PrisonPlanet Forum

Geo-Politics / World War III => International News => Topic started by: mr anderson on March 31, 2008, 04:06:00 am

Title: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
Post by: mr anderson on March 31, 2008, 04:06:00 am
International Climate Science International
http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/

http://www.nrsp.com/default.html

Draft Report to be released today at the National Press Club in Canberra

The Garnaut Review released its Draft Report on 4 July, 2008.

http://www.smh.com.au/pdf/garnautreport.pdf

Sky News: Professor Ross Garnaut draft report - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZMb1oA-Qak



Sunday: Questioning the Science of Climate Change
Part I - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRhYjUAAzA4
Part II - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CheOqzN5ZA8
Part III - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RptWRaYuWdQ


Carbon offset trading fraud - Huge criminal activity
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nB2Ixn5Ldm0

The Great Carbon Offset Swindle - Part I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2pI-8wEvtg


Documentaries

Not Evil Just Wrong
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHMOEVRysWE

Global Warming or Global Governance
http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=-8147337841241405073&q=global+warming+or+global+governance&ei=WvBaSLyYEqHoqgO6jZWEDg&hl=en (http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=-8147337841241405073&q=global+warming+or+global+governance&ei=WvBaSLyYEqHoqgO6jZWEDg&hl=en)


Global Warming: Doomsday Called Off
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3309910462407994295&hl=en-GB



Title: Re: Agenda 21
Post by: KiwiClare on April 08, 2008, 03:49:00 am
 Local Agenda 21 in the United Kingdom - a review of progress and issues in New Zealand   February 2000
http://www.pce.govt.nz/reports/allreports/local_agenda_02_00.shtml
Title: Re: Agenda 21
Post by: blackbriar on June 12, 2008, 02:07:48 am
http://forum.americapointblank.com/viewtopic.php?t=34

(http://www.cuttingedge.org/USBIOM1.jpg)

 8)
Title: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
Post by: mr anderson on June 22, 2008, 11:24:44 pm
Local Agenda 21 Program - Australia

Publications:
http://www.environment.gov.au/esd/publications/index.html

Ecologically sustainable development publications
Listed below are publications that relate specifically to the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts sustainability activities. Hard copies of some of these publications are available free of charge from the Community Information Unit: http://www.environment.gov.au/about/publications/list.html


    * Overview
    * Commitment to Local Agenda 21 in Australia
    * Local Leaders in Sustainability Forum
    * Sustaining Our Communities Conference
    * Local Sustainability Framework for LA21
    * National Awards for Local Government
    * Regional LA21 Pilot Projects
    * Local Agenda 21: Sustaining Communities - Factsheet
    * Our Community Our Future: A Guide to Local Agenda 21
    * Localising Agenda 21: A Guide to Sustainable Development for the APEC Region

Overview


Local Agenda 21 (LA21) is a program that provides a framework for implementing sustainable development at the local level. LA21 aims to build upon existing local government strategies and resources (such as Corporate plans, vegetation management plans, and transport strategies) to better integrate environmental, economic and social goals.

LA21 was first described in Agenda 21 - the global blueprint for sustainability that was agreed at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in 1992 (the Rio Earth Summit). Chapter 28 of Agenda 21 identifies local authorities as the sphere of governance closest to the people, and calls upon all local authorities to consult with their communities and develop and implement a local plan for sustainability - a 'Local Agenda 21'.
Commitment to Local Agenda 21 in Australia

In 1997 Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Ministers for Sustainable Development set an APEC-wide target to double the number local councils involved in LA21 by 2003. In the same year Australia's national LA21 program was established.

Measuring local government commitment to LA21 and other local sustainability initiatives can be very difficult. This is due to the complexity involved in assessing how environmental, social and economic decisions contribute to sustainability.

    * Local Agenda 21 - Accepting the Challenge for Western Australia: Mandurah Declaration

Recent survey results from Environs Australia - the Local Government Environment Network, and the International Council for Local Environment Initiatives (ICLEI) support anecdotal evidence that commitment towards LA21 in Australia has increased significantly over the past five years.

Please feel free to add your own country's Agenda 21 sources
Title: Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
Post by: mr anderson on June 23, 2008, 12:16:25 am
(http://www.news.com.au/images/sources/h14_sundaytelegraph.gif)

Quote
Worryingly for the Government, the poll also revealed 71 per cent of Queenslanders were against an increase in petrol taxes to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Carbon compensation for families 'more than $1.6bn'
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23906551-421,00.html

By Steve Lewis

    * Carbon compo for families $1.6bn a year
    * $500m a year to protect poor, aged
    * In pictures: Victims of the crash


THE Rudd Government faces a massive payout of more than $1.6 billion a year to families, to offset rising energy and fuel prices under a new emissions trading system (ETS).

Annual payments of about $500 million alone will be needed to protect the poor and the aged from a projected spike in electricity and gas prices.

A landmark CSIRO study, to be released today, reveals the high costs of going green and comes just weeks before the Government releases a crucial discussion paper on carbon trading.

The study also finds an emissions trading system to be introduced from 2010 will raise more than $8 billion in additional revenue for Canberra.

This will give the Government plenty of financial scope to deliver tax cuts and other payments to soften the blow of rising weekly bills.

The CSIRO report, commissioned for the Climate Institute, found average families will face price rises of up to $10 a week for electricity, gas and petrol.

If the Government wants to compensate families on average incomes, it will have to pay out up to $336 million by 2015, rising to $557 million by 2020. But, with struggling families battling to contain rising petrol prices, the Government will be under pressure to extend payments to most families.

This could see the Government paying out $1.7 billion in compensation by 2015, rising to $1.9 billion by 2025.

The CSIRO report argues that "deep cuts in greenhouse emissions" are possible in Australia without reducing living standards.

"Well-designed policy measures can protect low and middle-income households from potential short-run declines in energy affordability," it states.

The carbon trading scheme will start within two years as the centrepiece of Kevin Rudd's commitment to curb damaging greenhouse gases. Under the "cap and trade" scheme, heavy polluters will have to buy permits - increasing the incentive on business to embrace low-emission technologies. Higher energy costs are inevitable, with low-income families particularly vulnerable.

The CSIRO report says a yearly payment of $185 by 2015 "would fully insulate low-income households from the impact of very high carbon prices on household energy consumption".

"For low income families, concerns about the increased costs of energy and other goods and services are real," said Climate Institute policy director Erwin Jackson, adding they could be overcome with "a fair and effective distribution of the multi-billion dollar bonus to government coffers provided by the ETS".
Title: Response from a member of the Climate Change Coalition
Post by: mr anderson on June 23, 2008, 09:43:37 am
After sending him an email with sourced links, documents and quotes.......


Sorry Matt but we have seen it all before. I wouldn’t worry about the global warming conspiracy though mate. The other big conspiracy about oil being a finite reserve that is in decline will no doubt have you hot under the collar fairly soon. Go and buy a big V8 and live like there is no tomorrow. Have fun, enjoy yourself. In fact take your money and invest in seaside real estate and leave it for your grandchildren.

Attack you? Why? I do not try to debate the human genome with a creationist as their beliefs are entirely up to them even if they transgress scientific evidence. Neither would I be interested in debating real climate science with you.
 

Have fun.

Steve Posselt - [email protected]

Please email Steve and others about this issue, politely

[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]


http://climatechangecoalition.com.au/

Tel: 61 02 4998 6286

PO Box 1008
CESSNOCK WEST NSW 2325, Australia




Title: Carbon tax nothing to fear - report
Post by: mr anderson on June 23, 2008, 09:59:24 am
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23908592-26103,00.html

By Cathy Alexander | June 23, 2008


FEARS that petrol and electricity prices will soar when a carbon tax is introduced are unfounded, according to a new report. In 2010 Australia will enter the bold new world of an emissions trading scheme (ETS), which will put a price on greenhouse gas emissions to tackle climate change.

There are concerns the scheme will leave people struggling to pay their bills.

But the report by CSIRO and the Australian National University has found people will hardly notice the price rises - because incomes will rise much more quickly.

"There's nothing to be afraid of," said report co-author Steve Hatfield-Dodds, senior policy economist with the CSIRO.

"In the long-run perspective we can be reasonably relaxed about it."

Professor Hatfield-Dodds said the ETS would increase energy prices relatively slowly, over a long period of time.

Incomes would rise more quickly, as they have been doing for some time, outstripping energy price rises.

So, "almost despite" the ETS, households will spend less of their income on energy.

The report commissioned by the Climate Institute lobby group modelled the impact of the carbon price.

Electricity prices would rise by 18 per cent by 2025 if a low carbon price was set, and by 67 per cent if a high price was set.

The scheme would add 8 per cent to petrol prices by 2025 at the lower level, and 36 per cent at the highest.

While the report found incomes would generally outstrip that growth, it did warn low-income households could be worse off in the short term.

The report recommended the government make an "affordability payment" to poorer households of $50-$185 a year to cover the gap.

This could be in the form of a direct payment, increases to social security or cuts to income tax.

The Federal Government is tipped to rake in billions of dollars a year from the sale of emissions permits. The report advocates spending the money on the greenhouse payments, energy efficiency measures and better public transport.

Climate Change Minister Penny Wong said the government would help families cope with the ETS.

"We will ensure also that there are measures to assist Australian households to adjust to the impact of a carbon price," Senator Wong told Sky News.

She would not be drawn on how much households would have to pay under the ETS, saying the government would release a green paper in about a month.

Coalition climate change spokesman Greg Hunt said he was concerned the ETS would have "huge implications" for consumers.

He called on the government to make it clear what the impact would be on petrol and electricity prices, and said petrol could rise by 25 cents a litre in the short term.

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd said the former Howard government had planned to include transport in emissions trading.

"(The coalition has) now signalled quite plainly that they are committed to running a scare campaign on climate change," Mr Rudd told parliament.

Australian Greens leader Bob Brown said it was a good idea to compensate people on low incomes for higher prices under the ETS, as the report recommended.

He said the government needed to change its spending to help people cut their energy use, for example by redirecting funding from roads to public transport.
Title: Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
Post by: mr anderson on June 23, 2008, 10:07:20 am
Alcoa, Shell Want Climate Plan, Global Carbon Limits

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aSGm18AJaMkk&refer=us

 June 20 (Bloomberg) -- Alcoa Inc., Royal Dutch Shell Plc and 97 other companies are urging world leaders to devise a plan for fighting global warming by setting greenhouse-gas targets for all nations and creating an international carbon market.

A new climate-change treaty is needed with incentives to capture and store carbon dioxide and protect forests, the 99 companies said in a statement prepared by the World Economic Forum, a Geneva-based business coalition. The group presented the proposals today to Japanese Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda, who hosts a meeting of the Group of Eight nations next month in Japan.

Oil, power and metal industries are among the biggest emitters of greenhouse gases blamed for global warming. To cut their output in half by 2050, an extra $45 trillion must be invested in clean-air technologies, the Paris-based International Energy Agency said this month. The business group said it wants government guidance on how new climate policies may affect investment decisions.

``The report makes clear that businesses can't operate in a policy vacuum,'' Willie Walsh, chief executive officer of London- based British Airways Plc, Europe's third-largest airline, said in a conference call yesterday. He is one of 16 corporate leaders who developed the proposals.

The group, representing 10 percent of the market value of the world's listed companies, also is led by Jeroen Van der Veer, chief executive officer of Shell, Europe's largest oil company, based in The Hague; Chairman Alain Belda of New York-based Alcoa, the world's third-biggest aluminum producer; and Chief Executive James Rogers of Charlotte, North Carolina-based Duke Energy Corp., owner of electric utilities in the Carolinas and the U.S. Midwest. Klaus Schwab, founder and executive chairman of the World Economic Forum, presented the proposals to Fukuda in Tokyo.

Green Industry

``This is the first time you've had an international group of business leaders set out in a great degree of depth their vision for what the new framework should look like, and put their name to it,'' Dominic Waughray, the World Economic Forum's head of environmental initiatives, said in a telephone interview.

To limit the risks of global warming, a ``paradigm shift to a low-carbon economy'' is needed, the companies said in the statement prepared by the Forum and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, also based in Geneva. The statement called for a ``green industrial revolution,'' with rich nations taking the lead in cutting greenhouse gases and developing a global market for carbon credits, or permits to pollute.

``We see enormous opportunity here for the global financial industry,'' Caio Koch-Weser, vice chairman of Frankfurt-based Deutsche Bank AG, Germany's biggest bank, said on the conference call. An emissions treaty enforced beyond 2012 might produce ``the makings of the global carbon market, with carbon almost as a currency 10 years from now.''

New Accord

World leaders aim to reach an accord by the end of 2009 to limit emissions, replacing the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012. Negotiations have stalled because of disagreement over what commitments different countries should make. The U.S. says it won't agree to binding targets unless China and India also agree to limits. Those nations say it's up to the industrialized world to first control emissions.

``We need strong leadership from governments to enable the business community to take advantage of opportunities,'' British Airways' Walsh said.

Under carbon trading, companies are given emission limits and enough permits to meet that cap. If they undershoot, they're able to sell those excess credits to other businesses that are unable to meet their targets.

`Unambiguous' Goal

``The new framework must be designed to harness the power of the market,'' the chief executives wrote in the 12-page proposal. ``A well-designed market-based framework in developed countries that enables the emergence of an international market for carbon can help catalyze the required flows of private capital and clean-energy technology to developing nations.''

The new treaty must include an ``unambiguous'' international goal to cut emissions, the companies said, suggesting a target for 2050 to halve output of the gases, produced mainly from burning fossil fuels. All major economies should be involved, including developing countries such as China and India, which have no binding targets under Kyoto, the companies said.

The proposal called for incentives to avoid cutting down forests and to develop technologies including solar energy, nuclear power, and carbon capture and storage, or CCS, an experimental technique that removes carbon dioxide from factory and power-plant exhaust and pumps it underground for storage.

Carbon Capture

``Acceleration of the demonstration and deployment of a range of CCS technologies is particularly important,'' the report said. ``If all new coal-fired electricity generation plants are not operating with CCS from 2015 to 2020 onward, it will be difficult to realize the target of a 50-percent reduction in global emissions by 2050.''

The executives also said licensing agreements and funds are needed to allow clean technologies to be used in poorer nations.

While no companies from mainland China have endorsed the plan, Rick Samans, managing director of the forum, said invitations are there for Chinese firms to sign up. Walsh and Koch-Weser said awareness of climate change is high among Chinese business leaders.

To contact the reporter on this story: Alex Morales in London at [email protected]
Title: Re: Response from a member of the Climate Change Coalition
Post by: mr anderson on June 23, 2008, 09:47:26 pm
Response

To reach Professor J. Scott Armstrong with questions regarding The Global Warming Challenge, email [email protected].
How about it? A Public Debate? Life depends on it as you imply. Then there seems no time to waste in contacting him.

Title: Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
Post by: mr anderson on June 24, 2008, 04:27:36 am
Electricity, petrol emissions soaring

By Cathy Alexander | June 24, 2008

AUSTRALIA is on track to meet its Kyoto commitments on greenhouse gas emissions - but electricity and transport emissions are soaring. Government data released today showed Australia produced 585 million tonnes of greenhouse gases in 2007, six per cent more than in 1990.

Under the Kyoto deal, Australia can increase its emissions by eight per cent of 1990 levels by 2012.

But the data shows it's only a reduced rate of land clearing which is keeping emissions in check.

Emissions from electricity, petrol, farming and industry are all increasing.

If land clearing is taken out of the equation, emissions have risen 31 per cent since 1990.

Electricity emissions have increased by 47 per cent since 1990.

Emissions from transport - largely cars - was next in line, increasing 27 per cent.

Per capita emissions are 28 tonnes per year, among the highest in the world.

The data is contained in the National Greenhouse Gas Inventory 2006, which includes figures for 2007 and is partly based on estimates.

Federal Climate Change Minister Penny Wong said the report showed there were challenges ahead.

"We have a lot of work to do in the coming years to reduce Australia's greenhouse gas emissions," she said.

Senator Wong said the reduced rate of land clearing had been a significant factor in restraining emissions, but that this option would be less useful in future calculations.

She reiterated her support for an emissions trading scheme, but would not be drawn on whether petrol or agriculture would be included.

Opposition climate change spokesman Greg Hunt said the data showed Australia had long been on track to meet its Kyoto commitments due to "real action under the coalition".

Greens climate change spokeswoman Christine Milne was concerned by the data.

"There's no good news for Australia in our greenhouse gas inventory, what we're showing is increased emissions," she said.

Senator Milne said the data showed transport emissions responded to price - and coal was the main culprit behind increasing emissions.
Title: Queensland largest greenhouse gas emitter in country
Post by: mr anderson on June 24, 2008, 05:13:22 am
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,23915536-953,00.html

Kerrie Sinclair
June 24, 2008 06:48pm


QUEENSLAND'S greenhouse gas emissions have surged by almost 10 per cent and Australia's emissions per capita remain among the world's highest.

This, according to data just released, was due largely to use of coal for power generation.

Federal climate change minister Senator Penny Wong today released data on Australia's emissions of gases.

A report said that, if left uncontrolled, those gases are forecast to greatly exacerbate Australia's drought, bring more frequent and dangerous cyclones and kill the Great Barrier Reef.

The federal Climate Change Department's latest data - which covers 2006 - showed that Queensland overtook New South Wales as the largest greenhouse gas emitter of the states and territories, producing 170.9million tonnes of carbon dioxide-equivalent gases, up 8.9 per cent from 2005.

Queensland's emissions growth rate was three times the national increase of 3 per cent (to 576 million tonnes for Australia overall).

Environment group WWF's climate change policy manager Kellie Caught said the energy sector was the biggest contributor to emissions in Queensland, accounting for 95 million tonnes, or almost double the 1990 figure of 50 million tonnes.

"Queensland has (Australia's) highest emissions per capita due to its reliance on coal power and road transport," Ms Caught said.

"The state needs to diversify its energy portfolio by shifting freight to rail and focusing on renewable energy rather than relying too heavily on the coal industry," she said.

The WWF said Australia's rising emission levels was a stark reminder that federal and state governments needed to take strong and immediate action to prevent dangerous levels of warming.

The WWF wants the Government to commit to a target of cutting Australia's emissions by 25 to 40 per cent by 2020 and to a 2050 target of an 80 per cent reduction from 1990 levels.

It also urges a moratorium on the building of new coal-fired power stations unless the plant from the outset uses technology that aims to capture carbon dioxide and pump the emissions into deep storage underground.

Governments attending the G8 summit next month in Japan are to discuss throwing their support, including funding, behind moves to build large-scale power plant equipped with the carbon capture and storage technology, in order to boost investor confidence in the technology.

The Federal Government said Australia's emissions per capita had declined but remained among the highest of developed nations due, in particular, to the dominance of coal as a fuel for power generation, although natural gas has taken an increasing share.

It said emissions from stationary energy - or power stations supplying industry and households - formed half of Australia's total emissions and rose 47 per cent between 1990 and 2006, with coal-related emissions accounting for 70.4 per cent of the overall rise.

Power station use of gas - which produces half the greenhouse gas emissions of coal - accounted for a fifth of the rise in stationary energy emissions.

Emissions from agriculture, forestry and fishing dropped 39.9 per cent, reflecting reduced forest cover clearing.

Senator Wong said the data showed Australia was on track to meet the mild targets under the Kyoto Protocol international agreement on curbing greenhouse gas emissions.

But, she said, it showed Australia had a "big job ahead" to reduce them further and must work to introduce an emissions-trading scheme planned for 2010, under which major polluters would be given an economic incentive to move to lower-emission energy sources.

The Australian Climate Group - a collaboration between the insurance industry, scientists and environmentalists - has called on the Federal Government to stabilise greenhouse gas emissions by 2010 to keep the risk of catastrophic warming to a reasonable level.

"These results highlight how we need to change the way the economy works, to move it from a high-emissions economy of the past to the low-emissions economy of the future," Senator Wong said.

The emissions-trading scheme's details were still being finalised but its chief designer recommended polluters' payments be, in part, ploughed into helping low-income households handle energy bill rises.

The National Generators Forum, which represents 22 power generators, estimates the country's electricity costs will rise from $78 billion to about $150 billion if it meets the Government's target of a 60 per cent cut in greenhouse emissions by 2050.

A CSIRO-Australian National University report this week said fears that the emissions-trading scheme would cause petrol and power costs to skyrocket were unfounded.

It forecast slow rises in energy costs that would mostly be outstripped by income growth but it recommended low-income households receive a $50-$180 annual government payment to cover any gap between rising energy costs and income growth.

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd this week met with the president of Kiribati, the Pacific Island nation facing potential oblivion due to rising sea levels. Next month Mr Rudd is to attend a gathering of G8 heads of state in Japan to discuss global warming, energy and food security issues.
Title: Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
Post by: 37 on June 24, 2008, 06:12:12 am
NASA warming scientist: 'This is the last chance'

http://green.yahoo.com/news/ap/20080624/ap_on_sc/sci_warming_scientist.html

By SETH BORENSTEIN, AP Science Writer 

WASHINGTON - Exactly 20 years after warning America about global warming, a top NASA scientist said the situation has gotten so bad that the world's only hope is drastic action.

James Hansen told Congress on Monday that the world has long passed the "dangerous level" for greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and needs to get back to 1988 levels. He said Earth's atmosphere can only stay this loaded with man-made carbon dioxide for a couple more decades without changes such as mass extinction, ecosystem collapse and dramatic sea level rises.

"We're toast if we don't get on a very different path," Hansen, director of the Goddard Institute of Space Sciences who is sometimes called the godfather of global warming science, told The Associated Press. "This is the last chance."

Hansen brought global warming home to the public in June 1988 during a Washington heat wave, telling a Senate hearing that global warming was already here. To mark the anniversary, he testified before the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming where he was called a prophet, and addressed a luncheon at the National Press Club where he was called a hero by former Sen. Tim Wirth, D-Colo., who headed the 1988 hearing.

To cut emissions, Hansen said coal-fired power plants that don't capture carbon dioxide emissions shouldn't be used in the United States after 2025, and should be eliminated in the rest of the world by 2030. That carbon capture technology is still being developed and not yet cost efficient for power plants.

Burning fossil fuels like coal is the chief cause of man-made greenhouse gases. Hansen said the Earth's atmosphere has got to get back to a level of 350 parts of carbon dioxide per million. Last month, it was 10 percent higher: 386.7 parts per million.

Hansen said he'll testify on behalf of British protesters against new coal-fired power plants. Protesters have chained themselves to gates and equipment at sites of several proposed coal plants in England.

"The thing that I think is most important is to block coal-fired power plants," Hansen told the luncheon. "I'm not yet at the point of chaining myself but we somehow have to draw attention to this."

Frank Maisano, a spokesman for many U.S. utilities, including those trying to build new coal plants, said while Hansen has shown foresight as a scientist, his "stop them all approach is very simplistic" and shows that he is beyond his level of expertise.

The year of Hansen's original testimony was the world's hottest year on record. Since then, 14 years have been hotter, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Two decades later, Hansen spent his time on the question of whether it's too late to do anything about it. His answer: There's still time to stop the worst, but not much time.

"We see a tipping point occurring right before our eyes," Hansen told the AP before the luncheon. "The Arctic is the first tipping point and it's occurring exactly the way we said it would."

Hansen, echoing work by other scientists, said that in five to 10 years, the Arctic will be free of sea ice in the summer.

Longtime global warming skeptic Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., citing a recent poll, said in a statement, "Hansen, (former Vice President) Gore and the media have been trumpeting man-made climate doom since the 1980s. But Americans are not buying it."

But Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., committee chairman, said, "Dr. Hansen was right. Twenty years later, we recognize him as a climate prophet."
Title: Low-income earners 'hit by carbon trading'
Post by: mr anderson on June 24, 2008, 07:25:32 am
http://news.sbs.com.au/worldnewsaustralia/lowincome_earners_39hit_by_carbon_trading39_550010

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DprDWVQw66g - SBS World News Australia: 23rd June, 2008

A new report has called for the government to spend hundreds of millions of dollars compensating low income earners, to insulate them against increased energy prices under an emissions trading scheme.

