbon emissions. General Electric showed a new engine, developed with its French partner Safran, which it said should be ready in 2016.

Meanwhile, Pratt & Whitney introduced its PW1000G, which has a geared-turbo fan that some aviation experts believe is the wave of the future. The slower-spinning fan uses less fuel, generates less heat, and releases less nitrogen oxide into the atmosphere than other engines, while also running quieter.

GE does not yet have a buyer, but the Pratt & Whitney engine will be featured on Bombardier's new 100-seat jet, the CSeries, which was announced here Sunday. Bombardier, which also owns Learjet, halted development on CSeries two years ago so it could focus on making it more efficient.

The company claims the CSeries, set to go into service in 2013, will be 20 percent more fuel efficient than similar-sized jets, although Bombardier's chief competitor Embraer disputes that. It believes Bombardier will save only 3 percent to 4 percent on fuel compared with its plane, the Embraer 195, said Frederico Curado, the company's chief executive.

Boeing also estimates savings of 20 percent for its larger jet, the 787 Dreamliner, which is set to be delivered to its first customers next year.

Beyond engines, aircraft manufacturers are shifting from traditional materials, like aluminum and steel, to plastic composites made from carbon fiber, and such metals as titanium.

But demand may well outstrip supplies as aircraft companies get serious, said Philip Toy, managing director with the restructuring firm AlixPartners of Southfield, Michigan. "There are no inexpensive substitutes for these materials right now," Toy said. "The development process is onerous."

Even before it arrives, Boeing is being deluged with requests from airlines and other customers for suggestions on saving fuel. One move involved replacing the traditional brakes on its 737 jets with carbon-fiber versions, saving 800 pounds, or 365 kilograms, a plane, Glover at Boeing said.

But, said Williams at Airbus, airlines need to think in bigger terms when they design new aircraft. His company, which already installs similar brakes on its A320 line, is beginning to consider the shape of the next-generation A320, which is not due until around 2017. "Do you do an interim solution," he said, based on the plane's current design, "or a final solution" that could drastically save fuel, but require more extensive tests before it could receive government certification.

Business hangs in the balance. "If you have a big fleet of planes, what you want is predictability," Williams said.

Thomas Enders, the chief executive of Airbus, said he hoped airlines could proceed with their efforts without the distraction that political wrangling could create. "The innovation is in technology, not in taxes," he said, referring to European plans to impose charges on airline carbon emissions.

But it may take time for the industry to prove that. Walsh of British Airways said, "It's not surprising that we're at the center of the debate."

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/07/16/business/green.php


That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history.
~Aldous Huxley

He who has a why to live can bear almost any how. - ~Friedrich Nietzsche