The study forecasts that the response to climate change will lead to substantial rises in the cost of electricity and petrol when it's introduced in 2010.

Just how much will it cost to fight climate change?

A new report by the CSIRO and the Australian National University has found that an emissions trading scheme will lead to higher energy prices.

Quote
FEARS that petrol and electricity prices will soar when a carbon tax is introduced are unfounded, according to a new report. In 2010 Australia will enter the bold new world of an emissions trading scheme (ETS), which will put a price on greenhouse gas emissions to tackle climate change.

There are concerns the scheme will leave people struggling to pay their bills.

But the report by CSIRO and the Australian National University has found people will hardly notice the price rises - because incomes will rise much more quickly
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23908592-26103,00.html

"Well, there will be price increases as we get the necessary investements in the new clean energy boom that's going to be a feature of the Australian economy over this century," Erwin Jackson, from the Climate Institute said.

By 2020, petrol prices could rise by as much as 20 per cent.

The cost of electricity could jump by 50 per cent.

But there's some good news.

The study argues that for most people, real wages growth will more than offset increased energy prices.

But it calls for a multi-billion dollar fund to compensate low income earners.

"It might cost around 350 million dollars a year out to 2020 but at the same time the government's going to be making you know tens of billions of dollars of revenue from the emissions trading system," Mr Jackson said.

The Opposition describes the report as a reality check and says the government should instead focus on reducing vehicle emissions.

"It effectively says to Australia Mr Rudd is proposing a new tax on petrol”, Opposition spokesman for the Environment Greg Hunt said.

But it's unclear whether petrol will be included in the scheme.

"The economic cost of inaction on climate change is far greater than the economic cost of action on climate change," Prime Minisiter Kevin Rudd said.

The Opposition argues Labor should look much further afield if it wants to combat climate change.

It has renewed its call for the government to sell uranium to India, even though Delhi hasn't signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

It says nuclear reactors provide emissions-free energy.

Destroying India's prospects of clean energy is another example of talk big on greenhouse and then do everything to avoid actually decreasing emissions, Mr Hunt said.

India's External Affairs Minister - who's visiting Canberra - says Delhi has been aware of the government's position for a long time.

"Australia's commitment to non-proliferation is firm and we respect that", the Indian FM told SBS.

The government says it wants to take its relationship with India to a new level.

At this stage, it doesn't appear that the disagreement over uranium exports will prevent that.

Source: SBS
Title: Climate change strategy to 'drive fuel hikes'
Post by: mr anderson on June 24, 2008, 10:46:19 pm
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23919264-662,00.html

By Ben Packham and Sarah Wotherspoon
June 25, 2008 01:21am


*Audio: Parliament debates including fuel in carbon trading scheme (AM)
http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/news/audio/am/200806/20080625-am01-petrol.mp3


MOTORISTS have had their strongest hint yet to prepare for higher petrol prices under the Rudd Government's plan to fight climate change. As petrol prices nudged $1.70 ($6 / Gallon) yesterday, Transport Minister Anthony Albanese said the Government's emissions trading scheme (ETS) had to include major carbon polluters.

"The transport sector, which contributes about 14 per cent of total greenhouse emissions, must be a part of any climate change strategy," Mr Albanese said.

"For the ETS to be effective, we know it needs to have as broad a coverage as possible."

Under a $50-a-tonne "carbon price", petrol prices would rise by about 17c a litre. Opposition Treasury spokesman Malcolm Turnbull has dropped his earlier support for the inclusion of transport fuels in the scheme.

"That was the Howard government's policy," the former environment minister told Sky News.

He said that nobody expected petrol prices to rise as high as they had and motorists had already had to curb their fuel use. A framework for the ETS will be unveiled next week by the Government's climate change adviser, Ross Garnaut. Figures released yesterday showed Australia's greenhouse gas emissions rose by 1.6 per cent last year, to about 585 million tonnes. Emissions were 6 per cent above 1990 levels - the year from which Kyoto protocol targets are calculated.

Australia aims to cap emissions increases at 8 per cent of 1990 levels by 2012. The preliminary 2007 figures were released with the National Greenhouse Gas Inventory 2006, which showed emissions for that year at 576 million tonnes. Energy was again the biggest contributor, accounting for 400.9 million tonnes. Energy sector emissions have grown 40 per cent since 1990 and transport emissions by 27 per cent.

The 2006 inventory shows a decline in emissions from 2005 to 2006 of five million tonnes, due to a reduction in land clearing.

Related: http://www.theage.com.au/environment/high-fuel-costs-help-cut-emissions-20080624-2w6n.html - High fuel costs help cut emissions
Title: Climate's major threat to state
Post by: mr anderson on June 25, 2008, 07:31:08 am
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23920846-5009760,00.html

By Rosemary Desmond

June 25, 2008 04:09pm
Article from: AAP

    * Queensland most at threat from climate change - report
    * Predictions of sever drought and intense cyclones
    * Also faces risk of sea levels rising


QUEENSLAND has more to lose from climate change than any other Australian state, with the twin threats of severe drought and intense cyclones, a new report shows.

The state government has responded by launching a $3 million campaign to get householders to shrink their carbon footprints.

Queensland Climate Change Minister Andrew McNamara today released the report from the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Office of Climate Change showing the state's average temperature could rise by five degrees celsius by 2070.

The report, entitled Climate Change in Queensland - What the science is telling us, said the annual temperature had risen faster than the national average since 1950.

Under the current high emissions scenario, Queensland's temperature would rise by 2.8 degrees by 2050 and five degrees by 2070.

The report identified the Great Barrier Reef and wet tropics rainforest as especially vulnerable.

Most of the population, which lives on the coast, could face severe flooding from sea levels expected to rise by up two metres by the end of the century.

"Queensland has key challenges because of our widely distributed population,'' Mr McNamara told reporters today.

"We have four million people living across a much broader area than Victoria, for example.

"So our transport challenge is significantly more difficult because we simply have to transport people and goods over greater distances.

"We have a highly distributed economy and it's an energy intensive economy.

"We have a very strong mining sector, but of course, that entails the significant production of greenhouse gases.

"So Queensland, because of the structure of our economy and the distribution of our people, has more at risk because of climate change than any other state in Australia.''

Energy generation, which includes coal-fired power stations, makes up 40 per cent of the state's greenhouse gas emissions.

The National Greenhouse Gas Inventory for 2006 showed that Queensland accounted for 170 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions or 29.7 per cent of the national total, ahead of the next highest greenhouse gas emitter NSW, which produced 27.8 per cent of the national total.

Queensland Resources Council (QRC) chief executive Michael Roche said today the state's mining and energy companies were working to reduce their emissions.

"If we want the lights to continue to come on, definitely there is a place for coal,'' Mr Roche said.

"But the future for coal is a different sort of future - it's a future with coal being burnt far more efficiently, where the CO2 is being captured, transported and being stored safely, permanently underground.''

Mr McNamara today initiated the program encouraging householders to reduce their carbon footprint.

Based on a model developed in the United States, the "low carbon diet'' is a program that provides information and resources to help households cut their greenhouse gas emissions by two tonnes a month or up to 20 per cent within the first year.

Measures include running dishwashers less frequently, using cold water to wash clothes and buying energy-efficient appliances.

But environmental group WWF said the state government must do more to tackle climate change.

"Queensland has the highest emissions per capita due to its reliance on coal power and road transport,'' WWF spokeswoman Kellie Caught said.

"The state needs to diversify its energy portfolio by shifting freight to rail and focusing on renewable energy rather than relying too heavily on the coal industry.''

ANDREW MCNAMARA MP
Minister for Sustainability, Climate Change and Innovation


Contact details
Hon. Andrew McNamara
Minister for Sustainability, Climate Change and Innovation

PO Box 15155, City East QLD 4002
Phone: (07) 3336 8032; Fax: (07) 3227 6309
E-mail: [email protected]
Title: Re: Climate's major threat to state
Post by: mr anderson on June 25, 2008, 07:53:11 am
There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998

By Bob Carter

• Prof Bob Carter is a geologist at James Cook University, Queensland, engaged in paleoclimate research

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/04/09/do0907.xml
Last Updated: 12:01am BST 09/04/2006


For many years now, human-caused climate change has been viewed as a large and urgent problem. In truth, however, the biggest part of the problem is neither environmental nor scientific, but a self-created political fiasco. Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero).

Yes, you did read that right. And also, yes, this eight-year period of temperature stasis did coincide with society's continued power station and SUV-inspired pumping of yet more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

In response to these facts, a global warming devotee will chuckle and say "how silly to judge climate change over such a short period". Yet in the next breath, the same person will assure you that the 28-year-long period of warming which occurred between 1970 and 1998 constitutes a dangerous (and man-made) warming. Tosh. Our devotee will also pass by the curious additional facts that a period of similar warming occurred between 1918 and 1940, well prior to the greatest phase of world industrialisation, and that cooling occurred between 1940 and 1965, at precisely the time that human emissions were increasing at their greatest rate.

Does something not strike you as odd here? That industrial carbon dioxide is not the primary cause of earth's recent decadal-scale temperature changes doesn't seem at all odd to many thousands of independent scientists. They have long appreciated - ever since the early 1990s, when the global warming bandwagon first started to roll behind the gravy train of the UN Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - that such short-term climate fluctuations are chiefly of natural origin. Yet the public appears to be largely convinced otherwise. How is this possible?

Since the early 1990s, the columns of many leading newspapers and magazines, worldwide, have carried an increasing stream of alarmist letters and articles on hypothetical, human-caused climate change. Each such alarmist article is larded with words such as "if", "might", "could", "probably", "perhaps", "expected", "projected" or "modelled" - and many involve such deep dreaming, or ignorance of scientific facts and principles, that they are akin to nonsense.

The problem here is not that of climate change per se, but rather that of the sophisticated scientific brainwashing that has been inflicted on the public, bureaucrats and politicians alike. Governments generally choose not to receive policy advice on climate from independent scientists. Rather, they seek guidance from their own self-interested science bureaucracies and senior advisers, or from the IPCC itself. No matter how accurate it may be, cautious and politically non-correct science advice is not welcomed in Westminster, and nor is it widely reported.

Marketed under the imprimatur of the IPCC, the bladder-trembling and now infamous hockey-stick diagram that shows accelerating warming during the 20th century - a statistical construct by scientist Michael Mann and co-workers from mostly tree ring records - has been a seminal image of the climate scaremongering campaign. Thanks to the work of a Canadian statistician, Stephen McIntyre, and others, this graph is now known to be deeply flawed.

There are other reasons, too, why the public hears so little in detail from those scientists who approach climate change issues rationally, the so-called climate sceptics. Most are to do with intimidation against speaking out, which operates intensely on several parallel fronts.

First, most government scientists are gagged from making public comment on contentious issues, their employing organisations instead making use of public relations experts to craft carefully tailored, frisbee-science press releases. Second, scientists are under intense pressure to conform with the prevailing paradigm of climate alarmism if they wish to receive funding for their research. Third, members of the Establishment have spoken declamatory words on the issue, and the kingdom's subjects are expected to listen.

On the alarmist campaign trail, the UK's Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir David King, is thus reported as saying that global warming is so bad that Antarctica is likely to be the world's only habitable continent by the end of this century. Warming devotee and former Chairman of Shell, Lord [Ron] Oxburgh, reportedly agrees with another rash statement of King's, that climate change is a bigger threat than terrorism. And goodly Archbishop Rowan Williams, who self-evidently understands little about the science, has warned of "millions, billions" of deaths as a result of global warming and threatened Mr Blair with the wrath of the climate God unless he acts. By betraying the public's trust in their positions of influence, so do the great and good become the small and silly.

Two simple graphs provide needed context, and exemplify the dynamic, fluctuating nature of climate change. The first is a temperature curve for the last six million years, which shows a three-million year period when it was several degrees warmer than today, followed by a three-million year cooling trend which was accompanied by an increase in the magnitude of the pervasive, higher frequency, cold and warm climate cycles. During the last three such warm (interglacial) periods, temperatures at high latitudes were as much as 5 degrees warmer than today's. The second graph shows the average global temperature over the last eight years, which has proved to be a period of stasis.

The essence of the issue is this. Climate changes naturally all the time, partly in predictable cycles, and partly in unpredictable shorter rhythms and rapid episodic shifts, some of the causes of which remain unknown. We are fortunate that our modern societies have developed during the last 10,000 years of benignly warm, interglacial climate. But for more than 90 per cent of the last two million years, the climate has been colder, and generally much colder, than today. The reality of the climate record is that a sudden natural cooling is far more to be feared, and will do infinitely more social and economic damage, than the late 20th century phase of gentle warming.

The British Government urgently needs to recast the sources from which it draws its climate advice. The shrill alarmism of its public advisers, and the often eco-fundamentalist policy initiatives that bubble up from the depths of the Civil Service, have all long since been detached from science reality. Intern-ationally, the IPCC is a deeply flawed organisation, as acknowledged in a recent House of Lords report, and the Kyoto Protocol has proved a costly flop. Clearly, the wrong horses have been backed.

As mooted recently by Tony Blair, perhaps the time has come for Britain to join instead the new Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate (AP6), whose six member countries are committed to the development of new technologies to improve environmental outcomes. There, at least, some real solutions are likely to emerge for improving energy efficiency and reducing pollution.

Informal discussions have already begun about a new AP6 audit body, designed to vet rigorously the science advice that the Partnership receives, including from the IPCC. Can Britain afford not to be there?
Title: Government fuming over lack of cooperation for emissions scheme
Post by: mr anderson on June 25, 2008, 08:13:11 am
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/06/25/2285703.htm
Posted 7 hours 42 minutes ago


Treasurer Wayne Swan has labelled the lack of bipartisan support as a case of an Opposition scare campaign and cheap politics.

Treasurer Wayne Swan has labelled the lack of bipartisan support as a case of an Opposition scare campaign and cheap politics. (ABC News: Giulio Saggin)

The job of trying to head off dangerous climate change is getting tougher by the day for the Federal Government.

Professor Ross Garnaut hands down his emissions trading report to the Government next week.

The Government has promised to outline the design of its plan by the end of the year - ready to start in 2010. But some in the Opposition want that deadline extended.

"In my view yes. I don't believe that you can do a comprehensive analysis of all of the impacts of a emissions trading scheme in that time frame," Western Australian backbencher Dennis Jensen said.

"I suspect that the Government will have some sort of a delaying tactic themselves," Queensland front bencher Peter Dutton added.

The Coalition's pre-election promise of a 2011 introduction now appears to be up in the air but environment spokesman Greg Hunt will not specify a start-up date.

"We have a very clear and unified view. We believe in emissions trading. We believe in the importance, the fundamental importance of climate change, but we do say, we will look at the timing following Garnaut," he said.

The Opposition is also warning motorists the price of petrol will go up significantly if fuel is included in an emissions trading scheme. Mr Hunt says everything possible should be done to keep petrol prices as low as possible.

"Is government policy for petrol prices to go up or down? Our position is very clear. We want petrol prices to go down," he said.

"We think that is the right thing by the economy. That is the right thing to do by Australian families, by pensioners, by low income earners and that we can also... make real inroads into the efficiency of vehicles.

"We can do the right thing by an emissions trading scheme."

Treasury spokesman Malcolm Turnbull has raised the prospect of a policy change, cutting the excise on petrol to offset the effect of a carbon tax.

Scare campaign

The Coalition's positions on these two matters have angered the Government.

Treasurer Wayne Swan says the lack of bipartisan support for the central plank of the Government strategy to cut greenhouse gases is another case of an Opposition scare campaign and cheap politics.

"Reducing carbon emissions over time is a significant economic challenge for the nation and for the globe," he said.

"We are determined to address this challenge. I think what we are seeing from the Liberals is that they are completely incapable of dealing with economic challenges and dealing with the environmental challenge of climate change."

Mr Swan says Opposition's support will be needed as the Government goes through the green paper process.

"We will need their support because this is a very significant economic reform which goes to the heart of our future economic prosperity," he said.

"Having one side of politics involved in such a negative scare campaign, is damaging to the long-term economic interests of this country."

The Treasurer has dismissed the Opposition's stance on petrol as outrageous.

"We are going to publish our green paper which will discuss the design of the scheme," he said.

"It will be comprehensive and when that is in the public domain, we can have an informed discussion about all of the issues in the emissions trading system.

"But for Mr Hunt to engage in such outrageous lies about the potential impact of a scheme, the design of which he hasn't seen, just shows how desperate the Liberal Party has become."

Unstable Senate

On climate change and everything else, the Government will have to negotiate to get its legislation through the Senate.

After Parliament rises tomorrow, the Coalition loses its Senate majority. The Government's so called 'alcopops' tax hike is a case in point.

The Opposition is against it. The Greens and others have big concerns. Labor will have to get the support of the Greens, and two other Senators, Nick Xenophon and Steve Fielding.

Greens leader Senator Bob Brown has some simple advice for Labor.

"The Government is going to have to bargain and so are we and so is everybody else in the Senate," he said.

The Australian Democrats will have their last day in Federal Parliament tomorrow and Senator Natasha Stott Despoja has some parting advice too.

"Well, welcome to the Senate post-July 1. Of course the Government is going to have to bargain and negotiate and compromise and do deals with the cross-bench senators," she said.

"Steve Fielding has indicated what he is unsure about what he wants to do and certainly after July 1 any one senator can kill a bill or kill a government policy.

"The Government will not have the Democrats and all that consistent corporate history to work with, so welcome to a very unstable place."

- Adapted from a report by Alexandra Kirk for The World Today
Title: Fuel prices could rise under carbon trading scheme: Aus PM Rudd
Post by: mr anderson on June 25, 2008, 08:15:07 am
By Online parliamentary correspondent Emma Rodgers

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/06/25/2285767.htm

Posted 6 hours 58 minutes ago
Updated 5 hours 6 minutes ago

http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/news/audio/pm/200806/20080625pm01-climate-debate.mp3


Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has not been able to rule out a petrol price rise under the carbon emissions trading scheme.

In a rowdy Question Time, the first half of which was dominated by climate change, Mr Rudd was challenged to confirm if the scheme would raise the cost of petrol.

Mr Rudd used a statement from former prime minister John Howard last year, in which Mr Howard said reducing carbon emissions would result in higher petrol and energy prices, to condemn the Opposition.

But Mr Rudd agreed that prices could rise.

"Of course the position adopted by the former primer minister is right," he said.

"If you adopt a position of acting on climate change it does have an impact on energy prices. That's just the truth. [John Howard] said it then, we say it now.

"What's the difference between us and them now? We have a plan of action to deal with this in the future [but] those opposite have decided that this is a matter in which they intend to turn

Fuel inclusion

The Government has also refused to confirm whether it is considering an option to push back the inclusion of fuel in the scheme until 2012.

Treasury spokesman Malcolm Turnbull asked the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure, Anthony Albanese, whether Cabinet had discussed the option.

In response the Minister said he would be breaking the law to discuss a Cabinet meeting.

"They know the question's out of order," he said.

Mr Albanese instead ridiculed environment spokesman Greg Hunt for his changed position on whether petrol should be included in the scheme.

Today Mr Hunt said the Opposition was still to confirm whether it would support the inclusion of petrol.

Mr Albanese claims Mr Hunt has put six different positions forward on the issue.

"Six positions he's put forward on climate change. [That's] more positions than Karma Sutra," he said.

"Transport produces 14 per cent of our total emissions and therefore we need to consider transport as an option."

Treasurer Wayne Swan also focused on Mr Hunt.

"This is a guy who has made a career criss-crossing the country in his hemp underpants pretending to be the green conscience of the Liberal Party," he said.

The Federal Minister for Climate Change says a carbon trading scheme is the only economically responsible way to reduce emissions.

Federal Minister Penny Wong has told Parliament the Federal Opposition is not taking the issue seriously.

"Just as they squibbed it on the economic challenges when it came to the capacity constraints on the economy, so too did they squib it on climate change," she said.

"They failed to do what was needed when they were in government and now they are in Opposition they are content to play short-term politics."

Queensland emissions

Meanwhile a Queensland Government report released today shows the state has the highest rate of emissions per capita in the country, mainly because of coal-fired power plants.

It also shows average temperatures across Queensland could increase by up to five degrees by 2070 if emissions remain high.

Queensland Climate Change Minister Andrew McNamara today launched a $3 million program to encourage householders to reduce their carbon footprint.

Mr McNamara says coal mining makes up 50 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions in Queensland, but other industries need to reduce their impact too.

"We will be developing further techniques to enhance not just renewable energy, but the greenhouse savings which can be had right across other sectors of the economy, including the housing sector and the construction sector and the waste and resources sectors," he said.
Title: ACCC releases carbon offset guidelines
Post by: mr anderson on June 28, 2008, 06:11:28 am
http://news.smh.com.au/national/accc-releases-carbon-offset-guidelines-20080627-2y2g.html

Carbon Claims and the Trade Practices Act
http://www.accc.gov.au/content/item.phtml?itemId=833279&nodeId=14e6d4cd90c85705b681de797365c53d&fn=Carbon%20claims%20and%20the%20Trade%20Practices%20Act.pdf

The consumer watchdog has set about educating the public on carbon offset claims.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) has launched a set of guidelines in response to growing claims about how consumers can neutralise the carbon footprint of flights, cars and other aspects of daily life.

"Consumer concerns about the veracity of claims on carbon offsets have led the ACCC to develop guidance for consumers and industry on the Trade Practices Act implications of carbon offset claims," ACCC chairman Graeme Samuel said.

"The difficulties in understanding and verifying carbon claims give rise to concerns that consumers may be facing misleading and deceptive conduct associated with this emerging market."

Kate Norris from consumer advocacy group Choice welcomed the guidelines but said the federal government should set rules for offset schemes.

"There is a strong need for consumers to have access to clear information on carbon claims. The ACCC's guides will help achieve this aim," she said.

"We now need the federal government to set a minimum standard for carbon offsets and carbon neutrality."

The guidelines, titled Carbon Claims and the Trade Practices Act, can be viewed on the ACCC website.

They are available in electronic form only "in deference to environmental concerns".

© 2008 AAP
Title: The Sunday Show - Questioning the science of Climate Change; 3 Part Report
Post by: mr anderson on June 28, 2008, 11:21:35 am
http://sunday.ninemsn.com.au/sunday/

On the show; 29th June, 2008 (AEST)

Part I - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRhYjUAAzA4
Part II - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CheOqzN5ZA8
Part III - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RptWRaYuWdQ


Greens Senator Bob Brown
Part I  - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RF-086lLd8I
Part II - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nf7sWQ1_0Wk


Questioning Science
The theory of anthropogenic, or man-made, global warming has become an unchallengeable fact, a piece of black letter law almost unique in the world of science. Proponents of the theory say the time for scientific debate is over. However, there is a school of thought that our knowledge of climate systems is as yet insufficient to be so conclusive on the causes of global warming. Sunday examines the political consensus building that has portrayed global warming as the most urgent crisis humankind has ever faced.


Interview: Wayne Swan

This week, Ellen Fanning talks to the treasurer, Wayne Swan.

Interview: Bob Brown
This week, Ellen Fanning talks to Senator Bob Brown of the Greens about the new role of the Greens in the Senate and the impact of climate change.

Oil Shock
In many ways the great oil shock that's now causing so much commotion in world markets crept up on us. Though fuel prices have been rising, many people have been lulled by cheap Chinese imports, strong economic times and full employment. Ross Greenwood looks at what lies ahead for the oil industry.

(http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r20/m-r-anderson/234324.jpg)
Title: Re: The Sunday Show - Questioning Science (Global Warming) 2 Part Report
Post by: KiwiClare on June 28, 2008, 09:16:15 pm
Thanks for posting this.

Quote
The theory of anthropogenic, or man-made, global warming has become an unchallengeable fact, a piece of black letter law almost unique in the world of science.

This is propaganda that would have Orwell rolling in his grave. The theory is neither unchallengeable, nor a fact, it is a scam.
Title: Firm mines Labor links to lobby PM; Greenhouse strategy
Post by: mr anderson on June 28, 2008, 11:36:06 pm
http://www.theage.com.au/national/firm-mines-labor-links-to-lobby-pm-20080628-2yjy.html

Josh Gordon
June 29, 2008


A COMPANY that provides strategic political advice to the Prime Minister's office is also being paid by mining and energy companies to lobby the Government as it prepares to unveil its greenhouse strategy.

Hawker Britton, overwhelmingly made up of former Labor staffers and party insiders, is working for at least six companies that would be nervously watching the Government's emissions-trading deliberations.

The company's website says it has played a "central strategic role in every Australian state and federal election campaign since it was founded in 1997". It also has a "national alliance" with Labor's pollster of choice, UMR.

At issue is the question of whether existing greenhouse-intensive companies, such as power generators, will be granted free permits, and whether petrol will be included in the scheme.

Details of the lobby firm's client list were posted last week on the Government's new register of lobbyists, which will come into force from July 1.

Lobbying in Canberra has been frantic ahead of the release this Friday of a Government-commissioned report on emissions trading by economist Ross Garnaut. Climate Change Minister Penny Wong will soon release a green paper on the topic.

Hawker Britton's Canberra-based director, Simon Banks, was the chief-of-staff or deputy chief-of-staff for three Labor leaders, while its managing director, Bruce Hawker, was chief-of-staff for former NSW premier Bob Carr. It is lobbying on behalf of Heathgate Resources, operator of South Australia's Beverley uranium mine, Quasar Resources (an associate of Heathgate and US nuclear power company General Atomics), and Chinese aluminium company Chinalco.

Of 25 staff members listed on the company's website, all but four were former staffers or Labor Party insiders.

Shadow special minister of state Michael Ronaldson said Hawker Britton had a fortune riding on which emission-trading model the Government adopted.

"When Hawker Britton briefs (Mr) Rudd on polling and strategy on current issues like the emissions-trading scheme, which hat are they wearing?" Senator Ronaldson asked. "Their polling and strategy consultant's hat or their lobbyists-hoping-for-a-success-fee hat?"

But Mr Hawker said lobbyists were subject to far more scrutiny now than during the Howard years. "I would point out strongly the double standard in play here," he said.

Another lobbying firm, Government Relations Australia (GRA), employs Sandra Eccles, the wife of Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's chief-of-staff, David Epstein, and its Adelaide-based director. GRA's clients include Bluescope Steel, Loy Yang Power, Mitsubishi Motors and Newcastle Coal Infrastructure Group.

A spokeswoman for Mr Rudd said the lobbying code and register showed Mr Rudd's commitment to greater administrative transparency. "Registration will not confer a right of access by lobbyists," she said.
Title: Re: The Sunday Show - Questioning the science of Climate Change; 2 Part Report
Post by: mr anderson on June 28, 2008, 11:41:17 pm
Andrew Bolt: http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/warming_priests_defocked_on_sunday/#commentsmore

Sunday‘s Adam Shand finds the debate on global warming that Tim Flannery claims is over. Oddly enough, the debate Shand finds is between experts who doubt man is truly heating the world to hell and non-expert evangelists who insist he is.

This is also the first time that I recall mainstream television reporting that the world has not warmed over the past decade.

I particularly liked the excuse ABC science guru Roby Williams gives for excluding from the ABC the views of true weather experts - and sceptics - such as William Kininmonth:

    He has made a few statements that I’ve checked and they haven’t stood the test.

Is that so? Well, even by Williams’ own shonky test, he should ban himself forever for claiming the world’s seas may well rise 100 metres this century.
Title: Climate change strategy splinters PM Kevin Rudd cabinet
Post by: mr anderson on June 29, 2008, 02:23:28 am
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23934581-601,00.html

Dennis Shanahan, Political editor | June 28, 2008


PRESSURE over a new greenhouse gas regime and the looming Garnaut report on emissions trading is fuelling the deepest cabinet divisions over policy and politics since the election of the Rudd Government.

Concerns are being aired about the possibility of the Government missing its starting deadline of 2010 for the emissions trading scheme and political backlash over rising costs and compensation for people and businesses affected by the scheme.

As part of the cabinet discussions, consideration is being given to subjecting Australia's entire food production industry - including cattle, sheep, pig and grain growing - to the fulleffects of the new carbon pricing system.

Cabinet and its climate change subcommittee have been sitting every day this week, sometimes almost to midnight, to decide how greenhouse gas producers, including the petrol and agriculture sectors, should be hit with a new carbon price.

The cabinet has also been concerned with whether the extremely complex legislation to start an emissions trading scheme can be introduced, as promised in the election, from the middle of 2010.

And as US audiences at the annual Australian American Leadership Dialogue in Washington were told that the Rudd Government could become a "oncer" because of the impact of an emissions trading scheme, cabinet is becoming more pre-occupied with the political backlash over climate change measures.

The Australian reported yesterday that union leader Paul Howes and former NSW Labor premier Bob Carr told the Washington meeting that Australia should consider nuclear energy as an option to cut greenhouse gases in 10 to 20 years' time.

Cabinet met again yesterday - after several meetings since last week - to discuss the ETS. Cabinet discussed whether price relief for petrol should be provided through an excise cut and when to include agriculture in the greenhouse gas reduction system.

Under an ETS, industries that cannot meet greenhouse gas reduction targets will be forced to buy carbon permits, with the costs likely to be passed on to customers in the form of higher bills for services such as petrol and electricity. For every industry that is made exempt - or is given free carbon credits to continue polluting - the burden for cutting emissions is likely tofall more heavily on other industries.

Parliament has been divided this week over whether petrol should be included in an ETS, with Labor and Coalition accusing each other of internal confusion over the issue.

Kevin Rudd, Wayne Swan and Climate Change Minister Penny Wong have this week reiterated the Government's determination to set up the ETS in 2010 - before the next election.

But as complexities of technical measurement - such as livestock emissions - and the political ramifications for industry exemptions and compensation for consumers grow, there is concern the deadline may not be achievable.

Yesterday, the Prime Minister was personally confronted on talkback radio with demands to explain the ETS and to take action on petrol prices.

The Opposition continued to concentrate on the impact on petrol prices of an ETS, which will set a price for carbon that will push up costs for energy-intensive industries, such as coal-fired electricity generation and aluminium, and transport if petrol is included.

Mr Rudd, the Treasurer and Senator Wong all refused yesterday to give any detail on the design of the ETS and all distanced themselves from the greenhouse gas emissions report the Government has commissioned from Ross Garnaut, which will be released next Friday.

Senior government ministers fear the Garnaut report will adopt far more extreme proposals on cutting greenhouse gas emissions than the Government intends to publish in its own interim "green" paper in three weeks' time, inflaming public concern about threats to jobs and higher costs.

On petrol prices, Mr Rudd told the radio station 3AW that "if you act on climate change and you act on the price of carbon through an emissions-trading scheme, it does effect the price of energy and the price of oil". Interview with Neil Mitchell Radio 3AW Melbourne - http://www.pm.gov.au/media/Interview/2008/interview_0331.cfm

"The key question is, on the way through, how do you best support and compensate working families, working Australians, pensioners, carers, to deal with any price adjustment," the Prime Minister said.

He said petrol costs were being considered, but would not say how relief would be delivered to motorists.

Senator Wong said the ETS would be introduced in 2010 because it was an election commitment. But it would not be introduced "regardless of cost". Part of the Government's task was to convince people that higher prices caused by the introduction of a carbon price would mean lower costs in the long term.

"Taking early and responsible action will be more cost effective in the long run for Australia," she said.

The minister said Professor Garnaut was "an important contributor to government thinking" and "an esteemed economist with a strong history of reform" but he was independent. "Just as he's independent so too the Government has to make its decisions," she said. "This is hard economic reform."

Some of the cabinet discussions concerned the issue of which agricultural sectors should be included in the ETS, and whether they should be put into the first or second phase of the new system.

Mr Swan refused to talk about details of the cabinet discussions on the ETS, and said there would be a discussion of all issues related to an emissions-trading system.

The Treasurer ruled out calls from Mr Howes, the Australian Workers Union national secretary, and Mr Carr to consider nuclear energy. Asked yesterday about the possibility of Labor embracing nuclear power, Mr Swan said: "No, a capital N-O".

Opposition Leader Brendan Nelson said yesterday the Coalition continued to support a 5c cut in petrol excise.

The Coalition's environment spokesman Greg Hunt said the Opposition had set out to establish a petrol price policy in relation to an ETS that meant there was "no net rise in new petrol taxes".
Title: Harnessing winds of change
Post by: mr anderson on June 29, 2008, 02:29:51 am
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23933768-664,00.html

Olga Galacho
June 28, 2008 12:00am


WHEN economist Ross Garnaut chaired travel guide publishers Lonely Planet in the early 2000s, the irony of his present stint as Federal Government adviser on carbon emissions trading was not yet apparent.

On Friday, as he delivers his draft report on how a carbon price will affect productivity, he is likely to make reference to the scientific findings that suggest the planet is about to get very lonely indeed if climate change is not checked before it interferes with life on earth.

The Australian National University academic - credited with having engineered trade liberalisation in the 1980s, and who also chairs Lihir Gold and is a director of Ok Tedi Mining Limited - has given many signals recently that he favours a low-carbon economy guided by growing evidence from thousands of scientists reporting to the United Nations that global warming is damaging ecosystems.

Professor Garnaut will have met a tight schedule when he launches his Climate Change Review findings at a National Press Club lunch in Canberra next week.

He was commissioned just last year to conduct an analysis of the costs and benefits of turning carbon into a major commodity and has examined 4000 submissions and consulted widely.

But whether the government also will be able to stick to its deadline of introducing a carbon emissions market in 2010 has become a key concern for major institutional investors.

Pricing greenhouse gas emissions has massive implications for investors as companies compulsorily required to report their pollution levels will have to account in their balance sheets for the cost of carbon credits to offset those emissions.

Conversely, industries whose operations significantly reduce the nation's carbon footprint will profit from selling earned carbon credits when trading begins.

As the shake-out among the winners and losers unfolds on the way to 2010, policy makers are being bombarded by lobbyists of all hues, from green to black.

Warnings to the government, such as those issued by the Business Council of Australia recently, that a hastily designed scheme would damage the economy are coming thick and fast.

On the one hand the BCA has implored the government to take a leaf out of the reformist book of the Hawke era on issues such as speedy tariff cuts.

That reform, ironically, was informed by Prof. Garnaut who at the time was one of former Prime Minister Bob Hawke's senior economic advisers.

Yet, on the issue of emissions reform, many big businesses, such as major resources exporters like Rio Tinto, want progress slowed.

In a last-minute submission to the Garnaut Review, the giant miner called for a "trial run" emissions trading scheme so that the economy could get a feel for the likely impacts before mandatory emissions targets are set.

But Investor Group on Climate Change (IGCC), an organisation representing institutionals with more than $500 billion of assets under management, say bring it on.

Speaking for members such as AMP Capital Investors, Goldman Sachs JB Were, Merrill Lynch, C-Bus and several other wealthy superannuation funds, IGCC executive director Joanne Saleeba said a trial run would not create certainty in the investment world.

Uncertainty is death to investment, said Ms Saleeba.

"We are calling for the government to stick to its timeframe for introducing emissions trading.

"Institutionals are sensing there is a lot of agitation for delaying a carbon market.

"I know there is considerable frenetic energy being expended on drawing up the legislation.

"But along the way there are segments of the economy that say 'we need more time' to develop strategies for coping," Ms Saleeba said.

The IGCC wrote to the Prime Minister earlier this month reiterating its call for "urgent and strong action by the government in tackling climate change in the face of considerable pressure to the contrary".

IGCC chairman and VicSuper chief executive Bob Welsh wrote that "narrow vested interests were lobbying for delay and dilution".

However, the IGCC members believed that greater costs to the economy and considerable uncertainty for business would result if a carbon market was postponed beyond the government's stated timetable.

He noted that the government could draw on four years of scheme design work already conducted by the National Emissions Trading Taskforce and the former government's Task Group on Emissions Trading.

"This discussion has been going on for years, there is no need to drag it on any longer, just do it in 2010," said Ms Saleeba.

The complex details of a scheme that Prof. Garnaut's report will examine:

THE merits or otherwise of auctioning all emissions permits.

WHETHER bidders can bank or borrow permits;

WHETHER compensation should be paid to industries whose assets will be priced out of the carbon market, such as the electricity generators;

WHETHER the scheme should be linked to international carbon markets;

THE contribution of carbon-friendly measures such as mandatory energy efficiency and renewable energy targets;

WHAT targets for emissions cuts should be implemented;

WHAT level of free permits to pollute, if any, should be given to energy-intensive industries, such as aluminium smelters, which threaten to take their exporting businesses elsewhere.

Climate Change Minister Penny Wong has already signalled she favours encouraging those industries to stay in Australia because of the positive influence they bring to the nation's current accounts.

How much a tonne of carbon will begin trading at will be influenced by the medium-term emissions target the government sets for the nation.

At the moment, Australia is on track to meet its Kyoto Protocol obligation of keeping its short-term emissions no higher than 8 per cent of what they were in 1990 - that is 552 million tonnes - in 2012.

The government's long-term target is to reduce emissions by 60 per cent of 2000 levels by 2050.

In December, after the government ratified the protocol, there was debate about a medium-term target for the year 2020 in the range of 25 per cent to 40 per cent of 1990 levels for industrialised countries.

At the lower end of that range, the emission cuts would equal the effect of planting 210 million trees.

While the paper Prof Garnaut delivers in six days' time will examine the various scenarios, it will still be a long way from revealing exactly how the government will frame its emissions scheme.

AT THE end of August, Prof Garnaut will release a supplementary modelling report that will include work conducted by the Federal Treasury on the likely economic impacts of different emission reduction scenarios.

Then his final report will follow later this year.

According to Senator Wong, the government intends to enact legislation for the introduction of emissions trading late next year.

Prof. Garnaut's delivery has been a much anticipated milestone in the climate change debate, but it is, as one observer noted, no more than the Government licking its finger and sticking it out to see which way the breeze is blowing.

But if Nobel Prize winning scientists on the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are right, legislators delaying action to slow global warming will see those breezes turn into cyclones with greater frequency, along with many other weather-related catastrophes capable of uprooting economies.
Title: Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
Post by: Brocke on June 29, 2008, 11:14:16 pm
China's Hu says 'time is limited' in curbing climate change

29/06/08

BEIJING (AFP) — Chinese President Hu Jintao urged renewed efforts to curb global warming on Saturday, stressing "time is limited" in finding efficient solutions to the problem, state media reported.

"How we cope with climate change is related to the country's economic development and people's practical benefits. It's in line with the country's basic interests," Hu said according to the official Xinhua news agency.

"Our task is tough, and our time is limited. Party organisations and governments at all levels must give priority to emission reduction ... and bring the idea deep into people's hearts," the president said.

Hu said more efficient energy use and increased forest coverage were among the ways in which China could make a difference.

It is China's long-held position that developed countries are mostly responsible for climate change.

But China's greenhouse gas output has soared in recent years as its largely coal-powered economy has expanded at double-digit pace, and it now ranks alongside the United States as the world's biggest emitter.

However China has a population of more than 1.3 billion people, compared with around 300 million in the United States.

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5g15qN3rzTef2oEeXzbJ4ezP0Nrww
Title: It will look like a trading scheme but operate like a carbon tax
Post by: mr anderson on June 30, 2008, 12:32:50 am
Climate change agenda heats up for Garnaut

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sY-GiQqmLYQ

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23942337-30538,00.html
June 30, 2008


TODAY is the unofficial start of the Government's July festival of climate-change policy. Professor Ross Garnaut opens the show today when he delivers the long-awaited draft report of his climate-change review to be issued publicly at the Canberra Press Club on Friday.

A day earlier, economist and Reserve Bank board member Warwick McKibbin will issue a paper questioning the effectiveness of the Kyoto model of national timetables and targets. McKibbin's model for a hybrid tax and trading scheme was dispatched in a speech given by Garnaut earlier this month, so the timing is curious.

Next week, climate change heads the agenda of the group of eight major economies (G8) meeting in Japan although oil prices may have something to say about that. And then we're back to Canberra for the release of the Government's climate-change green paper, over which Cabinet has been burning the midnight oil in the past few weeks.

The Government promised plenty of action on climate change at last year's election and basked in the warm glow of an electorate duped into believing it was just another moral eco-challenge, like stopping the Franklin Dam or commercial whaling.

It's got a lot colder since then. The green paper is now not expected to set any particular direction on the detailed design of an emissions trading scheme or the complex challenges of compensation, or managing the trade-exposed, energy-intense industries. Instead, it will just list different options.

Economic modelling of different options has been delayed by the difficultly of the work involved and is not expected to be a big help. Industry is growing increasingly concerned at the inexperience of Treasury officials in understanding the unintended consequences of policies being suggested. Negotiations are making limited progress. This is a government looking for a deal breaker.

Enter Ross Garnaut. His independent review process began in April as a political headline: Labor's Australian Stern Review, the report John Howard never commissioned.

Since then, Garnaut has used the authority vested in him to flag contentious issues such as the need for even deeper cuts by 2050 as well as banking and borrowing of emission permits. His review has become a repository for ideas on climate-change policy from across the economy and to canvass the application of various economic theories.

The real test for Garnaut was never going to be where his review process started, but where it finishes. His ultimate test, that of relevance, begins this week. Can his review suggest practical solutions to any of the major policy headaches faced by the Rudd Government as it tries to design an emissions trading scheme, or will it be politely marginalised as an "interesting" academic exercise?

The biggest of these is how the scheme should treat Australia's trade-exposed, energy-intense industries such as LNG, aluminium, steel and cement. They constitute more than 40 per cent of total emissions and dominate export earnings.

Both sides of politics and Garnaut accept the need to compensate these industries to the extent that they cannot pass on the cost of their greenhouse emissions to their customers. But even defining the scale of this sector is difficult.

After a generation of deregulation starting with Gough Whitlam in 1972, Australia has a highly trade-exposed economy. Even miners and the dairy industry put a case for their trade-exposed status along with domestic suppliers competing directly with imports not subjected to a carbon price.

Just carving these sectors makes the job of reducing emissions even harder for the rest of the economy. Including them makes them uncompetitive, cutting exports, increasing imports and driving investment offshore.

It is an excruciating problem, but one well suited to a respected international trade expert such as Garnaut. He has the assistance of more than a thousand submissions from across the entire economy, containing hundreds of thousands of hours of thinking from the best informed and sharpest thinkers in this policy space, along with everyone else.

Synthesising all that information in the limited time available is a substantial undertaking, but scattered throughout those submissions could be pieces of information that could help solve these problems.

Consultations between Garnaut and most of those feeding into his process has been limited, leading some observers to presume that Garnaut has decided to try to work it out himself.

If the impasses remain, the options left for the Government will be framed by Kevin Rudd's risk-averse political instincts, obsession with the interests of working families and dogged adherence to honouring election promises, however flawed.

A trading scheme will begin some time in 2010, so long as it is after the next federal election. Whatever the final arrangements for the allocation of permits and compensation for power stations, their price will be capped low to ensure a soft start that won't derail key sectors of the economy. Petrol will be included but excises will be cut to ameliorate the political backlash. It will look like a trading scheme but operate like a carbon tax. It will frustrate activists and industry in equal measures and buy Rudd time until he can work out his next treacherous step. It's what Howard would have done, too.
Title: Garnaut Climate Change Review - Public forums
Post by: mr anderson on June 30, 2008, 12:53:09 am
http://www.garnautreview.org.au/CA25734E0016A131/feedbackform?openform&formkey=Forum

Professor Garnaut will be hosting public forums from 7 to 11 July 2008 in cities around Australia for discussions with the community on the Draft Report. These forums will provide an opportunity for individuals and organisations to discuss the Draft Report with Professor Garnaut and the Review Secretariat.
Title: Voters will wear tax on carbon to fight global warming
Post by: mr anderson on June 30, 2008, 09:12:05 pm
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23949828-2702,00.html

Dennis Shanahan, Political editor | July 01, 2008


MOST Australians are prepared to pay higher energy bills to fight global warming but support wanes when households are confronted with the extra spike in fuel prices likely to be caused by the inclusion of petrol in an emissions trading scheme.

The latest Newspoll, conducted on the weekend as Labor suffered a 6.5 per cent swing against it in the Gippsland by-election, partly because of record petrol prices, shows support for the ALP and Kevin Rudd has dropped to its lowest since the election.

But while Coalition support has risen during its campaign to cut petrol excise, Brendan Nelson's backing as Opposition Leader has not improved.

Cabinet met every day last week as the Government designs an ETS that will impose a carbon cost on energy in an effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

According to the latest Newspoll, conducted exclusively for The Australian last weekend, 61per cent of Australians support an ETS and 56 per cent said they were prepared to pay "more for energy" to slow global warming.

But voters were almost evenly divided -- 46 per cent to 42 per cent -- on whether petrol should be included in such an ETS, with the strongest support for inclusion being among those earning more than $100,000 ayear.

The Opposition has been arguing since the budget that the 38.1c petrol excise should be cut by 5c a litre and that if petrol were to be included in an ETS, the excise be dropped completely to ensure no net rise in petrol taxes.

The Newspoll showed the Coalition's primary vote jumped six points to 39 per cent and Labor's primary vote went from 46 per cent to 44 per cent.

With a two-party preferred vote of 45 per cent to Labor's 55per cent, based on preference flows at the last election, the Coalition's primary vote and two-party preferred vote are the best since Dr Nelson became Opposition Leader shortly after the November election.

Satisfaction with the Prime Minister dropped five points from 59 per cent to 54 per cent and dissatisfaction rose seven percentage points to 32 per cent -- Mr Rudd's worst satisfaction rating with the public since he was elected.

Yesterday, Mr Rudd brushed off the swing against the Government in the Gippsland by-election in eastern Victoria, and refused to comment on opinion polls.

"I think opinion polls come and go ... and by-elections will come and go. The key challenge is this, to govern for the future. And that means, from 1 July, bringing in these practical measures to assist working Australians, working families, pensioners and carers, who are under financial pressure," he said in Mackay after a community cabinet meeting.

Support for Mr Rudd as preferred prime minister fell from 68 per cent to 64 per cent and Dr Nelson's support was virtually unchanged, rising from 13 per cent to 15 per cent.

While the Coalition's strong showing in the federal Victorian by-election is seen as a fillip for Dr Nelson's leadership, public satisfaction with him has not lifted.

Satisfaction with the Opposition Leader remained unchanged on 36 per cent and dissatisfaction rose to a new high of 42 per cent.

Yesterday in Sydney, Dr Nelson said Mr Rudd claimed the swing against Labor in the Gippsland by-election was a result of the "hard decisions" the Government has had to make. "Mr Rudd has actually made very few decisions since he has been in government. He runs around the country telling people he is going to do all sorts of things.

"There is no clear strategic direction, no sense of priority in the Government," he said.

As the Government prepares for the release of the greenhouse gas report of Ross Garnaut later this week, the Newspoll survey showed that 61 per cent of Australians support the idea of a carbon emissions trading scheme to slow global warming, with only 25 per cent against.

The strongest support for an ETS was among 18-34 year olds, with 73 per cent supporting a scheme, among Labor voters (67 per cent) and among higher income earners. A clear majority, 56 per cent, was prepared to pay higher prices for energy to help fight global warming, with 39 per cent saying they would not.

People earning more than $100,000 were most strongly in favour of paying more -- 67 per cent -- followed by those earning between $70,000 and $99,000, on 64 per cent.

When asked if petrol should be included in an ETS, after being reminded that the exclusion of petrol could push up other energy prices, there was a much closer result: 46 per cent in favour of the inclusion of petrol in an ETS and 42 per cent in favour of excluding petrol and avoiding higher bowser prices, even if it pushed up other energy prices. The biggest support for including petrol was among those earning more than $100,000, those aged 35 to 49, and Labor voters.

Finance Minister Lindsay Tanner last night conceded that the response to climate change was "a very complex and very big problem for the Government -- but it's one we can't avoid". He said Australians had to realise that "really severe problems are going to hit, not just our country, but the entire world" if no action was taken. "We don't have a choice," he told the ABC's 7.30 Report. "We've got to be ambitious."

The "only responsible course" was to tackle the problem, Mr Tanner said. "We believe that history tells us that the Australian people reward political parties and Governments that do face up to big problems, even though they'll take some skin off them on the way through."

The Opposition's environment spokesman, Greg Hunt, said the Coalition's position was that there "should be no new net taxes on petrol". He said Labor appeared to be moving towards the Coalition position because there was a risk an ETS could "add a new tax to petrol of 10c, 20c or 30c a litre".
Title: Re: Voters will wear tax on carbon to fight global warming
Post by: KiwiClare on June 30, 2008, 10:01:50 pm
Do you believe this, that voters will put up with such a tax?
This is disgraceful, basing a tax on a non-existent problem.
Title: Re: Voters will wear tax on carbon to fight global warming
Post by: mr anderson on June 30, 2008, 10:13:27 pm
Absolutely not, initially. But an election is in 2010, when it's instituted they'll gripe and complain but they'll take it.

Maybe they won't.

Read the comments section: http://www.news.com.au/comments/0,23600,23950260-421,00.html

People know that the debate isn't over and know that a carbon trading scheme would only hurt the poor as the rich are the only ones able to pay to continue polluting.

It's that vocal minority of Environmentalists backed by their globalists friends that put the fear and indoctrination into people.
Title: End fear tactics on climate change, PM tells Coalition
Post by: mr anderson on June 30, 2008, 10:48:31 pm
Disclaimer:  Doublethink zone

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23949804-11949,00.html

Matthew Franklin and Andrew Fraser | July 01, 2008


KEVIN Rudd has called for the Opposition to end its "cheap populism" on climate change, amid Coalition claims the Labor Party is made up of utopians who want to shut all power stations.

The Prime Minister, with the Government in the process of designing an emissions trading scheme, yesterday appealed for bipartisanship from the Coalition instead of a scare campaign on the cost of acting on climate change.

His comments follow a fortnight of political exchanges, with the Opposition warning that putting a price on carbon will raise fuel prices by up to 30c a litre and claiming the Government could produce a half-baked scheme if it rushes to meet its target start-up date of 2010.

But Mr Rudd, speaking yesterday in Mackay, north Queensland, said it was time to consider the benefits of action on climate change, not just the costs.

"This is the right way to go - to have a rolling, policy-focused dialogue with industry and the community sector and make sure we do the right thing by the planet, the right thing by industry, the right thing by households," Mr Rudd said. "What I would hope for is that Her Majesty's loyal Opposition would actually regard this as a bipartisan challenge for the nation."

The Coalition had opted for the "cheap populist route" and run a fear campaign, instead of contributing to a reasoned debate.

"We intend to act in the long term in the right interests of the planet and the environment and to do so in a responsible manner which is mindful of the nation's economic interests and mindful of the financial needs of Australian households," said Mr Rudd, who repeated his guarantee that the scheme would begin in 2010.

Earlier, Opposition environment spokesman Greg Hunt renewed his warning of big rises in fuel prices under an ETS.

"People will suffer - pensioners, low-income families," Mr Hunt said. "But they simply won't produce the decrease inemissions that is necessary."

The Opposition was proposing "a solar continent", he said, and claimed Labor wanted to shut power stations. "Instead we have to clean them up. There are large sections of the Labor Party that want to close down the power stations, who live in a utopian world which doesn't care about the impact on Australians, either in terms of their employment or the impact on Australians such as pensioners and low-income families who would have to deal with this nightmare."

But Mr Rudd said that as a Queenslander he was a strong supporter of the coal industry and had no plans to shut mines.

"That's why the Government, for the first time in the nation's history, has established a $500million national clean coal fund," he said. "Already we are participating in projects aimed at bringing on stream large-scale clean coal power generation plants ... We've got to take this new technology of clean coal from the laboratory and commercially apply it in power stations."

Opposition Treasury spokesman Malcolm Turnbull, the former environment minister, said the Environment Department had told him last year it would be hard to finalise an ETS for 2011.

Mr Rudd wanted to appear "macho" by nominating 2010 despite the "intense complexity" of the changes, Mr Turnbull said.

"What Kevin Rudd has done has got a start date that I thinkguarantees it will go off half-cocked."
Title: Re: Voters will wear tax on carbon to fight global warming
Post by: mr anderson on June 30, 2008, 10:58:03 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DprDWVQw66g - Low-income earners 'hit by carbon trading'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78iiDjlVKjg -  Opposition hot and cold on climate change


Title: Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
Post by: Brocke on June 30, 2008, 11:11:03 pm
(http://i128.photobucket.com/albums/p182/Brocke1964/propaganda.jpg)

Weather plays larger role in global fuel prices
By Jad Mouawad
Tuesday, July 1, 2008

The record storms and floods that swept through the U.S. Midwest last month struck at the heart of the corn-growing region, drowning fields and dashing hopes of a bumper crop.

They also brought into sharp relief a new economic hazard. As the world grows more reliant on crops like corn and palm oil for its fuel supply, it is becoming vulnerable to the many hazards that can damage agriculture, ranging from droughts to plagues to storms.

The U.S. floods have helped send the price of ethanol there up 21 percent since the beginning of June. They appear to have had little effect on the price of gasoline at the pump, as ethanol represents only about 6 percent of U.S. transport fuel today.

But that share is expected to rise to at least 20 percent in coming decades, similar to a broad global trend toward increased use of biofuels. Experts fear that a future crop failure could take so much fuel out of the market it would send prices way up. Eventually, the cost of filling a fuel tank could depend as much on hail in Nigeria or a plant fungus in Malaysia as on oil-pipeline bombings in Nigeria.

"We are holding ourselves hostage to the weather," said John Reilly, a senior lecturer at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and an ethanol expert. "Agricultural markets are subject to wide variability and big price spikes, just like oil markets."

Three years ago, the world discovered that the vicissitudes of the weather could have a powerful effect on energy prices when two hurricanes struck the Gulf Coast of the United States. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita led to the worst fuel disruption the country had ever seen, interrupting a quarter of the nation's oil production and shutting down dozens of refineries for weeks. Lines formed for the first time since the 1970s as gasoline spiked above $3 a gallon, a record at the time.

The increasing dependence on crops for motor fuel adds another level of weather vulnerability.

Estimates released Monday suggest that damage from the floods may not have been as bad as initially feared. But corn and ethanol prices are still up substantially from their recent lows on fears that supplies would be tight over the next year. Ethanol, which was already rising before the floods, has nearly doubled in the United States from its low of $1.50 a gallon in September.

Unexpected interruptions in oil supplies have been a critical factor driving oil prices above $140 a barrel lately. On Monday, crude hit a new record of $143.67.

Given the tight oil market, there is little untapped capacity that can be brought online rapidly to make up for sudden interruptions in supplies, either of oil itself or of the biofuels that increasingly help augment the oil supply.

In the 1980s, that extra cushion peaked at around 20 percent of global oil consumption. Today, it represents only about 2 percent of world demand - less than Iran's petroleum exports. Analysts have warned that such record-low levels of spare capacity pose unprecedented risks to the stability of oil markets, and introduce a significant premium in the price of oil.

"There is now a vulnerability to perfect storms, not just in a metaphorical sense, but increasingly in a literal sense," said Daniel Yergin, the chairman of Cambridge Energy Research Associates, a consulting firm. "In addition to geopolitical risks, you must now add weather risks."

While storms, torrential rains and hurricanes have always been a part of energy production, the United States is growing increasingly vulnerable to the weather factor. The areas where most of the country's new oil and ethanol supplies are coming from - the farm belt and the Gulf of Mexico - are prone to hazardous weather.

"Our energy policy is like playing Russian roulette with every chamber loaded," said Lawrence Goldstein, an energy analyst at the Energy Policy Research Foundation, a group backed by the oil industry. "We've doubled up on the weather risk."

Both the U.S. government and the ethanol industry recognize the risks of tying fuels to crops. The secretaries of energy and agriculture, in a joint letter to the Senate, recently said: "If we assumed a supply disruption of ethanol, we would expect a fairly large increase in the price of gasoline until ethanol supply were re-established or new market equilibriums were achieved."

Backers of biofuels contend that an increasing ethanol supply is keeping gasoline prices from rising even higher than they have, by anywhere from 35 cents to 50 cents a gallon, or 5 cents to 8 cents a liter. They also point out that the government's ethanol mandate, which requires oil companies to blend ethanol into motor fuel, can be suspended in an emergency. And they believe that future ethanol supplies will be derived from materials like switchgrass or wood chips that are resistant to bad weather.

Bob Dinneen, president of the Renewable Fuels Association, the industry's main U.S. trade group, said only two ethanol refineries shut down because of the storms out of 160 nationwide. Both will reopen soon, he said.

"There is a lot of overblown concern that is not really justified by the facts on the ground," Dinneen said. "Certainly the weather is going to have an impact on all sorts of industries. It had an impact when Katrina wreaked havoc on the refining industry. It has an impact on ethanol production, but it has been minimal."

Andy Karsner, the assistant secretary for energy efficiency and renewable energy at the U.S. Energy Department, said that corn ethanol was a necessary precursor to more advanced biofuels. Suspending the ethanol mandate now, as some have suggested, would have a "chilling effect" on new investments, he said.

In recent years, corn ethanol has been one of the few sources of supply growth in transport fuels. Indeed, biofuels have become the single biggest source of new fuels produced outside countries belonging to the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries in recent years.

Production worldwide is expected to grow by 330,000 barrels a day this year to 1.4 million barrels a day, according to the International Energy Agency.

In the United States, bipartisan public policies have driven the rise of the ethanol industry.

Congress has set rising requirements for oil companies to blend ethanol with gasoline, backed with generous subsidies that should total $12 billion this year, according to estimates by Barclays Capital.

The European Union is also planning to dramatically raise the amount of biofuels blended into diesel and gasoline as part of the bloc's efforts to fight climate change and bolster energy security.

Farmers have gone into overdrive to meet the ethanol demand, turning more than a quarter of the U.S. corn crop to making ethanol. As a result, last year's corn crop reached a record of 13 billion bushels.

Farmers who support the government's ethanol policy argue that truly disastrous weather in the corn belt does not happen often.

"The last time we had real weather problems in the corn belt was 1988," said Tom Buis, the president of the National Farmers Union. "That's pretty rare."

Emerson Nafziger, a professor of agronomy at the University of Illinois, said farmers still had time to recover this year, to some degree. But he said this year's storms were the first real test for the nascent ethanol industry.

"We may end up feeling we dodged a bullet this year," he said. "We've had a run of fairly favorable weather in recent years. But there is no guarantee it will stay that way."

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/30/business/weather.php
Title: Emissions scheme 'has to hurt'
Post by: mr anderson on June 30, 2008, 11:30:25 pm
http://www.news.com.au/business/story/0,23636,23951051-31037,00.html

IF an emissions trading scheme doesn't hurt, it won't work, economist Chris Richardson says.

Mr Richardson, director of economic consultants Access Economics, said many people still did not get the concept of an emissions trading scheme and much of the pressure on politicians was wrong-headed.

"The whole idea of carbon pricing is that if it doesn't hurt it won't work," he told Canberra ABC radio today.

"Essentially, prices, for example for petrol as well as a whole bunch of other things, have to go up in order to encourage us to be more careful with how much we use and in order to encourage business to come up with new ways of getting it to us in ways that don't pump out greenhouse gases."

The government has yet to announce just how its emissions trading scheme will work.

Key adviser Professor Ross Garnaut will release his final climate change report this Friday.

The government will then release a green paper setting out the issues and a range of design options ahead of white paper setting out the policy. Prime Minister Kevin Rudd says he wants the scheme in operation by 2010.

Mr Richardson said this was the same basic idea as the GST as carbon (emissions) pricing would add to the price of stuff and governments would provide compensation.

"Prices will go up, compensation will be needed," he said.

"The fight over the bucket of money will probably end up being between consumers on the one hand, who will want some sort of tax rebates, and the businesses because a bunch of businesses are potentially quite affected.

"Therefore their shareholders and some of the businesses will in effect be arguing for compensation as well."
Title: Blow to good intentions
Post by: mr anderson on July 02, 2008, 03:49:25 am
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23954821-7583,00.html

Janet Albrechtsen | July 02, 2008


FORGET Iraq. The politics of petrol will dominate the coming presidential election in the US. As much as one hates to upset the lofty foreign policy sensibilities of the Left, you need only set foot in the US for a nanosecond to see that the campaigns of Barack Obama and John McCain are consumed by grassroots concerns over the rising cost of fuel.

Just as in Australia, it is clear that the hip pocket nerve of working families may haunt the next US president, confounding efforts to address climate change.

And the advocates of climate change are largely to blame. The debate in both countries has been a phony one.

But the political parallels don't end there. Obama, the fresh-faced 46-year-old Democrat, is wooing voters across the continent with his promise of change. Sound familiar? He was recently described by Daniel Henninger in The Wall Street Journal as the "Hey Jude candidate, the man who can somehow make things better". Sounding more familiar?

Both the Republican McCain and Obama support an emissions trading system yet remain quiet on how a cap and trade greenhouse gas emissions system will affect American working families. Boy, does that sound familiar. And, if debate in Australia these past few weeks is any indication, whether it's McCain or Obama who wins in November, they are in for one scary climate change ride. The same ride that confronts the Rudd Labor Government here in Australia. To be sure, had the Coalition been re-elected last November, it would have faced a similar problem of mismanaged voter expectations.

Pushing an emissions trading system without warning people about the cost increases was always going to create a tricky political problem. But our own Hey Jude Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, exacerbated the inevitable political backlash. By framing climate change in soaring terms as the single biggest moral issue of our time, Rudd ensured that the climate change roller-coaster was always going to crash down to earth when cost finally entered the equation.

It's only in the past fortnight that Labor cabinet ministers have been admitting that the introduction of an emissions trading system will be the single biggest change to our modern lifestyle in decades. Forget opening up of the Australian economy, they say. Forget workplace deregulation. Forget the GST. This is going to be the most daunting challenge for the Prime Minister if the Government sticks to its guns over mitigating the effects of climate change.

The sledgehammer realisation of the costs of the emissions trading system and other measures has kicked off a renewed call for a genuine debate over nuclear energy in Australia. While the Rudd Government has said "N.O." to nuclear power, this issue will not go away.

At the Australian American Leadership Dialogue in Washington last week, climate change dominated discussion. One participant was the 26-year-old new boss of the Australian Workers Union, Paul Howes, who took over when Bill Shorten went into parliament last year. Howes says that the support for an emissions trading system is not as strong as many people think. "Once you educate the public about the costs they will have to wear, voter support will drop away. We need to be realistic about the subsidies that will be required for business. Handing out wads of cash to working families is not going to alleviate the pain of a loss of jobs. If we are going to reduce emissions and have jobs in society, we need to secure baseload power, and until the technology for that is available we need a genuine bipartisan approach to developing nuclear power in Australia."

Unfortunately, as another dialogue participant, former treasurer Peter Costello, remarked, we are still locked in a frothy climate debate to the point where the Oscars in Hollywood now claim to be carbon neutral. Huh? A huge light and sound extravaganza that is beamed to 100 million TV sets, where stars fly in on their private jets, travel in stretch limousines? We all love being climate change advocates, Costello said, as long as it doesn't affect our lifestyle.

Access Economics director Chris Richardson cut to the chase yesterday, telling ABC radio that "the whole idea of carbon pricing is that if it doesn't hurt it won't work". A politician serious about climate change ought to welcome higher fuel prices to change our behaviour. Drive less, use less fuel, emit lower levels of carbon gases. You haven't heard any politician say that. The political backlash would be too scary. No wonder it wasn't raised during the election last November in Australia.

Exactly the same dynamics are playing out in the US for the next president. To raise these issues now, with ever-increasing fuel prices, would be political suicide. Hence McCain and Obama are ducking any real discussion of the costs consumers will wear from policies aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Instead, McCain is pushing for oil drilling off the US coast and another 43 nuclear reactors by 2030 in an effort to relieve US dependence on greenhouse gas-emitting fossil fuels.

Obama plans to slap a tax on oil companies: "I'll make oil companies like Exxon pay a tax on their windfall profits and we'll use the money to help families pay for their skyrocketing energy costs and other bills."

So the phony debate on climate change continues across the Pacific. Charlie Cook, editor of the highly regarded Cook Political Report, who shared his thoughts on the political contours of the looming presidential election at the dialogue, tells The Australian: "Americans have never seen energy prices this high or been more attentive and concerned about the economy. (But) the conversation about cap and trade, as far as the public is concerned, hasn't even begun. They wouldn't know cap and trade from cap and gown. All they know is that energy prices are skyrocketing and they don't like it. The debate and their thought process have not moved beyond that point.

"This is complex stuff," he adds, "and complexity and campaigns do not mix. On November 4, election day, the percentage of voters who have a clue what cap and trade mean will be very small and not much bigger than today. Americans vote on themes and impressions, not on specific issues. And the truth be known, I doubt if Australian voters are very different."

Cook is spot-on. But the swing against the Rudd Government at the weekend Gippsland by-election suggests that themes last only so long. Against a background of rising petrol prices, the first key test of the Rudd Government delivered a devastating blow to Labor's climate change agenda. It turns out that sometimes when you vote for a theme, you later wish you'd asked for more detail.

[email protected]
Title: Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
Post by: Brocke on July 02, 2008, 08:13:53 am
Australian Drought a Natural Cycle
Precious Water Diverted from Households to Uneconomic Agriculture

© Harry P. Schlanger

Apr 19, 2008

(http://images.suite101.com/359099_com_austmap.png)

Research suggests the Australian drought is not caused by climate change. Households are burdened by water shortages but water is diverted towards wrong agriculture.

Australia is experiencing an extended period of dryness but scientists such as Barrie Hunt from CSIRO believe it is part of a natural process, and not due to greenhouse emissions.

Research findings undermine a recent claim by politicians that this drought is a one-in-a-thousand year event brought about by climate change. In addition, according to The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, mathematics proves that long-run climate predictions are not possible. This renders media hysteria imagining the drought is here to stay, to look rather ridiculous.
Australia Prone to Dry Periods

Australia is a huge land mass that has always been prone to long periods of dryness because of its geography – due to a subtropical high pressure belt. Simply put, droughts are part of a natural variability of the Australian climate and results in most of the country having low and erratic rainfall. Recent rainfall decline could even be partly attributed to mechanisms occuring in the ozone depletion layer above Australia.

Major Australian Droughts

Historically, Australia has seen major droughts due to the current interglacial period, and this is superimposed by short cycles that last for 1-7 years:

    * The “Federation drought”, 1895-1902
    * The 1914-15 drought
    * The World War II droughts, 1937-45
    * The 1965-68 drought
    * Short but sharp 1982-83 drought
    * The long El Niño, 1991-1995
    * The current drought, 2002-


Each episode is accompanied by the so-called El Niño effects (http://www.weathersa.co.za/References/elnino.jsp), which are caused by irregular warming of water currents. At this time, there is nothing unusual about the duration of the current cycle but a drought map (http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/rain_maps.cgi?map=contours&variable=drought&area=aus&period=36month&region=aus&time=latest) reveals isolated pockets of lowest readings from a limited historical record.

Occurence and Threats

Droughts account for less than 10 per cent of all global disaster occurrences, but they account for nearly 40 per cent of all people affected by natural disasters. Prolonged droughts cause extreme water shortage and increased bushfire risk. They threaten people's livelihoods, wildlife, and also the economy due to reduced agricultural activity.
Water Diverted to Uneconomic Agriculture

Australian households have been asked to believe that the current drought is more severe than usual and they should carry extra burden, when in fact, the culprit is agriculture which is "drinking Australia dry". Water diverted to agriculture has recently been increased some twenty times that consumed by households. This precious water supply is used to support politically sensitive industries, not to grow the country's food supply. For example:

    * the sugar industry uses vast amounts of water but the industry is uneconomic
    * the Murray River is "dying" through upstream irrigation that removes most of its water. This practice is allowed so that Australia can export rice from the Murray region.

To help ease the water burden on households, farmers should reduce growing cotton, rice, and sugar, which together account for more than one-third of the country's agricultural water usage. Instead they should concentrate on growing cereal crops, fruit and vegetables, and livestock.
Conclusion

The Australian drought is considered by scientists to be a natural phenomenon and not caused by so-called climate change. Long periods of dryness are a historical, recurring, natural part of the Australian climate. Households currently are asked to be frugal with water but most are not aware that water is diverted to support agricultural industries that are uneconomic and pollitically sensitive, such as sugar, rice and cotton.

http://droughtsheatwaves.suite101.com/article.cfm/australian_drought_a_natural_cycle
Title: Aus PM Rudd's chief of staff David Epstein under 'Climate Change' scandal
Post by: mr anderson on July 02, 2008, 08:41:03 am
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23949785-5013404,00.html

Matthew Franklin, Chief political correspondent | July 01, 2008


KEVIN Rudd faces demands that he sack his chief of staff over alleged conflicts of interest caused by his lobbyist wife representing mining and energy companies whose profits are dependent onthe design of the Government's planned emissions trading scheme.

But the Prime Minister has defended David Epstein and accused the Opposition of conducting "a baseless and increasingly desperate smear campaign" against his right-hand man.

Opposition senator Michael Ronaldson yesterday said Mr Epstein was hopelessly conflicted and had no place working in Mr Rudd's office.

Mr Epstein's wife, Sandra Eccles, heads the Canberra office of Government Relations Australia, a lobbying firm with high-powered clients in mining and energy, as well as other areas of government regulatory activity, including pharmaceuticals, communication, retailing and the car industry. Mr Epstein, a longtime Labor operative, worked for GRA with his wife before joining Mr Rudd's staff last year.

The Opposition attack follows the publication of the Government's new lobbyist register, which reveals that GRA's client list features mining and energy companies that have massive interest in the Government's design of an emissions trading scheme.

The scheme will put a price on carbon, with significant impact on emission-heavy industries such as coal and power generation.

GRA's clients include Bluescope Steel, Onesteel, Thiess Pty Ltd, Citic Pacific Mining Management, Loy Yang Power and the Newcastle Coal Infrastructure Group, representing several major coal miners.

The firm also lobbies for National Generators Forum, representing 22 power generators with combined assets of more than $40billion, as well as the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries.

Senator Ronaldson, who shadows Special Minister of State John Faulkner, said the resources and energy companies represented by GRA stood to lose or save billions of dollars depending on the design of the ETS.

"If Mr Rudd doesn't cut Mr Epstein loose then every decision or policy the Rudd Government makes that affects any one of GRA's 69 clients will be mired in controversy," Senator Ronaldson said. "Does Mr Epstein take any work home with him that includes commercially sensitive or cabinet-in-confidence documents? What steps does Mr Epstein take to avoid perceived or real conflicts of interest?

"What the register doesn't tell us is (whether) GRA receives a success fee if the Rudd Labor Government introduces a particular emissions trading scheme model that is favourable to some of their energy-sector clients."

Mr Epstein and Ms Eccles made no comment yesterday.

But Mr Rudd said through a spokesman that he and Mr Epstein had agreed upon a robust framework to manage actual or perceived conflicts of interest. The spokesman confirmed that GRA had lobbied the Government recently over climate change and emissions trading. But he said Mr Rudd had full confidence in his chief of staff.

"Upon accepting the role of chief of staff to the Prime Minister, Mr Epstein resigned as an employee of GRA and disposed of his shareholdings in the company and its majority owner, Clemenger Communications Ltd," the spokesman said.
Title: Rudd locks in green power plan
Post by: mr anderson on July 03, 2008, 12:54:27 am
http://www.theage.com.au/national/rudd-locks-in-green-power-plan-20080702-30oe.html?page=-1

Chris Hammer
Canberra
July 3, 2008


THE Rudd Government has set Australia on course for a new era of greener but more expensive electricity, pressing ahead with a plan to make 20% of our power come from renewable sources within just over a decade.

Honouring a key election pledge, Climate Change Minister Penny Wong has released a blueprint for mandatory renewable energy targets that is expected to be discussed at today's COAG meeting with state and territory leaders in Sydney.

The move comes on the eve of Professor Ross Garnaut releasing his draft report on climate change tomorrow, which also will set a course for higher energy prices through an emissions trading scheme.

Under Labor's renewable electricity proposal, existing state and territory plans would be overtaken by a single national scheme to source 20% of Australia's power from renewable sources by 2020.

Reaching the target could cost an average household about $50 extra a year in power bills, on top of additional costs that would come from the emissions trading scheme to be introduced in 2010.

The electricity plan defies the views of the Productivity Commission, which says a renewables target would be unnecessary once an effective emissions trading scheme is in place.

Finance Minister Lindsay Tanner yesterday reaffirmed a pledge to compensate low-income families affected by higher energy prices.

But the Government is set to come under increasing pressure over the prospect of even higher petrol prices resulting from efforts to halt global warming.

The Business Council of Australia will today press the case for including petrol in emissions trading — a move that would ensure price increases. "Raising the price of energy and those goods and services that use a lot of it is what has to be done if we are going to achieve a lasting reduction in emissions," BCA president Greig Gailey will say.

Under the Rudd electricity plan, renewable sources of power would include solar, wind, hydro and geothermal. Opposition Environment spokesman Greg Hunt said the plan had Coalition support but should also include natural gas and clean coal.

Renewable energy companies say they are poised to unleash up to $20 billion in investment once legislation is passed next year. The Clean Energy Council's Rob Jackson urged the Government to bring forward the scheme's launch to the start of next year. The Greens also want the scheme to begin sooner.

Environment groups largely welcomed the plan. But the Australian Conservation Foundation condemned the inclusion of solar hot water systems and energy generated by burning native forest wood waste. "We are concerned that would provide an incentive for further native forest logging," the foundation's Owen Pascoe told The Age.

WWF lamented that the Government had left open the possibility of compensating trade-exposed companies that use large amounts of electricity.

The Government plans are contained in an options paper that sets out two broadly similar approaches. Both build on the existing scheme introduced by the Howard government in 2001.

They would require buyers of wholesale electricity — essentially electricity retailers and some large industrial users — to source an increasing amount of electricity from renewable energy until the 20% target is reached.

Financial penalties would be imposed on companies not using enough renewable energy.

The two proposals differ mainly in time scales for phasing targets in and phasing the scheme out. The scheme would end around 2030, by which time renewable energy is expected to be price-competitive with fossil fuel-sourced power.
Title: Business to back carbon trading
Post by: mr anderson on July 03, 2008, 12:58:07 am
Well of course they would, exemptions are the get out of carbon trading card.

Related: Aus PM Rudd's chief of staff David Epstein under 'Carbon trading scheme' conflict of interest
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23949785-5013404,00.html

KEVIN RUDD: We have taken this position of a new ambitious but responsible nonetheless renewable energy target of 20 per cent by 2020 based on modelling which has been done by MMA, a modelling firm which is in conjunction with Monash University… In terms of the whole economy what the modelling from MMA demonstrates is that the total impact on the economy will be marginal over time. That is that they calculate that between now and about 2045 that you’d be looking at a total impact on the economy of somewhere between $600 and $800 million or something in the vicinity of $45 per person over that period of time or something like $1 per person per year.


http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23960552-2702,00.html

Matthew Franklin, Chief political correspondent | July 03, 2008


BIG business will today pledge full support for an emissions trading scheme but it will warn Kevin Rudd against granting exemptions from the scheme for crude political reasons.

The Business Council of Australia will also warn its members against overstating the negative effects of the policy at the risk of alienating the Government, and urge the community to accept that fuel and power prices are too low and must increase.

BCA president Greg Gailey will use a speech in Sydney to outline his organisation's approach on climate change on the eve of the release of a report on emissions trading by the Prime Minister's hand-picked adviser on the issue, economist Ross Garnaut.

According to a copy of Mr Gailey's speech, obtained by The Australian yesterday, the BCA is "wholly supportive" of the move to put a price on carbon emissions but wants the scheme to be carefully designed to ensure emissions-heavy businesses will be supported against overseas competitors from nations without emissions trading schemes.

"Given the complexity of many of these issues, it seems likely that some will be put in the too-hard basket or that the simplest solutions will be sought," Mr Gailey says.

"But simplicity at the expense of effectiveness increases the likelihood that we will get the policy wrong at tremendous cost to households, businesses, the economy and environment."

Mr Gailey will say part of the challenge of climate change stems from the world's historic refusal to put a price on carbon truly reflective of the costs of greenhouse emissions.

"Much of the world's post-World War II prosperity has been built on cheap energy or, more accurately, energy that has, withhindsight, been too cheap," he says. "A significant part of Australia's comparative advantage has of course been built on cheap energy."

Mr Gailey's speech notes say oil companies predict an EIS will add 10 cents a litre to petrol prices and that raising energy prices is bound to be politically unpopular.

But he says: "Raising the price of energy and those goods and services which use a lot of it is what has to be done if we are going to achieve a lasting reduction in emissions".

Mr Gailey says one of the main concerns of business in the design of the EIS is managing the circumstances of trade-exposed, emissions-intensive industries.

He will warn that many of the international competitors of Australian businesses in areas such as cement, paper, steel, minerals, gas and aluminium do not operate under emissions trading, exposing Australian industry to significant competitive disadvantage.

"Careful analysis is needed to determine the best approach to understanding the underlying causes of competitive vulnerability in these industries and businesses and to ensuring competitiveness," he says.

"Lessening the burden of adjustment on any one sector for a period of time does imply that a larger burden falls on other sectors, but that does not mean competitiveness issues can be ignored.

"On the other hand, crudely carving out sectors for political reasons without robust analysis can have as much of an adverse effect as doing nothing."

He will welcome recent government promises that the ETS will not boost overall government revenues but stress that some of the revenues generated will have to be used to compensate households and heavily exposed industries.

Mr Gailey will adopt a tone of optimism with the assurance that the business community understands the need for change and is looking for government decisions that will provide incentives and support to deliver a shift to a low-emissions economy.
Title: Australia must lead climate fight
Post by: mr anderson on July 03, 2008, 09:42:44 am
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2008/07/03/1214950955530.html?feed=fairfaxdigitalxml

PETER HARTCHER POLITICAL EDITOR


AUSTRALIA will suffer more from climate change than any other developed nation and must take the lead in global action to tackle the problem, Professor Ross Garnaut will argue in his report today.

The report, commissioned by the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, is designed to illuminate the costs of inaction. It is expected to find that global warming is proceeding faster than projected, and that doing nothing will be far more costly than expected.

Like the report by Britain's Sir Nicholas Stern, the Garnaut research is designed to raise public awareness. It is the first of several documents that will enable the Government to design systems to cut emissions.

The Opposition is arguing that Australia should not cut emissions before other countries because this would needlessly punish households and industry.

But Professor Garnaut's report will make a strong case for Australia to be at the forefront of international action to reduce emissions from carbon-based fuels and to stem the felling of carbon-absorbing trees.

Professor Garnaut, an economist from the Australian National University, will list three reasons why Australia will suffer more than any other rich economy.

First, because Australia is hotter and drier, small variations in temperature will have a bigger effect.

Second, because Australia is in a region that contains some of the most vulnerable, poor countries in the world, such as Indonesia and the small states of the South Pacific, it can expect to be affected by their problems.

Third, because the structure of the economy means that export prices will be punished severely by the climate-related slowdown in poor countries.

And the Garnaut report is expected to make the case for Australia to act urgently, even if big developing nations such as China and India do not.

Inaction would in effect be a veto on action by poor nations, Professor Garnaut argues.

The reason is that the existing global framework for dealing with climate change, the Kyoto Protocol, enshrines the principle that developed countries must move first. There can be no real progress in having developing countries make binding commitments to cut emissions until developed nations do the same, the report will argue.

"The task is to make it clear that the developed countries have gone beyond blocking," Professor Garnaut has said previously.

Sir Nicholas has expressed disappointment that the media has focused on a single number in his report, published in October, that the effects of climate change could cut economic output by 20 per cent a year from current levels by 2050 if no action was taken.

Professor Garnaut will go to lengths to emphasise that there are four categories of likely damage to the economy.

Today's report, a draft whose final version is due in September, will quantify only one of these, the conventional macroeconomic cost that can be estimated by economic modelling.

The second category will be the effect on particular aspects of the country. For example, Professor Garnaut has commissioned research into the medical consequences of climate change, including deaths from heat stress.

The third category will be the cost of mitigating the effects of global warming.

The fourth will be a survey of how climate change affects things Australians value for more than just economic reasons - the bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef, the inundation of the Kakadu wetlands, and the loss of the West Australian karri forests, for instance.
Title: Water, water, everywhere, nor any drop to drink: Climate Change delusion
Post by: mr anderson on July 03, 2008, 09:56:45 am
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a791365692~db=all~order=page

Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, Volume 42, Issue 4 April 2008 , page 350   ;D
Title: Selling climate plan pain
Post by: mr anderson on July 03, 2008, 10:51:40 am
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23965355-7583,00.html

Dennis Shanahan | July 04, 2008


TODAY the real debate for the Rudd Government on climate change and an emissions trading scheme begins. At the National Press Club in Canberra, Ross Garnaut will release the report he was commissioned to produce on options for carbon trading.

We already know Garnaut's economic assessment will include options that are comprehensive and drastic, as well as dire warnings of cataclysmic climate events if nothing is done.

The Garnaut report will set benchmarks and scenarios in the public mind and define the debate on emissions trading and which industries should be excluded from a cap and trade system of carbon credits.

For the Government, which doesn't release its early response until later this month, the policy and political challenge will be to set its own parameters and avoid being driven by policy extremes on the one hand and populist pressures on the other.

The public is sick of hearing from both ends of the argument. People don't want ideology; that's why they were convinced not to vote for John Howard. Neither do they want simplistic, short-term solutions, and that's why they have turned off initial enthusiasm for petrol excise cuts. They want leadership, from anyone, on anything. Of course, the biggest challenge is to get the economics right. Apart from the inevitable price rises as energy costs increase, a misstep on an emissions trading scheme could have unintended consequences that damage industry and cost workers their jobs.

Just look at the Howard government overhang on forestry tax breaks. There, Liberal and Nationals senators are joining the Australian Greens in the Senate to send legislation (which had already passed) to a committee, where amendments are almost inevitable, to protect agricultural land from investors who are after tax breaks.

Kevin Rudd and Wayne Swan are fully cognisant of the tremendous challenge they face in introducing an emissions trading scheme by 2010 in remarkably different economic circumstances to those that existed when they promised to do so last year. For Rudd, the emissions trading schemes could do for him what the GST did for Howard, on so many levels.

Of late, voter satisfaction with the Prime Minister has dropped markedly, falling 17 percentage points in Newspoll since his peak of 71 per cent in April to 54 per cent, which leaves his satisfaction only five or six points ahead of Howard's satisfaction rating when the latter lost government last year. Qualitative polling suggests the public prefers Rudd to stick to his original characterisation of being new and having fresh, big ideas. The biggest issue with which he was identified was the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol and commitment to an emissions trading scheme to fight global warming through cutting greenhouse gases.

The latter-day impression of a leader bogged down in micro-management and distracted by various foreign policy initiatives appears to have cost Rudd popular support.

It may be only the failure of the public to be attracted to Opposition Leader Brendan Nelson and the Coalition as alternatives that is preventing a bigger fall in Labor support.

After suffering early wobbles in his first term, Howard picked up tax reform, something with which he was long identified. He floated the GST after a softening up on the need for tax reform and fought the 1998 election arguing for a new tax. That this was the election Labor leader Kim Beazley came closest to winning with a majority of the popular vote in two-party preferred terms is testament to the hazards of adopting such a strategy.

Yet, in the longer term, after arguing against some of his own constituency on national gun reform and implementing a GST, Howard won respect from the electorate for "doing the right thing". Howard's future wins were all grounded on a record of making hard decisions in the national interest while protecting families and jobs. People didn't like him but they respected him. Rudd is liked, but he has to win respect.

For Howard, tax reform was a theme without a great deal of charisma but it was one that was recognised in the timber seats of Tasmania, Victoria and NSW in 2004 and flowed through to the credibility of Howard and Peter Costello as superior economic managers.

When it comes to pushing hard decisions - not the confected, so-called tough decisions of the budget that Labor is using to cover its drop in support - Rudd lacks a theme.

An emissions trading scheme provides him with an opportunity to reclaim a theme as the young outsider in The Man from Snowy River who faces the perilous plunge and brings home the climate colt that got away.

It won't be easy, but that's the point and the test. People will applaud the descent with hairy-nosed wombat holes at every step, but they will cool even further if the man in the saddle sits and manages the way down with the least risk.

This is not to suggest some Mark Lathamesque roller-coaster ride without a seat belt but a calculated risk in the national interest that says: This is where I stand in the saddle.

As shown in the Newspoll survey this week on global warming and the ultimate cost of rising petrol, the Gippsland by-election swing against the Government demonstrates that the closer you get to real cost-of-living increases or job security as a result of an emissions trading scheme, the less politically palatable the choices become. In the by-election - which Labor hoped would not be reminiscent of the Whitlam government's Parramatta by-election in 1973, which had an almost exact swing against the government in a Coalition-held seat of 6.6 per cent - the prospect of an emissions trading scheme was sharply delineated from the warm and fuzzy feeling of general polling.

In a Newspoll this week, people overwhelmingly said they supported an emissions trading scheme to fight global warming and most said they'd pay higher prices to do so. But when it came to paying higher petrol prices to pay to fight global warming, the public was divided. There was no division in Gippsland when it came to the electoral booths affected by brown-coal mining - that is the dirtiest coal - because they all voted against Labor, including traditional ALP booths.

The real political challenge for the Government is to convince people whose cost of living and livelihood are affected by inevitable rising prices. They must be convinced the effort is worth the cost, that jobs will be protected and there is compensation for those hardest hit.

This was the retail formula for the introduction of the GST after the public was convinced it was necessary; unpopular but necessary.
Title: Professor Ross Garnaut - Carbon Trading (Tax) Scheme Draft Report
Post by: mr anderson on July 03, 2008, 08:11:07 pm
Draft Report to be released today at the National Press Club in Canberra

Full National Press Club Address (38 mins) - http://www.vimeo.com/1285371
Q & A (19 mins) - http://www.vimeo.com/1285424


The Garnaut Review released its Draft Report on 4 July, 2008.

http://www.smh.com.au/pdf/garnautreport.pdf

Sky News: Professor Ross Garnaut draft report - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZMb1oA-Qak


In-depth coverage and analysis at The Australian
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/index/0,25201,5017586,00.html


The Draft Report describes the methodology that the Review is applying to evaluation of the costs and benefits of climate change mitigation; to the application of the science of climate change to Australia; to the international context of Australian mitigation, and to Australian mitigation policy.

The Report is a stage in the journey toward the Final Report at the end of September 2008.

It follows the Interim Report and the Discussion Paper on the emissions trading scheme released in February 2008 and March 2008 respectively.

The Draft Report generally does not make recommendations, although the tendency of policy analysis is clear. It is closest to recommendations on the design features of the emissions trading scheme, which require business and community discussion of the issues before the completion of the Final Report.

Government climate report coming
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzX5RYjwB_8

Garnaut urges emissions trading scheme 'without delay'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Sme1vMMMP8



Main points of the Garnaut Report

• By 2050, unmitigated climate change on middle of the road outcomes would mean major declines in agricultural production across much of the country, including a 50 per cent reduction in irrigated agriculture in the Murray-Darling Basin.

• By 2100, irrigated agriculture in the Murray Darling Basin would decline by 92 per cent.

• Early economic modelling results of readily measurable unmitigated climate change for middle of the road outcomes on temperatures and decline in rainfall – indicate that climate change would wipe off around 4.8 per cent of Australia’s projected GDP, around 5.4 per cent of projected household consumption, and 7.8 per cent from real wages by 2100.

• Professor Garnaut says: “Australia would be hurt more than other developed countries by unmitigated climate change, and we therefore have an interest in encouraging the strongest feasible global effort. We are running out of time for effective global action, and it is important that we play our full part in nurturing the remaining chance.”

• Prof. Garnaut reiterates his support for an emissions trading scheme to cover as many sectors as practicable.

• The Draft Report advocates the full auctioning of emissions permits and the return of all revenue to households and business.

• The Report proposes that half the proceeds from the sale of all permits is allocated to households, around 30 per cent provided for structural adjustment needs for business (including any payments to TEEIIs), and the remaining 20 per cent allocated to research and development and the commercialisation of new technologies.

• The Draft Report states that it would be in Australia’s interest to find out as soon as possible whether there can be a low-emissions future for coal, and to support rapid deployment of commercially promising technologies.

• Professor Garnaut said that he supported the phase-out of the Mandatory Renewable Energy Target, once the unconstrained ETS was fully operational.
Title: Re: Professor Ross Garnaut - Carbon Trading (Tax) Scheme Draft Report
Post by: mr anderson on July 03, 2008, 08:16:33 pm
Emissions scheme 'to change behaviour'

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23967512-29277,00.html

THE whole objective of an emissions trading scheme (ETS) is to change people's behaviour and it should apply to as many sectors as possible, including transport and fuel, the head of the former government's emissions task group says.

But Peter Shergold, former secretary of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, said even a carbon price of $20 or $30 a tonne would have a relatively modest impact on fuel prices, compared with price hikes so far this year.

Speaking ahead of the release later today of the Garnaut report on emissions trading, he said his report argued Australia needed to move forward with deliberation to set up an ETS in 2011 or 2012.

But the welfare group the Brotherhood of St Laurence warns that even a comparatively low price of $25 a tonne for carbon emissions could have a harsh impact on low income earners.

Opposition treasury spokesman Malcolm Turnbull warns the Government would be hard-pressed to get its ETS up and running by 2010 as Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has promised.

Today, climate change economist Professor Ross Garnaut, commissioned by states and territories and Labor while in opposition, releases his report.

Dr Shergold's task group, commissioned by the former government, released its report in June last year. He today said this was all about introducing a new system for the next half century.

"What the emissions task group said last year was look, this is about changing behaviour and the way you change behaviour is, obviously, making industries and households more energy conscious," Dr Shergold told ABC Radio.

He said he believed as many sectors should be included in an ETS as administratively possible, including transport.

"Having said that, even if you had a price of $20-$30 a tonne on carbon, it would have only a relatively small impact on fuel price compared with what has happened in the 14 months since I handed in that report."

Brotherhood of St Laurence climate researcher Damien Sullivan said many of the costs of a price on carbon would be passed on to ordinary people and there needed to be a scheme for compensating those on low incomes.

"When the costs are passed on, low incomes households will be disproportionately impacted by the emissions trading scheme. That is because a higher proportion of their weekly expenditure is on goods and services with a higher carbon content," he told ABC Radio.

Mr Turnbull said the Howard Government had been advised it would be difficult to get a well-designed scheme up and running by 2012.

"Kevin Rudd, in the election campaign, wanted to prove he was more green than the green, so he said, I'll start it by 2010," he said.

"He'll push ahead with this and we run the risk of having a scheme that goes off half-cocked.

"It is more important to get the emissions trading scheme right than to get it started in 2010."

University of Melbourne climate policy expert Peter Christoff said a scheme should include a firmly regulated cap.

"Secondly ... this scheme needs to cover as many sectors as possible, rather than simply just being confined, say, to electricity production."

Dr Christoff said all permits should go to a full market auction rather than be handed out at nominal price or free to various producers.
Title: Re: Professor Ross Garnaut - Carbon Trading (Tax) Scheme Draft Report
Post by: mr anderson on July 03, 2008, 09:21:33 pm
No mercy for dirty power, says Garnaut's climate report

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23966376-601,00.html

Lenore Taylor and Adele Ferguson | July 04, 2008


REGIONS hardest hit by the new emissions trading regime would win government handouts and industries investing in clean power would be rewarded, but the landmark Garnaut report on climate change rules out compensating coal-fired power stations.

In his much-anticipated report to federal and state governments, to be made public today, Ross Garnaut will canvass "structural adjustment" compensation for regions such as the La Trobe Valley in Victoria and the Hunter Valley in NSW.

But as Kevin Rudd last night warned of "consequences for the nation" for tackling climate change, big business flagged an impending disaster if the federal Government recommends carbon pricing without compensation toemitters and no transitional arrangements.

Transfield Services chairman Tony Shepherd yesterday warned the Australian electricity market could face an Enron-type collapse and predicted five years of economic growth would be wiped from the economy if the Rudd Government accepted the Garnaut report without transitional arrangements.

And Australian National University economist Warwick McKibbin, a Reserve Bank board director, predicted Australia would suffer significantly greater economic losses than other countries if it signed up to international trading of carbon permits under a Kyoto-based system of targets and timetable.

Professor Garnaut's 600-page report, handed to the Government on Monday, will provide detailed analysis of how climate change will affect the Australian economy and what should be done to combat the issue.

It will assess the creation of an emissions trading scheme, which will allow polluters who cannot meet greenhouse gas reduction targets to buy carbon permits. However, it will not contain specific targets for emission cuts ahead of Treasury modelling that will inform Professor Garnaut's final report in late September.

His latest report will recommend against compensating for coal-fired power stations hit by the Government's new ETS, due to start in 2010.

Despite dire warnings from electricity generators and state premiers about black-outs, bankruptcies and spiralling power bills, Professor Garnaut remains unconvinced by the argument that electricity generators should be compensated for the diminished value of their assets under the new carbon regime.

Other emissions-intensive industries, such as aluminium smelting, are also expected to be hit hard by the ETS. The Rudd Government has not adopted a clear position on the issue, with Climate Change Minister Penny Wong saying only that the Government would address "strongly affected industries" such as power generators.

But last night the Prime Minister said: "We will ensure we provide support to households and business in the transition period on the way through."

In the draft report, Professor Garnaut is expected to recommend the new ETS cover as much of the economy as possible, including the transport sector, and to canvass several options about how it might be phased in.

One option in Professor Garnaut's report will be that the price of carbon could be fixed for a two-year introductory period, until 2012, before a true carbon market kicks in. Another is the offer of assistance for power generators that invest in new technology to lower their emissions, for example carbon capture and storage, coal drying or gasification.

The Rudd Government, which commissioned the report while in Opposition, has set the ambitious goal of introducing an emissions trading scheme by 2010 and will release a more detailed paper on its intentions this month.

The electricity industry made strident representations to Professor Garnaut on the issue of compensation after the release of his interim report in February, but The Australian understands Professor Garnaut remains of the view that all compensation paid should be for actually reducing emissions rather than compensating for so-called "stranded assets".

Energy Supply Association chief executive Brad Page said Professor Garnaut was "confusing two entirely separate issues".

"The issue at stake here is the arbitrary destruction of shareholder wealth through a dramatic change in government policy, which raises questions about sovereign risk, because the policy change could not have been reasonably anticipated," he said. "That is entirely separate from the argument about whether you need extra assistance to bring forward investment in low emission technologies before they become economic in the new carbon market." Some power generators have warned that without compensation they could quickly be rendered bankrupt, and NSW Treasurer Michael Costa, who is seeking to privatise his state's $10billion electricity industry, has urged Professor Garnaut to move away from theory and look at the drastic practical impact of what he is proposing.

Compensation "would be consistent with the democratic norm that just compensation should be provided for acts of government that have significant adverse impacts on a property right", Mr Costa told The Australian through a spokeswoman.

Peter Coates, chairman of giant coal and base metals miner Xstrata Australia, said the ETS would be the most substantial change to the economy in a generation, and the Rudd Government had to ensure it was not too hasty to meet an election promise at business's expense.

"I accept that the Government has made an election promise that by 2010 we have to have this in place but it is a big ask to have everything in place by then. We can't afford to be out there as leaders on this issue and find out that we are by ourselves," he said. "The reality is that we represent 1.4 per cent of global carbon emissions and so we can only be leaders in this, we can't make a difference. It's good to be a leader, but not if it means it causes significant economic damage. We don't want to find ourselves out there as leaders on this and have the rest of the world laughing at us."

But Professor Garnaut's stance is strongly backed by conservationists. Chief executive of the Climate Institute John Connor said "we do not support hand-outs, if anything there should only be hand-ups for new investment in clean energy".

And the Australian Conservation Foundation's Tony Mohr said coal-fired power stations had had a long time to plan for a carbon price. "We shouldn't punish the leading companies who have planned ahead by bailing out companies who have been dragging their heels," he said.

As-yet unreleased modelling by power generators suggests that three out of the four brown-coal power stations in Victoria's Latrobe Valley would close by 2020 and that household power prices would increase by 50 per cent under modest cuts in greenhouse emissions.
Title: Re: Professor Ross Garnaut - Carbon Trading (Tax) Scheme Draft Report
Post by: mr anderson on July 04, 2008, 12:17:02 am
Cut taxes to soften climate pain: Garnaut report

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23967760-5017586,00.html

Samantha Maiden, Online political editor | July 04, 2008


TAX cuts and welfare reform should be offered to dampen the impact of a new emissions trading scheme, according to the landmark Garnaut climate change report released today.

Kevin Rudd's chief climate change adviser, Ross Garnaut, has today urged the Government to pass on the lion's share of revenue raised through the new scheme, which will put a price on carbon emissions when it starts in 2010.

He also warns some of Australia's most celebrated tourist destinations and natural wonders - including the Great Barrier Reef and the wetlands of Kakadu in the Northern Territory - could be lost if action is not taken.

The report paints a bleak picture of the international community's failure to take earlier action on climate change, warning the development of global pacts to create a more level playing field for key Australian industries is an “urgent matter”.

While Professor Garnaut is fighting for the broadest possible ETS, covering as many industries as possible, he also concedes rising petrol prices are already having an impact on consumer behaviour.

Amid warnings that Mr Rudd's 2010 timetable for a new trading scheme is a mission impossible, his report also concedes that “much anxiety” was expressed about the possibility of an unconstrained ETS generating high and unstable prices in the early years.

“While there are substantial advantages in moving directly to the unconstrained operation of the proposed emissions trading scheme in 2010, the review accepts there is a legitimate second best case for a fixed price for permits in the early years,” he states.

Under an ETS, businesses and industries that can not meet mandatory greenhouse gas reduction targets will be forced to buy carbon permits to continue polluting. This is likely to drive up the cost of services delivered by any industry bound by the scheme, such as electricity generators.

Professor Garnaut's draft report does not include analysis of specific targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions. This will be included in his final report, due in September, which will include detail modelling by Treasury on the effects of short- and long-term targets.

Professor Garnaut warns that low-income families will be hit hard by the Prime Minister's decision to introduce an ETS in two years, unless compensation is offered.

“As a general guide, the review has formed the view that around half of the permit revenue should be returned to the household sector, mostly as adjustments to the tax and social security systems that enhance efficiency, with some allocations to promote energy efficiency, especially among low-income earners,” the report states. “There are equity and economic management reasons for concentrating the return of permit revenue on the bottom half of the income distribution.

“This will overcome what would otherwise be regressive income distribution effects of the emissions trading scheme.”

The report also concedes businesses hit hard by the new climate change measures should also secure some compensation.

“The review has formed the view that in the years before there are effective international agreements removing the need for special support for trade-exposed emissions-intensive industries, up to 30 per cent of permit sales revenue could be returned to the business sector as payments to exposed firms, or as a general efficiency-raising reduction in business taxation,” he states.

“About 20 per cent of the permit sales revenue should be allocated to support research, development and the commercialisation of new, low emissions technologies.”
Title: Re: Professor Ross Garnaut - Carbon Trading (Tax) Scheme Draft Report
Post by: mr anderson on July 04, 2008, 07:54:06 am
(http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r20/m-r-anderson/gr3.jpg)
(http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r20/m-r-anderson/gr2.jpg)
(http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r20/m-r-anderson/gr.jpg)
Title: Labor's big sell on emissions plan
Post by: mr anderson on July 04, 2008, 09:52:13 pm
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23972000-2,00.html

By Steve Lewis

    * Government to spend big on advertising climate plan
    * Poor should be compensated for extra charges
    * The emission trading scheme explained


THE Rudd Government will unveil an expensive "public education" campaign to try to win support for its carbon emissions trading scheme.

Despite introducing measures to prevent blatant political advertising, the Government is likely to spend tens of millions of dollars to promote the benefits of tackling climate change.

It is understood advertising and public relations firms could be briefed on the campaign as early as Monday.

This could see a national campaign rolled out within weeks, and comes as the Government struggles to educate the public on what a carbon trading scheme will mean.

But it could also leave the Government open to claims that it is raiding the public purse for political purposes - the same claim it made against John Howard.

Federal Cabinet has held numerous meetings to discuss the political consequences of introducing an emissions trading scheme by the time of the next election.

Releasing his Climate Change report yesterday, economist Ross Garnaut warned that the biggest losers under emissions trading would be the poor - and recommended compensation.

Low-income households spend a greater proportion of their income on electricity and petrol, and emissions trading will force up prices of both.

Senior ministers are concerned about a voter backlash once the electorate understands that energy and petrol prices will rise under a new carbon tax.

It is expected the public information campaign will be broad-based, explaining the dire consequences if Australia does nothing to curb damaging greenhouse gases.

One well-placed source said a few advertising agencies had already been sounded out about roles in the campaign.

But the Government will have to tread carefully to ensure it does not breach its own advertising guidelines, unveiled earlier this week by Cabinet Secretary John Faulkner.

Under the rules, the Auditor-General has to sign off on any advertising campaign with a value of $250,000 or more.

Senator Faulkner refused to rule out spending millions of dollars on a climate change campaign when he unveiled the new advertising guidelines on Wednesday.

The Howard government came under attack for spending about $1.6 billion on advertising in its time in power - including more than $100 million promoting WorkChoices.

Labor has vowed to halt blatant political advertising.
Title: Re: Labor's big sell on emissions plan
Post by: doublethink on July 04, 2008, 10:14:44 pm
just imagine how much global warming propoganda is being pumped into the children at school everyday....
its infuriating
Title: Australia's harsh reality: adapt or die
Post by: mr anderson on July 04, 2008, 10:18:57 pm
(http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2008/07/04/murrayriver_wideweb__470x303,0.jpg)
Rivers run dry … the once-thriving Murray River wetlands at Mildura, Victoria. Under Professor Garnaut's worst-case scenario, the rivers in the Murray-Darling Basin could deteriorate to a trickle by 2050. "By 2100, 97 per cent of agricultural production will be lost."

http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/garnaut-ultimatum-adapt-or-perish/2008/07/04/1214951042626.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1


Phillip Coorey and Stephanie Peatling
July 5, 2008


AUSTRALIANS must pay more for petrol, food and energy or ultimately face a rising death toll, economic loss and the eventual destruction of the Great Barrier Reef, the snowfields, Kakadu and the nation's food bowl, the Murray-Darling Basin.

That is the stark ultimatum presented yesterday by Professor Ross Garnaut in the first comprehensive assessment of the impact on the country of climate change.

Arguing that Australia must introduce an emissions trading scheme in 2010 to discourage the use of polluting forms of energy, Professor Garnaut said the more forms of energy encompassed by the scheme, the lower the price rises would be. This included petrol and other transport fuels.

He said the impact on petrol prices would not be as large as that being caused by the present oil shock and argued against compensating motorists at the pump by reducing fuel excise.

Offsetting the price by "a few cents would not destroy the scheme" but "it weakens the message", he said.

His 537-page report, commissioned by the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, and released yesterday, says: "Climate change is a diabolical policy problem. It is harder than any issue of high importance that has come before our polity in living memory."

He warns that, as well as environmental degradation, taking no action would by the end of the century result in $425 billion being wiped each year from the economy and a reduction in wages of almost 8 per cent.

The report recommends adopting an unconstrained emissions trading scheme from 2010.

This would involve charging high-polluting industries such as coal-fired power stations for each tonne of carbon they emit. They would have to buy permits to emit greenhouse gases and the costs would be passed on to consumers, encouraging them to use less and driving everybody to look for cleaner energy sources.

Professor Garnaut said Australia alone could not have any significant impact on reducing greenhouse gas emissions but, unless the developed countries moved first, the polluters in the developing world would not act.

"Any effective remedies lie beyond any act of national will, requiring international co-operation of unprecedented dimension and complexity."

It would be delusional to argue for a delay based on scientific uncertainty and only cost more in the long run.

He criticised the lack of action by the Howard government, saying it should have moved years ago and that Australia had given the US an excuse to do nothing.

The Government will respond on July 16 with a green paper that will indicate for the first time the shape of the scheme it proposes.

The Garnaut report recommends starting the scheme in 2010 but gives an option that would allow a transition to a full scheme in 2013. If there were a transition period, the Kyoto Protocol would define Australia's emissions reduction target and permits would be sold at a low, fixed price. These years would be used to pursue effective international global agreements.

#But the Government is unlikely to opt for a delay and will probably start the scheme in 2010, an election year. Sources told the Herald there were ways to soften the immediate impact of the scheme, such as setting a low initial target to reduce carbon emissions. This would result in a low carbon price and only small increases to energy and consumables.

The report warns that current high prices will create political difficulties.

"The emissions trading scheme is likely to be introduced into an environment of recent and perhaps continuing large increases in fuel, electricity and fuel prices - precisely the goods and services whose prices will be affected most by the scheme," it says.

The price increases caused by the scheme will be lower than those being caused by current factors, but consumers will not know what is causing what.

"Households will not be able easily to distinguish between the varying sources of price increases, while agitators against the scheme will be busy spreading disinformation," the report says.

The Minister for Climate Change, Penny Wong, said the report "makes it absolutely clear that the time for playing short-term political games is over".

She backed Professor Garnaut's recommendation that all the billions to be raised by auctioning permits should be returned as compensation.

"Every cent of revenue that we gain through the introduction of an emissions trading scheme will be invested to ensure we assist families, households and Australian businesses to adjust to the impact of a carbon price," Senator Wong said.

The report recommends half the money should go to those on low incomes through tax cuts or social security payments.

Another 30 per cent would go to industries disadvantaged against unconstrained international competitors, and 20 per cent would be invested in developing and commercialising low-emissions technology.

Professor Garnaut said bipartisan support was essential.

But the Opposition Leader, Brendan Nelson, demanded yesterday it be delayed by at least a year so it was not botched.

He repeated that the impact on petrol prices should be offset by a reduction in petrol excise because "$1.70 a litre is a significant price signal for the average Australian motorist".

"To further increase taxes as a result of climate change policies without some other kind of off-set is something that will be opposed by the Opposition".

Professor Garnaut says that in the next 20 years climate change will affect Australia in familiar ways - longer, drier periods, with city people forced to cope with water rationing and country people worried about the ability of the land to remain productive.

But then it will get much worse, he warns. By 2050 the snowfields will be all but gone and the Great Barrier Reef will barely be hanging on.

By the end of the century the Murray-Darling Basin will have collapsed as a food-producing region and people will be moving away. "By 2100, 97 per cent of agricultural production will be lost."

Professor Garnaut said climate change held a serious threat to tourism. "With unmitigated climate change, on the basis of the mainstream science, we won't have much, if any, of the Great Barrier Reef, of Kakadu, of a number of our great environmental assets that are important attractions for international tourists."
Title: Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
Post by: mr anderson on July 04, 2008, 10:24:12 pm
TV screen gas 'worse than coal'

http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/flat-tv-alert/2008/07/03/1214950997795.html


Ian Sample in London
July 4, 2008


THE rising demand for flat-screen televisions may have a greater impact on global warming than the world's largest coal-fired power stations, a leading environmental scientist has warned.

Manufacturers use a greenhouse gas called nitrogen trifluoride to make the televisions. As the sets have become more popular, annual production of the gas has risen to about 4000 tonnes.

As a driver of global warming, nitrogen trifluoride is 17,000 times more potent than carbon dioxide, yet no one knows how much of it is being released into the atmosphere by the industry, said Michael Prather, director of the environment institute at the University of California.

Dr Prather's research reveals that production of the gas, which remains in the atmosphere for 550 years, is "exploding" and is expected to double by next year. Unlike common greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, sulphur hexafluoride (SF6) and perfluorocarbons (PFCs), emissions of the gas are not restricted by the Kyoto Protocol or similar agreements.

Writing in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, Dr Prather and a colleague, Juno Hsu, state this year's production of the gas was equivalent to 67 million tonnes of carbon dioxide, with "a potential greenhouse impact larger than that of the industrialised nations' emissions of PFCs or SF6, or even of the world's largest coal-fired power plants".

Concerns have led Toshiba Matsushita Display Technology to avoid using the gas, but Air Products, which produces it for the electronics industry, claims very little nitrogen trifluoride is released into the atmosphere.

Guardian News & Media
Title: Lethal emissions
Post by: mr anderson on July 04, 2008, 10:26:06 pm
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/lethal-emissions-20080704-31tn.html?page=-1

Shaun Carney
July 5, 2008


Kevin Rudd is going to find emissions trading extremely difficult to sell to Australians in the face of attacks from all sides.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyBh0tMP_2U

SOMETIMES in politics, the public can get lucky. With the demise of the Australian Democrats in national political life this week, there's been an orgy of retrospective finger-pointing about who was to blame, which has made it all too easy to forget or ignore the country's good fortune in having Don Chipp as a parliamentarian for 26 years. The Democrats were, more than anything else, an expression of Chipp's charisma, political imagination, force of will and skill as an organiser, and they existed in the Senate for 30 years — quite a feat.

Chipp, who died in August 2006, was an engaging and courageous man who left the nation's body politic in a better condition than he found it. In 1977, when Sir John Kerr's dismissal of the Whitlam government was still an open wound on the society, Chipp put himself and the original members of his party forward as a healing force. It is not excessive to describe the party in its early years as a social and political movement. The essential idea of the Democrats was to save the major parties from themselves — to use goodwill and common sense as a brake on the unbridled pursuit of power. Unfortunately for the Democrats, that's one of the things that ultimately brought the party undone. The longer it existed as a broker on legislation, the more it accumulated responsibility for the results.

Nowhere was this more potent — and damaging — than when John Howard played Meg Lees like a violin in 1999 and made her a 50-50 partner in the GST. A stronger, less egotistical leader than Lees might have been able to keep her party together post-1999 but, highly impressed by her newfound importance, she had none of those capacities and, more than anyone or anything, set the Democrats on a course for destruction. But the Democrats were conceived as a party that carried policy arguments as well. As a party that contained a decent proportion of small business operators in its membership, it stood for moderate deregulation of labour markets and responsible environmentalism. When political parties die, it's always with a series of whimpers rather than a bang and this was the case with the Democrats, who suffered the ignominy of two successive federal elections, in 2004 and last year, in which they failed to win a seat.

In the next few years, Australian politics is likely to suffer for the lack of a party such as the Democrats. With the release of the Garnaut report yesterday, the tenor and policy territory for the remainder of this electoral term is set. The political debate will be very nasty and highly desperate. The Rudd Government is going to find itself running against every grievance that can be articulated and a few that cannot. There remain many Australians who do not believe that climate change exists; Rudd cannot expect to win them over. As for those who do subscribe to the presence of climate change, Rudd can also expect to run up against quite a few of them as well.

The Greens, who have replaced the Democrats as the third force in national politics, have learnt the lessons inherent in the death of Don Chipps' party. They are unlikely to stay on board with Labor and go down with the ship, should Rudd's emissions trading scheme prove to be an unwieldy electoral monster. The Greens are a combination of two elements: unyielding environmentalist ideology, and protest at the inadequacies and self-interest of modern capitalism and the major parties, especially the ALP. The contradiction of the second of those two elements is implicit in the Greens' preferencing strategy, which overwhelmingly favours the ALP, except in safe Labor seats with high concentrations of white-collar and young voters, in which case Labor becomes the enemy that must be defeated. Whether this can continue in the future political environment, where an emissions trading scheme will dominate public and economic debate is an interesting question.

The essential shift that's taken place during this decade is the move of the third political force from the centre (Democrat preferences generally ran 55-45 to Labor) to the left (Green preferences mostly favour Labor 80-20). Given the nature of the climate change debate, this isn't especially good news for the Rudd Government. The Greens leadership and the party's constituency, which is 7-10% of the electorate, is

unlikely to be fully satisfied with whatever Rudd produces. If, for example, Greens leader Bob Brown locks in behind a Rudd carbon trading scheme, what then is the compelling point of difference between his party and the ALP?

The potential for the emissions trading regime to mess Labor up is substantial. The Coalition's course on the issue now seems clear. Having originally disputed climate change and then in its final few years accepted it and finally, as the 2007 election approached, sent out some hard-to-ignore signals that it wanted to be seen to be doing things on water and solar power, it is now in retreat. The position being formulated by leader Brendan Nelson and environment spokesman Greg Hunt will look comforting to many Australians.

Politically, the Coalition's key objective on emissions trading is to inflict the maximum amount of damage on the Government. Hunt's job is to fashion an intellectual and policy package that conforms to that objective, while simultaneously giving the impression that the Coalition subscribes to the reality of climate change and the need for action. In the short term, this should be relatively easy. With petrol prices wreaking havoc in the lives of many voters and sending shudders through the global economy, it will not be difficult to argue that a 2010 start date for an emissions trading scheme is hasty and economically reckless, especially when China and India can be held up as recalcitrants undoing our good but ineffective contribution.

Rudd will find himself caught between a climate change adaptation of the Augustinian request for "chastity but not just yet" on the right and, on the left, purists who can always be relied upon to demand more. In the new political order where extreme positions are increasingly common, it could well be that old standby, money, that has the final word. Providing sufficient compensation measures for those disadvantaged by any scheme is Rudd's best — perhaps his only — hope.

Shaun Carney is associate editor.
Title: Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
Post by: mr anderson on July 05, 2008, 01:22:19 am
Low-income families will pay for climate changes

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23972342-2,00.html

July 05, 2008
The Daily Telegraph


FIGHTING "insidious" climate change will batter the budgets of low-income families, the Government's emissions control expert Ross Garnaut conceded yesterday. An Emissions Trading Scheme, which made carbon polluting products such as petrol and electricity more expensive, would add to household bills and be regressive.

But Dr Garnaut, an economist, said the cost to families would be much greater if there was no attempt to mitigate climate change.

Jobs would be lost and changing weather patterns would destroy national symbols such as the Barrier Reef, Kakadu National Park and the Murray-Darling Basin. The draft report outlined preliminary modelling of what would happen if action were not taken. It said that "middle-of-the-road impacts" would see national output - or GDP - cut 4.8 per cent by the end of the century, a fall of more than $400 billion a year.

Wages would fall by 7.8 per cent and our spending would drop by 5.4 per cent.

Dr Garnaut urged half the revenue from an ETS - from $3 billion to $10 billion - be spent on helping households suffering from a carbon consumption penalty.

"We have much to contribute and much to lose as we face the diabolical policy challenge of climate change," he said.

Dr Garnaut told the National Press Club in Canberra: "Climate change presents a new kind of challenge. It is uncertain in its form and extent, rather than drawn in clear lines. It is insidious, rather than directly confrontational.

"It is long term, rather than immediate in both its impacts and its remedies."

Dr Garnaut was delivering his government-commissioned draft report on an Emissions Trading Scheme set to start by 2010 - just before the next federal election. An ETS "may have large and regressive effects on the distribution of income", his 600-page report said.

"Effective management of this issue is going to be crucial to the success of the emissions trading scheme," it said.

The report said low-income earners would be particularly hit because they spent a bigger share of their incomes on emission-intensive products. Dr Garnaut said the bottom 20 per cent of income earners spent twice as much on electricity, petrol and gas - as a proportion of their incomes - as the top 20 per cent. His report said the proportion of income spent on transport, fuel, gas and electricity was around 9.5 per cent for low-income households and around 4.5 per cent for upper-income households.

"Emissions pricing is therefore regressive: That is, as the income of the individual rises, the impact will be smaller in terms of the proportion of income," it said.

Dr Garnaut recommended that half the revenue from carbon permits be devoted to compensating households in one form or another, such as paying for energy efficiency measures in the home. He said higher prices might also be returned through social security and through the tax system. Twenty per cent of the revenue could go to supporting research and commercialisation of low emission technology and 30 per cent to protect trade exposed and emissions intensive industries.

Depending on what level the Government sets for permits under an ETS, the total revenue could range from $7 billion to $20 billion.

Dr Garnaut said, while emerging economic powerhouses such as China and India would be pumping out much more carbon pollution than Australia, Australia had to take the first step towards curbing emissions. "There will not be a next step; there won't be progress from the developing countries unless the developed countries have done what they said they would do," he said.
Title: Garnaut climate change report: Designed to bolster the age-old socialist agenda
Post by: mr anderson on July 05, 2008, 02:26:19 pm
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23976700-5007146,00.html

By Piers Akerman

July 06, 2008 12:00am
The Sunday Telegraph


TAXPAYERS should ask Professor Ross Garnaut for their money back: his report is little more than a fearmongering document designed to bolster the age-old socialist agenda of wealth redistribution.

It fails from the basis of science and it fails from the basis of economics but it will, however, warm the hearts of the anti-capitalist doom merchants of Europe and inner-urban branches of the Labor Party with its prognostications.

Nostradamus would be proud.

Like all who have signed on to the view that humans are responsible for global warming, Professor Garnaut cites the IPCC's (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) projections on the rate of climate change as coming from a scientifically based consensus. This is complete rubbish.

The only consensus was between bureaucrats who wanted to agree to a number, the energy-rich Saudis wanted a low number, the energy-deficient Europeans wanted a low number, and they struck a deal which is the basis of Professor Garnaut's consensus.

Starting with that humbug, he then segues to Australia and, with the arrogance of a Belinda Neal, proposes that Australia should be the global leader in a fight against climate change.

King Canute could teach him a thing or two about humility but, then again, Professor Garnaut was handpicked for his task by Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, the master of agenda control.

The world is coming to an end, he says; Kakadu will be inundated, the Great Barrier Reef will die, the Murray-Darling river system will dry up unless we act now.

Oh, sure. But where does he conjure up this fantasy from when the IPCC's own temperature projections are already falling over? Taken over the past 10 years, the trend line for temperature is flat. If taken from 2001, the trend shows global temperatures falling.

It is as if he is suffering from some cognitive dissonance. Even the thousands of Argos robots which bob up and down through the ocean levels have measured no increases in temperatures as they sample at different depths.

Professor Garnaut's appearance at the National Press Club on Friday revealed him to be the bureaucrat's bureaucrat, which may be why our uber-bureaucrat Prime Minister fell for him in the first place.

He is not, however, as polished as Sir Humphrey Appleby of Yes, Minister. Sir Humphrey would not, for example, have insinuated that the adoption of a new tax on industry would make rain fall on the Murray-Darling basin.

He would not have made the mistake of sending out a report which pointed to lower dam levels in the Perth region - which Professor Garnaut blamed on climate change - when those directly engaged in the West Australian water industry know that there is less run-off into Perth's dams now because of the regrowth in the once-cleared catchment area.

Professor Garnaut and his team weren't able to model many important factors because of shaky data, yet he expects us to believe that his predictions of catastrophic consequence should be immediately acted upon.

A few weeks ago, Mr Rudd was congratulated by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon for his support for multilateralism (the failed UN, that is), and Professor Garnaut is also a believer in such institutions, yet he believes that it is imperative that Australia take immediate action on climate change so our nation can be a role model for our neighbours.

Who knows where they teach this stuff, but the notion of anyone of the failed states in the Pacific, or our great Indonesian neighbour to the north, deciding that we are role model in this or anything is so laughably arrogant that it defies description.

Only a basket-weaving Balmain boy scout could possibly believe that other nations would willingly plunge into economic decline because Australia had set the lead.

The biggest environmental crisis facing us today is the collapse of the Murray-Darling system which has little to do with climate change and everything to do with bad political decisions on water use.

The Rudd government and each of the Labor states put that in the too-hard basket last week and pushed it off for another committee meeting to decide what committee should decide on what action.

Senator Penny Wong, who has shown herself to be nothing more than a more eloquent version of her assistant minister, Peter Garrett, and just as useless, says Professor Garnaut's report demonstrates that Australia must act on the climate issue.

Any reading of this irresponsible report would demand that any action be cautiously approached and taken only after exhaustive research, not Ruddite back-of-the-envelope modelling based on flawed inputs.

As for the haste, help me, what a joke. One bushfire, one volcano, one cyclone would destroy in seconds any efforts of a vastly greater magnitude than Australians could physically undertake over 50 years.

Perhaps Mr Rudd wants this report to artificially stampede Australians, to distract them from their more pressing economic problems - who knows? But it is worth recalling that the last major economic reform this nation underwent, the introduction of the GST (opposed by Labor and Mr Rudd in particular, until he won office), was sold to the public over 17 long years, by Labor Treasurer Paul Keating, Coalition Opposition leader John Hewson and Prime Minister John Howard.

The public knew what it was getting. Professor Garnaut throws up promises of disaster and hopes to generate a wave of fear which would force the Government to take some action.

Forget it, and forget the notion that our near neighbours would line up to cut their economic throats just because we willingly plunged into recession to assuage the guilt of a gathering of gullible Gaia followers in Canberra.
Title: Sunday Show interview: Ross Garnaut
Post by: mr anderson on July 05, 2008, 08:12:50 pm
http://www.vimeo.com/1287787

Update: Well the tossers at Vimeo deleted my account

Professor Ross Garnaut has released a 600-page draft report on climate change, focusing on an emissions trading scheme.

SUNDAY Political Editor Laurie Oakes speaks to Professor Garnaut on this week's show.

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=47705.0
Title: PM Rudd wants all to pay for climate except him
Post by: mr anderson on July 05, 2008, 08:37:02 pm
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23975740-2,00.html

By Glenn Milne

July 06, 2008 12:00am
Sunday Herald Sun

    * Prime Minister won't pay his power, petrol bills
    * Carbon trading scheme will drive up costs
    * Rudd says he understands pressures families face


KEVIN Rudd wants all Australians to share the pain of increased costs to help save the planet from climate change - except him. The Prime Minister revealed yesterday he would continue to allow taxpayers to pick up his power and petrol bills. In the wake of the week's Garnaut report, Mr Rudd was asked if he would pay for power, lighting and heating bills at The Lodge.

The Sunday Herald Sun also asked whether he would start to pay his petrol bills for his chauffeur-driven car.

Mr Rudd's office responded: "The Prime Minister will not be changing the long-standing practices of previous prime ministers in relation to these matters.

"The Prime Minister understands the cost-of-living pressures that confront Australia's working families, carers and seniors.

"He also understands that Australians want the Australian Government to take action on climate change."

Taxpayers pick up the bill for the car and The Lodge.

The Government is set to introduce a national Emissions Trading System by 2010 that will increase the cost of energy bills and fuel in the name of reducing global greenhouse gas emissions. Mr Rudd has stressed that for a carbon trading system to work, consumers must be hit with a noticeable price rise in order for them to begin reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Mr Rudd declined to say how much The Lodge and his chauffeur driven car cost taxpayer's last year, referring the Sunday Herald Sun to Government annual reports. According to Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet portfolio estimates, the cost of running The Lodge and Kirribilli House in Sydney is expected to be $1.8 million this financial year.

Mr Rudd, whose wife, Therese Rein's companies turned over about $260 million ($250,481,695.57 USD) last year, also has a taxpayer-subsidised nanny for his youngest son and a taxpayer-funded butler paid $78,000 a year.

Mr Rudd earns $370,000 a year, including allowances. ($356,454.72 USD)

Last December, after signing the Kyoto Protocol at the Bali Climate Change Summit, Mr Rudd declared: "We must all share the burden."
Title: Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
Post by: mr anderson on July 05, 2008, 10:23:56 pm
Insiders - Carbon Trading Draft Report
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmJJF0byBqs
Title: Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
Post by: Brocke on July 06, 2008, 05:16:25 am
Oh jees, here we go!



Prepare for a barrage of heatwaves - report

By Cathy Alexander and Amy Coopes

July 06, 2008 05:24pm
Article from: AAP


AUSTRALIA is in for a tenfold increase in heat waves as climate change sends the mercury soaring.
A report by the nation's top scientists has found exceptionally hot years - which used to occur once every 22 years - will occur every one or two years.

Under the worst case scenario, every year would be exceptionally hot.

Federal Agriculture Minister Tony Burke said the report, released today, made alarming reading.

"Parts of these high-level projections read more like a disaster novel than a scientific report," he told reporters in Sydney.

CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology wrote the report, which found droughts would occur twice as often and cover twice the area due to climate change.

The surge in heat waves is predicted to hit from 2010.

The proportion of the country having an exceptionally hot year will increase from just under five per cent each year, to as high as 95 per cent.

"The analysis shows that the extent and frequency of exceptionally hot years have been increasing rapidly over recent decades and this trend is expected to continue," the report concluded.

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd described the report as "very disturbing".

"What they say in two short points is this ... firstly that when it comes to exceptional or extreme drought, exceptionally high temperatures, the historical assumption that this occurred once every 20 years has now been revised down to between every one and two years," he told ABC Television.

"Secondly, with exceptional circumstances drought conditions ... that they will occur twice as often and with twice the area of droughted parts of Australia included."

Mr Rudd said this was a serious revision of the impact of climate change on drought.

Rainfall is predicted to decline, although the trend was less marked than for temperatures, and some regions will be much harder hit than others.

Southern Australia, Victoria and Tasmania are tipped to dry out most rapidly.

Rainfall has been declining since the 1950s - and about half that decrease was due to climate change, the report found.

The federal government commissioned the report as part of its review of public funding to drought-stricken farmers, called Exceptional Circumstances (EC) funding.

The report recommends EC thresholds should be changed because hotter, drier weather will become normal.

"What's clear is that the cycle of drought is going to be more regular and deeper than ever," Mr Burke said.

"We need to act now to ensure we are better prepared for climate change in the future."

Mr Burke said the government had to take a fresh look at drought funding to farmers.

"If we fail to review drought policy, if we were to continue the neglect and pretend that the climate wasn't changing, we would be leaving our farmers out to dry well and truly," he said.

Mr Burke has promised the review of drought payments will not affect the current round of EC funding. The government has set aside more than $760 million for EC funding this year.

The government commissioned two other reports as part of its drought review - an economic review and a social review. They are not yet completed.

The release of the report follows today's announcement of drought figures in NSW, which put 65 per cent of the state in drought, an increase of more than two per cent on last month.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23977492-2,00.html
Title: Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
Post by: Brocke on July 06, 2008, 05:18:42 am
Ahh, a petrol tax as well! Good on you Professor Garnaut.



Coalition 'not climate change populists'

July 06, 2008 04:20pm
Article from: AAP


DEPUTY Opposition Leader Julie Bishop has rejected suggestions the coalition is taking a populist stance on climate change.
The Federal Government has called for a proposed emissions trading scheme to be introduced in 2010 - a timeline supported by Professor Ross Garnaut in his landmark report on climate change.
Prof Garnaut also has called for petrol to be included in the scheme, saying failing to do so would send the wrong signal to motorists.

He has attacked the coalition over its call for the excise on fuel to be cut by five cents a litre, saying it would do little to curb demand for petrol.

The opposition, however, says the government should proceed with caution, and is sticking to its guns on petrol excise.

Ms Bishop said the opposition's stance was not about winning votes, but about getting the response to climate change right.

"We support many of the principles in the Garnaut report, but we can't just be unquestioning, uncritical of everything that is put forward," she told Sky News.

Peter Shergold, the former secretary of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet under the Howard government, released his report on climate change in June last year, calling for an emissions scheme to be set up in 2011 or 2012.

"Now Kevin Rudd has said it's got to be by 2010. Well, let's make sure we get it right," Ms Bishop said.

"We don't want to risk jobs or damage the economy just for the sake of (ensuring) the prime minister's timeline of 2010 (is) proven correct."

"There is a delicate balancing act here ... and we must be mindful of it.

"That is, sending price signals to businesses and industry that they must be more efficient, that they must look for low emissions alternatives, but also ensuring that we don't destroy jobs and send jobs offshore."

Ms Bishop conceded Dr Shergold, like Prof Garnaut, had called for petrol to be included in the proposed emissions trading scheme.

But she said Dr Shergold had noted that since his report was published, petrol prices had soared.
"He indicated that we need to be flexible and I think it's important that the opposition's position be understood," Ms Bishop said.

"We're saying that there should be no new net tax on petrol.

"(The price) of petrol has increased significantly just in the last six months, so the price signal is being sent and we shouldn't clobber the Australian motorist by making it just unaffordable when there is no alternative."

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23977226-29277,00.html
Title: Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
Post by: Brocke on July 06, 2008, 05:20:03 am
Climate report 'a disaster novel'

July 06, 2008 02:39pm
Article from: AAP


FEDERAL Agriculture Minister Tony Burke has likened a scientific study into links between climate change and drought to the final chapters of a disaster novel.
Mr Burke today released a joint assessment by the Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO, which found that what are now considered to be one in 25 year climate events could become as frequent as once every one to two years.

In particular, the study found exceptionally high temperatures would occur almost yearly, while low rainfall would almost double in frequency from current figures.

The report found about 50 per cent of the rainfall decrease in south-western Australia since the 1950s was likely due to greenhouse gases.

Mr Burke said the sobering analysis had completely re-written the rules for drought assistance and Australia's agriculture generally.

"While this is a scientific report, parts of these high level projections read more like a disaster novel than a scientific report," Mr Burke told reporters.

"What's clear is that the cycle of drought is going to be more regular and deeper than ever."

Mr Burke said events of extreme temperature, which currently occurred once every 20 to 25 years, were forecast to happen once every one to two years coming up to 2030.

The area of Australia declared to be in drought would double and the likelihood of drought would also double, Mr Burke said.

"What this means is that in terms of government policy, we now know what would happen if we did nothing," he said.

"If we fail to review drought policy, if we were to continue the neglect and pretend that the climate wasn't changing we would be leaving our farmers out to dry well and truly."

The CSIRO report is the first in the Federal Government's three stage review of drought policy with the scientific findings to be fed into an analysis of social policy and economic review being undertaken by the Productivity Commission.

The release of the report follows today's announcement of drought figures in NSW, which put 65 per cent of the state in drought, an increase of more than 2 per cent on last month.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23977117-29277,00.html
Title: Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
Post by: Brocke on July 06, 2008, 05:20:48 am
Climate change fuelling drought - CSIRO

July 06, 2008 02:19pm
Article from: AAP


A NEW "very disturbing" report due today shows climate change in Australia is inflicting severe drought conditions much more often, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd says.
Mr Rudd said Agriculture Minister Tony Burke would release the CSIRO research report on the impact of climate change on drought later today.

"We asked some time ago for the CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology to advise us how do we deal with exceptional circumstances and drought arrangements into the future," Mr Rudd told ABC television.

"They've now presented us with a report and the findings are again very disturbing.

"What they say in two short points is this ... firstly that when it comes to exceptional or extreme drought, exceptionally high temperatures, the historical assumption that this occurred once every 20 years has now been revised down to between every one and two years.

"Secondly, with exceptional circumstances drought conditions, under scenarios within it, that they will occur twice as often and with twice the area of droughted parts of Australia included."

Mr Rudd said it was a serious revision of the impact of climate change on drought and Mr Burke would make that clear in the report.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23977085-29277,00.html
Title: Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
Post by: Brocke on July 06, 2008, 06:26:03 am
Wong: Every cent for families, business

July 04, 2008 05:01pm
Article from: AAP

THE Australian Government would commit every cent raised from an emissions trading scheme to help families and businesses adjust to paying a price for carbon, Climate Change Minister Penny Wong says.

Responding to the draft report on climate change delivered by Ross Garnaut today, Senator Wong said it was in Australia's national interest to take action sooner rather than later.

She said the Government would issue a green paper later this month which would detail the Government's response to the Garnaut report and provide an outline on the operation of an emissions trading scheme.

"But the Government has made a very clear commitment that every cent of revenue that we gain through the introduction of an emissions trading scheme will be invested to ensure we assist families, households and Australian businesses to adjust to the impact of a carbon price," Senator Wong said.

"We will ensure that there are measures in place to assist Australian households with the impact of a carbon price."

In his report Professor Garnaut said it would be hard for Australia to begin an emissions trading scheme by 2010 but delaying its start could be worse. He said transport fuels should be included and raised concerns with calls for the excise on petrol to be cut.

Senator Wong would not be drawn on whether or not petrol would be included in the Government's proposals and said details would have to wait until the release of the green paper.

However, she said the Government would have regard to those issues "carefully, methodically and responsibly".

"We are very mindful as we approach the design of the emission trading scheme that there are consequences for decisions on design," the minister said.

"So if you exclude some parts of the economy the other parts of the economy have to work harder to reduce the amount of emissions that we are putting into the atmosphere.

"We have also said quite clearly that there will be measures in place to assist Australian families, Australian households, to adjust to the impact of a carbon price."

Senator Wong said the Garnaut report was a timely reminder that the world was warming and this was causing more droughts, water shortages and extreme weather.

"We, as a nation, must act on climate change," she said.

"It is in Australia's national interest, it is in our economic interest and it is in the interest of our children."

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23968632-5007133,00.html
Title: Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
Post by: orangeblue on July 06, 2008, 09:01:35 am
"...Firstly that when it comes to exceptional or extreme drought, exceptionally high temperatures, the historical assumption that this occurred once every 20 years has now been revised down to between every one and two years.  Secondly, with exceptional circumstances drought conditions, under scenarios within it, that they will occur twice as often and with twice the area of droughted parts of Australia included."

With Tropical Storm Bertha still several days away from the US mainland, I watched chemtrail spray planes dissolve virtually all the rain clouds above North Florida yesterday.  There was significant precipitation both north and south of our area, but only ugly and chemically retarded clouds hung overhead for much of the day.

I don’t know if they’re using these aerosol bombing runs to influence the path or strength of the approaching storm, but it's a fact this region’s natural weather patterns are severely distorted.  I'm sure other acts of chemical weather terrorism also worsened the recent California wildfires and Midwest flooding.

There has been incredible worldwide weather manipulation for the last decade and now they’re using the fallout in every country to beat the average person over the head with new laws, regulations and taxes.

9/11 is a horrific crime that we must continue exposing, but global weather terrorism is going to directly kill billions of innocent people if we don’t raise awareness now and demand these crimes be stopped.

Weather modification is weather terrorism!
Title: PM Kevin Rudd faces climate revolt from N.S.W. Treasurer
Post by: mr anderson on July 06, 2008, 09:25:12 pm
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23979910-5007133,00.html

    * State Labor, unions attack climate plan
    * PM admits it will be tough for families
    * Extreme drought coming 'every two years'


KEVIN Rudd has been warned against rushing ahead with a carbon emissions trading scheme (ETS), with a union boss saying workers should not lose their jobs just so the Prime Minister can keep his.

Mr Rudd is facing a savage backlash from unions and state Labor over the timing of an ETS, which was the centrepiece of the Garnaut Review into how Australia should tackle climate change.  The scheme would raise billions of dollars for the Government through the sale of pollution permits.

As the Prime Minister conceded yesterday that rising electricity, food and petrol prices were an inevitable consequence of the scheme, he pledged that the Government was mindful of the risks to family budgets and to jobs.

But Australian Workers Union national secretary Paul Howes has accused Mr Rudd of being "hell bent" on introducing the ETS by 2010 just to keep an election promise, despite the danger of forcing jobs offshore.

"I would rather see that period of time dragged out a bit to ensure that there aren't any errors in the design," he said.

"If we ensure that the adequate levels of compensation and recognition are given to industries so that they are given ... time to clean up their act ... then no job needs to be lost. In fact, jobs should be created."

The Federal Opposition has also said the ETS should be delayed to ensure it was done properly. Shadow Treasurer Malcolm Turnbull has said the scheme would be "half-cocked" if introduced on the government's timetable.

Opposition Leader Brendan Nelson said today the environment would be no better off with a rushed scheme.  "Mr Rudd is taking Australia way out in front of the rest of the world and in doing so places significant risk on the Australian economy ... for no environmental gain at all," he said on ABC radio.

"The rest of the world, particularly the big emitters, will not yet be ready (by 2012)."

In his attack on the Garnaut report, NSW Treasurer Michael Costa has backed free permits for electricity generators, saying today in The Australian that "Chicken Little" warnings about the dangers of climate change are no substitute for a rigorous economic and scientific debate.

Mr Howes said an ETS would be little more than a trade tariff "against ourselves" if high-polluting countries such as China and Brazil were not taking similar measures.

In his draft report, released on Friday, Professor Ross Garnaut said Australia would be hit harder by climate change than other countries would be - and therefore needed to act now.  But he also said the government should pressure other polluters to follow suit quickly.

Costs

Mr Costa warns that while the states support the implementation of an ETS, the risks to the economy are severe if the Rudd Government gets it wrong, citing the children's fable of the hen that thought the sky was falling after being hit on the head by an acorn.

"Chicken Little arguments are no substitute for getting right the important details on issues of far reaching consequence, but Professor (Ross) Garnaut himself has said his detailed economic impact modelling won't be available until August," he writes.

"For example, claims from some quarters that the Great Barrier Reef would be destroyed if Australia, which emits less than 2 per cent of global greenhouse gases, does not adopt an ETS are patent nonsense."

The Government also faces growing calls to offer free permits to polluters to stagger the impact of putting a price on carbon, or embrace the Howard government option of a safety valve system that would place an effective cap on the price of carbon, allowing polluters to pay a fine rather than buy more permits once a certain price for carbon was exceeded.

Read more on that side of the story at The Australian.

- with AAP
Title: Garnaut’s 'Climate Change' pipe dream: India says no proof and no cuts
Post by: mr anderson on July 07, 2008, 06:20:37 am
All article links here: http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/draft/

Kevin Rudd’s global warming guru, Ross Garnaut, demands that we slash our gases even though he admits this terrible sacrifice is meaningless without fast-developing countries like China and India doing the same:

    Only a global agreement has any prospect of reducing risks of dangerous climate change to acceptable levels..... China has recently overtaken the United States as the world’s largest emitter, and, in an unmitigated future, would account for about 35 per cent of global emissions in 2030.
http://www.garnautreview.org.au/CA25734E0016A131/pages/draft-report

Add India’s emissions, and these two fast-growing giants by 2030 will be emitting half the world’s greenhouse gases. If they don’t cut back, nothing we do will make the slightest bit of difference, as even Garnaut concedes.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Earth/India_unveils_plan_on_Climate_Change/articleshow/3180682.cms
Small problem. Last week the Indian Government’s more pragmatic warming advisors released their National Action Plan on Climate Change, which refuses to do any such thing. All that India’s Garnauts will promise is this: http://pmindia.nic.in/Pg01-52.pdf

    India is determined that its per capita greenhouse gas emissions will at no point exceed that of developed countries...

Which means India won’t stop its per capita emissions (now at 1.02 tonnes) from growing until they match those of countries such as the US (now 20 tonnes). We can slash all we like, but India will keep its pedal to the metal because, its warming advisors say:

    It is obvious that India needs to substantially increase its per capita energy consumption to provide a minimally acceptable level of well being to its people.

Indian’s Prime Minister confirms he will not cut growth to cut gases. So nothing we do will persuade India to choke its growth to slash emissions until it is as rich as we are. Or, conversely, we are as poor as India. Our sacrifice is useless.
http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2008/07/07/stories/2008070751520300.htm

But this pragmatism is not the only difference the report has with Garnaut’s (and Rudd’s) utopian fantasy. First, India’s Council on Climate Change insists nuclear power must be part of any push to cut emissions (while Garnaut simply notes it’s not on Rudd’s agenda)

Second, the Indian report casts cold water on two of the dreams Garnaut has for cutting our own emissions. Don’t count on carbon capture and sequestration to catch the gases of power stations, it warns:

    (F)easible technologies for this have not yet been developed and there are series questions about the cost as well (as) permanence of the CO2 storage repositories.

As for wind farms:

    (T)he capacity utilization factors are low due to the variations in the wind flow.

But here is the most telling difference between the Indian report and Garnaut’s doom-mongering one that warns of plagues, droughts, economic catastrophe and precisely 1276 more deaths by 2030 in Queensland alone through heatstroke. Unlike Garnaut, who took the “consensus” alarmism on face value, the Indian experts went to the trouble to check what the climate was actually doing and why, and concluded they couldn’t actually find anything bad 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. Surface temperature? Not much change:

    At the national level, increase of ~ 0.4c ... over the past century...

Droughts or floods? No change:

    Instrument records over the past 130 years do not indicate any marked long-term trends in the frequencies of large-scale droughts and floods…

Rainfall? No change, on the whole:

    (T)he observed monsoon rainfall at the all-India level does not show any significant trend...

Well, what about those melting Himalayan glaciers that Al Gore showed melting like mad?

    (W)hile recession of some glaciers has occured in some Himalayan regions in recent years, the trend is not consistent across the entire mountain chain. It is, accordingly, too early to establish long-term trends, or their causation, in respect of which there are several hypotheses.

Let’s sum up the difference. In Australia, the Prime Minister’s global warming advisor demands the country cut growth to stop an apocalyptic warming he’s sure is man-made, in the hope that countries like India will do the same and save us. In India, the Prime Minister’s global warming advisors demand the country increases growth rather than stop an apocalyptic global warming they can’t really detect and aren’t even certain would be caused by man, and they offer no hope that India, the world’s fourth biggest emitter, will copy our useless sacrifice. And, of course, China, the world’s biggest emitter, says it isn’t cutting its emissions, either.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/01/business/worldbusiness/01rupee.html?adxnnl=1&ref=todayspaper&adxnnlx=1214907465-xVGhX2bHXq7z/RiI40MHjg

http://www.tni.org/detail_page.phtml?act_id=16949


We really are looking like panic merchants and fools. We’ll cut out throats to set an example that won’t be followed by those we seek to impress.
Title: Wait for world on emissions: Nelson
Post by: mr anderson on July 07, 2008, 10:16:07 pm
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23981653-601,00.html

Samantha Maiden, Online political editor | July 07, 2008


BRENDAN Nelson has abandoned support for an emissions trading scheme without international action, warning Australia would be sacrificing jobs by going it alone.

The Liberal leader today appeared to backflip on the former Howard government's commitment to introduce a trading scheme by 2012, but Dr Nelson denied it was a policy change on the grounds that the previous government always argued international agreements were essential.

Dr Nelson predicted that any international agreement would not happen until talks in Copenhagen next year.

He also urged Kevin Rudd to become a "human blowtorch" on the issue of fuel prices at G8 talks in Japan, where climate change will be on the agenda.

"We must put Australia first,” he said today. “If we go ahead of the pack ... we will simply transfer industry and jobs and our standard of living offshore.”

The Government's chief climate change adviser Professor Ross Garanaut has also described NSW Treasurer Michael Costa as a climate change “denier”.

Mr Costa writes today in The Australian that “Chicken Little warnings” about the dangers of climate change were no substitute for a rigorous and scientific debate.

“The NSW treasurer is a well known denier of the science (of climate change),” Professor Garnaut said.

“I'd be very happy to have further discussions with him in Sydney on Thursday.”

(http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r20/m-r-anderson/et.jpg)
Title: Re: Wait for world on emissions: Nelson
Post by: mr anderson on July 07, 2008, 10:23:51 pm
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23985632-2702,00.html

Nicola Berkovic and Mike Steketee | July 08, 2008

Garnaut hits back at Costa criticism

THE Rudd Government's climate change adviser has rounded on Michael Costa after the NSW Labor Treasurer warned that "Chicken Little" politics were pervading the global-warming debate.

However, three state governments joined Mr Costa yesterday in supporting compensation for electricity generators under an emissions trading scheme.

Ross Garnaut hit back at Mr Costa after his attack in The Australian yesterday, and there were calls from within the Labor caucus for Mr Costa to be disciplined by Premier Morris Iemma.

Professor Garnaut said Mr Costa's position as a climate change sceptic had been known for some time.

"The NSW Treasurer is a well-known denier of the science (of climate change)," he said.

"I'd be very happy to have further discussions with him in Sydney on Thursday."

South Australian Energy Minister Pat Conlon accused Professor Garnaut of being indifferent to thefate of coal-fired electricity generation "to the point of irresponsibility".

Queensland Premier Anna Bligh also favours compensation but rebuked Mr Costa over his colourful attack on the Garnaut report, which argues against special treatment for the generators.

"It is far too serious an issue for name-calling. This is the biggest challenge being faced globally and we need to work together to find solutions," Ms Bligh said.

She backed the Rudd Government's plan to introduce an ETS in 2010, saying that although it would demand extraordinary effort, she was confident Australia could rise to the challenge.

A Victorian government spokeswoman said it wanted to ensure the federal Government understood the impact of an ETS on low-income families, power generators and trade-exposed companies in the state.

After meeting Professor Garnaut in Perth yesterday, West Australian Premier Alan Carpenter said it did not appear Mr Costa would get his wish of free permits for the power industry.

"I doubt whether the ultimate model will be one of free permits," Mr Carpenter said.

"I don't think that will happen ... what Professor Garnaut has suggested is a stepped approach where initially, for the first two years, you have a fixed price for the permits and then after two years the market price will prevail.

"Ultimately, though, for us in Western Australia, we have to understand there are going to be costs in the implementation of an ... emissions trading scheme."

Professor Garnaut said it was not surprising there were dissenting views about global warming, as it was "a complicated issue".

"This is a democratic country and every interest has a legitimate right to put its case and that case will be put vigorously, I'm sure," he said. "What we must make sure of is that we have a strong centre of the public policy process so that the public interest is looked after."

NSW Labor backbencher Steve Whan called on Mr Iemma to give Mr Costa "a boot up the bum" for contradicting government policy.

Mr Whan, the member for the southern seat of Monaro, said Mr Costa's calls for electricity generators to be given free permits conflicted with his Government's policy, and reflected the Treasurer's interest in revenue from coal-fired power stations.

"If I, as a backbencher, came out and contradicted government policy like that, I'd get a boot up the bum," he said. "I think that's what he should be getting from the Premier, as well."

Federal Climate Change Minister Penny Wong also rejected Mr Costa's warnings after he said in The Australian that: "Chicken Little arguments are no substitute for getting right the important details on issues of far-reaching consequence, but Professor Garnaut himself has said his detailed economic impact modelling won't be available until August."

Ms Bligh wrote to Professor Garnaut last month saying there was a case for transitional assistance for electricity generators for the disproportionate burden they suffered under an ETS.
Title: Alarmists use weather to promote global warming hoax - Dr. Tim Ball
Post by: mr anderson on July 08, 2008, 01:25:37 am
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/3850

Dr. Tim Ball
July 7, 2008


Claims that recent severe weather and flooding in the US are proof of human CO2 impacts on global climate are scientific nonsense. They are part of a pattern of keeping weather and climate issues in the public mind.

My grandmother admonished me with, “Your sins will find you out.” It is a maxim that should now befall proponents of the false theory that human CO2 is causing global warming or climate change. Exposure rarely emerges from the original event, but as Watergate showed the coverup bares the truth.

Governments and large segments of society accepted the theory. Most bullied by use of fear but also their lack of knowledge and understanding was also exploited.

Now a combination of events are driving them to raise the threat level and make increasingly false claims. forcing a coverup. The world is cooling while CO2 levels continue to rise. In every record for any period in history temperature increases before CO2 not as assumed. Plans to implement carbon taxes to offset warming exacerbate soaring fuel prices. Effects of policies implemented to replace fossil fuels with biofuels are driving food and total living costs rapidly higher.  People increasingly question the threats as a recent UK poll showed; “The majority of the British public is still not convinced that climate change is caused by humans - and many others believe scientists are exaggerating the problem, according to an exclusive poll for The Observer.” Proponents of the theory that humans are causing global warming or climate change have used fear to push their false belief. Now they’re experiencing fear as evidence shows they’re wrong and the public perceive a deception.

Robert Frost said, “There’s nothing I am afraid of like scared people.” Those who perpetrated possibly the greatest deception in human history that CO2 is causing global warming/climate change are scared. Events are driving them to extreme, unsubstantiated and even ridiculous claims and threats.

One of these was that sea level would rise, but it foundered when the two Nobel Peace Prize winners, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Al Gore were in serious disagreement. Another was Arctic sea ice except it returned to long term normal levels last winter and NASA announced the one year anomaly was due to changes in wind patterns.

So they return to their central theme of convincing you that normal weather events are abnormal. An increase in severe weather is a persistent theme, especially in North America. Recently the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research issued a report with projected changes in weather and climate extremes in North America and U.S. territories.

Report co-chair Tom Karl, Ph.D., director of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C said, “This report addresses one of the most frequently asked questions about global warming: what will happen to weather and climate extremes? This synthesis and assessment product examines this question across North America and concludes that we are now witnessing and will increasingly experience more extreme weather and climate events.”

Karl has a vested interest in this being true. It is the position of the IPCC and he cites the IPCC as the authoritative body. Internationally, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), under the auspices of the United Nations (UN), World Meteorological Organization (WMO), and the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), is the most senior and authoritative body providing scientific advice to global policy makers. Well he was a lead author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Reports for 1990, 1992, 1995, a Coordinating Lead author and panel member of the 2001 Report and a Review Editor for Chapter 3 of the 2007 Report.
Source: www.ncdc.noaa.gov

There are three major problems with what is being said. 1. The severe weather of this spring across the Northern Hemisphere was caused by cooler weather not warmer. 2. The IPCC and the NOAA positions that severe weather will increase with global warming is scientifically wrong. 3. The records show current weather extremes are well within long term natural variability.

Almost all global severe weather occurs in the middle latitudes between approximately 30° and 65° of latitude. Cyclonic storms, blizzards, severe thunderstorms and tornadoes are created where warm and cold air meets and that is most dramatic along what is generally known as the Polar Front. This world map of tornado zones illustrates the point. 

(http://www.canadafreepress.com/images/uploads/0707ball1.jpg)

Source: ncdc.noaa.gov

Here is a simplified diagram of the division between the cold polar air and the warm tropical air.

(http://www.canadafreepress.com/images/uploads/0707ball-2.jpg)
Source:  Source: Fundamentals of Physical Geography, Briggs, Smithson, Ball et al..

Temperature contrast across the Polar Front is the greatest in a short distance in each hemisphere. This creates the strongest winds as illustrated by the location of the Jet Stream (more correctly called the Circumpolar Vortex) above the surface. It also means the formation of swirling low pressure systems or cyclones that in winter are blizzards.  As the cold air advances it pushes up unstable bubbles of warm air to create heavy rain from large clouds. With enough force these can develop in to severe thunderstorms (cumulonimbus) and under certain conditions trigger tornadoes. These conditions occur most frequently across the central US in what is colloquially known as Tornado Alley.

(http://www.canadafreepress.com/images/uploads/0707ball-3.jpg)

Source: www.severewx.atmos.uiuc.edu

1. Frequency and intensity of most severe weather is a direct function of the temperature contrast across the Polar Front. This spring the cold air stayed further south with the colder temperatures with the resulting severe weather and flooding across the central US.

2. IPCC Reports claim increased CO2 levels will make the Polar air warm more than the tropical air. If true, this will decrease the temperature contrast across the Front resulting in fewer storms and less severe weather.

(http://www.canadafreepress.com/images/uploads/0707ball-4.jpg)

Source: ncdc.noaa.gov

3. The graph from the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) shows that severe tornadoes were higher in the period from 1950 to 1975.  Global temperatures were falling during that time. Since then frequency has decreased as the world warmed to 2000. Since then the world has cooled slightly and the pattern shows a slight increase in severe tornadoes.

This trend of severe weather is most likely to increase as the Earth continues to cool. Proponents of human caused climate change will claim it proves them right. They will continue their practice of claiming natural events as unnatural. Unless people understand the basic science they will continue the fraud and pressure politicians into even more damaging energy and environmental policies.

Dr. Tim Ball, Chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project. Dr. Ball is a renowned environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. Dr. Ball employs his extensive background in climatology and other fields as the Chairman of Natural Resources Stewardship Project.

Dr. Ball can be reached at: [email protected]

Older articles by Dr. Tim Ball

Title: Re: Alarmists use weather to promote global warming hoax - Dr. Tim Ball
Post by: Real Truth on July 08, 2008, 01:33:08 am
more like its a proof of HAARP technology 8)
Title: Opposition committed to 2012 emissions scheme: Bishop
Post by: mr anderson on July 08, 2008, 05:12:28 am
So much for choice...the current Government is for 2010 implementation.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/07/08/2298109.htm?section=justin


The Deputy Opposition Leader Julie Bishop has tried to clarify the Opposition's policy on an emissions trading scheme, saying they support a former Howard government report on the issue.

Yesterday, Opposition Leader Brendan Nelson refused to name his preferred start date for a scheme, warning that Australia should not commit to emissions trading until other major countries agree to act.

His stance appeared to contradict the Coalition's earlier policy of a 2011 or 2012 start date.

But Ms Bishop says the Opposition remains committed to a 2012 start.

"We support the Shergold recommendations that were given to the Howard government in 2007 that there be an emissions trading scheme in Australia," she said.

"Peter Shergold said that an emissions trading scheme was difficult but do-able by 2012 and we remain committed to that policy."
Title: Climate change delusion a real problem
Post by: mr anderson on July 08, 2008, 04:07:02 pm
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23992448-5007146,00.html

Andrew Bolt

July 09, 2008 12:00am
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. 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".

"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."

(So have Alarmist of the Year Tim Flannery, Profit of Doom Al Gore and Sir Richard Brazen, but I digress.)

"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."

But 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."

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 . . ."

Wow. Pay more for food or die. Is that Rudd's next campaign slogan?

Of course, 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, just like it's actually done since the day Al Gore released An Inconvenient Truth.

But you'll have spotted already the big flaw in Rudd's mad plan - one that confirms he and Garnaut really do have delusions.

The truth is Australia on its own emits less than 1.5 per cent of the world's carbon dioxide. Any savings we make will make no real difference, given that China (now the biggest emitter) and India (the fourth) are booming so fast that they alone will pump out 42 per cent of the world's greenhouse gases by 2030.

Indeed, so fast are the world's emissions growing - by 3.1 per cent a year thanks mostly to these two giants - that the 20 per cent cuts Rudd demands of Australians by 2020 would be swallowed up in just 28 days. That's how little our multi-billions of dollars in sacrifices will matter.

And that's why Rudd's claim that we'll be ruined if we don't cut Australia's gases is a lie. To be blunt.

Ask Rudd's guru. Garnaut on Friday admitted any cuts we make will be useless unless they inspire other countries to do the same - especially China and India: "Only a global agreement has any prospect of reducing risks of dangerous climate change to acceptable levels."

So almost everything depends on China and India copying us. But the chances of that? A big, round zero.

A year ago China released its own global warming strategy - its own Garnaut report - 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."

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."

Last month, India likewise issued its National Action Plan on Climate Change, and also rejected Rudd-style cuts.

The plan's authors, the Prime Minister's Council on Climate Change, said India would rather save its people from poverty than global warming, and would not cut growth to cut gases.

"It is obvious that India needs to substantially increase its per capita energy consumption to provide a minimally acceptable level of wellbeing to its people."

The plan's only real promise was in fact a threat: "India is determined that its per capita greenhouse gas emissions will at no point exceed that of developed countries."

Gee, thanks. That, of course, means India won't stop its per capita emissions (now at 1.02 tonnes) from growing until they match those of countries such as the US (now 20 tonnes). Given it has one billion people, that's a promise to gas the world like it's never been gassed before.

So is this our death warrant? Should this news have you seeing apocalyptic visions, too?

Well, no. 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.

Yes, India's surface temperature over a century had inched up by 0.4 degrees, but there had been no change in trends for large-scale droughts and floods, or rain: "The observed monsoon rainfall at the all-India level does not show any significant trend . . ."

It even dismissed the panic Al Gore helped to whip up about melting Himalayan glaciers: "While recession of some glaciers has occurred in some Himalayan regions in recent years, the trend is not consistent across the entire mountain chain. It is, accordingly, too early to establish long-term trends, or their causation, in respect of which there are several hypotheses."

Nor was that the only sign that India's Council on Climate Change had kept its cool while our Rudd and Garnaut lost theirs.

For example, the Indians rightly insisted nuclear power had to be part of any real plan to cut emissions. Rudd and Garnaut won't even discuss it.

The Indians also pointed out that no feasible technology to trap and bury the gasses of coal-fired power stations had yet been developed "and there are serious questions about the cost as well (as) permanence of the CO2 storage repositories".

Rudd and Garnaut, however, keep offering this dream to make us think our power stations can survive their emissions trading scheme, when state governments warn they may not.

In every case the Indians are pragmatic where Rudd and Garnaut are having delusions - delusions about an apocalypse, about cutting gases without going nuclear, about saving power stations they'll instead drive broke.

And there's that delusion on which their whole plan is built - that India and China will follow our sacrifice by cutting their throats, too.

So psychiatrists are treating a 17-year-old tipped over the edge by global warming fearmongers?

Pray that their next patients will be two men whose own delusions threaten to drive our whole economy over the edge as well.
Title: Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
Post by: mr anderson on July 08, 2008, 04:55:38 pm
Dr. Tim Ball recommended this site:

http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/
Title: Garnaut delivers cartoonish message
Post by: mr anderson on July 08, 2008, 08:51:55 pm
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23989504-29277,00.html

CLIMATE change guru Ross Garnaut has been turned into a cartoon to try and help explain his message.

Progressive lobby group GetUp has transformed Prof Garnaut, an economist, into a cartoon hero.

Dressed in an orange t-shirt with a white "G'' on it, Prof Garnaut stars in the three-minute online animation, which seeks to sum up his 600-page draft report released last week.

Prof Garnaut is the Federal Government's chief climate change adviser and his report looks into the impact of global warming on Australia, and what should be done to tackle the problem.

GetUp executive director Brett Solomon said the cartoon picked out Prof Garnaut's main points and pushed politicians to act on his recommendations.

"GetUp's online animation makes the report easy to understand so everyday Australians can remain up-to-date on the climate debate,'' Mr Solomon said.

The cartoon can be seen at http://www.getup.org.au/.
Title: Roll up, roll up, the Garnaut roadshow is coming to town
Post by: mr anderson on July 09, 2008, 01:06:09 am
(http://images.theage.com.au/2008/07/08/155641/wr_sl_nat_garnaut-420x0.jpg)
Professor Ross Garnaut delivers his climate change message to a packed house at the Adelaide Town Hall. Photo: David Mariuz

http://www.theage.com.au/national/roll-up-roll-up-the-garnaut-roadshow-is-coming-to-town-20080708-3bwh.html

AUSTRALIA has squandered the chance of responding slowly to climate change and cannot wait for other countries to act, according to Ross Garnaut.

Speaking in Adelaide yesterday on the second day of a week of nationwide public forums, the author of the draft report on climate change said Australia faced a compressed timetable for introducing an emissions trading scheme in 2010 because it had squandered its opportunity for a staged start-up by not acting six or 10 years ago.

Professor Garnaut said the welfare of the nation was at stake and without climate change mitigation, life as it was known now in large parts of Australia, including the Murray Basin, would change forever.

"I would be very pleased if we didn't have to hurry, I would much rather go slower," he said.

The economist and former Australian ambassador to China said the effects of global warming were already two decades ahead of those predicted in Britain's Stern report, which until this year was the benchmark for the speed of climate change.

Professor Garnaut said the models used by Nicholas Stern, which were based on International Energy Agency and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change projections, had failed to take account of the recent rapid economic growth of China, India and Indonesia.

"We analysed that work and we have come to the view that it greatly underestimates the 'business as usual' growth in emissions," he said. "The world has a short period in which to get its act together."

Professor Garnaut said that if nothing was done, the world would have the level of emissions in 2030 that the Stern report predicted by 2050.

"A realistic approach to what is happening in 'business as usual' brings forward the critical dates," he said.

He dismissed suggestions Australia should not be the first to respond to climate change, because 25 countries in Europe were already doing so.

"For those who say we mustn't be first, you've got your wish, because we are a long way from being first," he said. "The best we can hope for is that we are not a drag on the pack."

He said policy decisions on climate change were the hardest faced by any government in living memory and individuals should make their views heard.

"This is a fateful time," Professor Garnaut said. "Over the months and the year or so ahead, Australia and the international community will take decisions that will determine whether or not we deal effectively with global warming."

He said he would not lobby the Federal Government or other politicians to adopt his recommendations once his final report was released on September 30. "If we have done our work well, then the Australian community and the Government of Australia will know the implications of the decisions they are making," he said.
Title: Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
Post by: Brocke on July 09, 2008, 06:37:48 am
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
 
The road to Copenhagen 2009

(http://unfccc.int/files/inc/graphics/image/jpeg/cph_400.jpg)

At the Climate Change Conference in Bali, Parties to the UNFCCC decided to launch formal negotiations on a strengthened international deal on climate change. These negotiations are set to be concluded by the end of 2009 at the Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen. To conduct the process, a subsidiary body under the Convention was set up, called the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention (AWG-LCA).
AWG-LCA reports and submissions

To discuss future commitments for industrialized countries under the Kyoto Protocol, the Conference of the Parties serving as the Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol established a working group in December 2005 called the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP). The AWG-KP is also set to complete its work by the end of 2009.
AWG-KP reports and submissions.

http://unfccc.int/2860.php
Title: (Climate Change) Sceptics grow bold - Andrew Bolt
Post by: mr anderson on July 09, 2008, 07:42:26 am
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/

Is a tide turning? From today’s newspapers, three more sceptics speak out against the warming hysteria:

Tony Rutherford - http://www.thewest.com.au/default.aspx?MenuID=9&ContentID=83840,
Chris Kenny http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,23990275-5016479,00.html
Michael Duffy - http://blogs.smh.com.au/urbanjungle/2008/07/actually_global.html


Why, it’s almost becoming respectable again to doubt.

UPDATE

And reader Ian points out this article in one of his old copies of Time, believe it or not:

    As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval. However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades.  The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html

UPDATE 2

From the 3AW site:

VIDEO: 3AW’s Derryn Hinch reveals he has joined the ‘Andrew Bolt school’ of climate change
http://www.mytalk.com.au/aspx/pages/mediaplayer.aspx?t=audio&w=10977
http://www.mytalk.com.au/aspx/pages/mediaplayer.aspx?t=audio&w=10976
Title: Re: (Climate Change) Sceptics grow bold - Andrew Bolt
Post by: mr anderson on July 09, 2008, 07:48:29 am
Now global warming is putting the heat on PM

TONY RUTHERFORD
9th July 2008, 15:00 WST


The Prime Minister seems to be discovering, roughly once a week, that government is enormously harder than opposition. He is discovering at the same time that by not taking the task of opposition seriously enough, he is making things a lot harder for himself.
 
The blithe promise to make sure that every secondary school student had access to a computer, for instance, looks like costing about twice as much as promised (one billion or so) as the recalcitrant States gang up on Canberra and insist on being funded for the infrastructure costs as well as the computers themselves.
 
His industrial relations policy doesn’t seem to be going down all that well with anyone, least of all the unions. The promises on fuel and grocery prices and interest rates are now looking a little shabby.
 
Even the token gestures have been a mixed bag. The great apology went down quite well; but the signing up to Kyoto is turning out to be something of a problem. When, last week, the latest instalment of the review of greenhouse policy thumped on to his desk, Mr Rudd can hardly have been delighted.
 
It is a weighty document, over 500 pages long, full of detailed and technical arguments. The interested layman won’t have much of a chance of getting past the first few chapters. It seems to come attached to something of a hero cult, being called simply “The Garnaut Climate Change Review”, it gives a prominence to its author unusual in the history of such documents.
 
Events over the past few years conspired to make global warming a winner for Mr Rudd and, under his leadership, the then opposition conspired with those events.
 
Prolonged drought in the Eastern States, a few bad bushfire seasons, the plight of the Murray/Darling river system, water rationing in the eastern capitals, all made it easy to claim that Australia was already in the grip of global warming, that we had to do something about it.
 
The availability of other rational explanations — insufficient investment in water infrastructure, failure to maintain adequate fire prevention regimes, natural variation in climate even within Australia’s short recorded history — were, often deliberately, ignored.
 
Labor in opposition cashed in on all this. The ratification of Kyoto was presented as some kind of mystical panacea and, under Dr Garnaut’s benevolent guidance, a comprehensive global warming policy would be put in place which would fix all these problems.
 
The considerable costs, and the extreme pain, were never mentioned. Easy assumptions — about the viability of alternative energy sources, for instance — went unchallenged. Amazingly, Labor has, in government, largely persisted with this line. Over the past few weeks, we have repeatedly heard claims about the dreadful fate of the Barrier Reef, the Murray/Darling, farming lands, what have you, if we fail to act now.
 
The point seems slowly to be entering public debate that all this is somewhat exaggerated. Australia accounts for about 1.5 per cent of global emissions. We could stop all emissions tomorrow and it would not be noticed. The difference would be equivalent to China’s emissions over a matter of weeks. And the harshest climate regime change within Australia would do nothing to save the rivers, or the farms, or the reefs. To suggest otherwise is fantasy or falsehood of the worst kind.
 
This is a key issue, and one which the Government must face up to: unless we have a compelling reason to act, then we should not act. The Garnaut report is strangely reticent on the subject. In Chapter 14 we are told: “There would be no point in Australia alone introducing mitigation policies. The entire purpose of Australian mitigation is to support the emergence of an effective global effort.”
 
In Chapter 1, we have the argument that: “For Australia, the commitment to the mitigation of climate change can be seen as the reinvestment of a part of the immense gains that have come from accelerated Asian economic growth, in contributing to reduction of an adverse side-effect of that growth. In this, we are in a privileged position. We are different from most other countries, and certainly from all other developed countries except Norway.”
 
This is bizarrely unconvincing. What is involved is not some idle theoretical economic matter, but the future of Australia’s economy. Even those who accept all the arguments must think that it is all a bit thin.
 
Professor Garnaut’s presentation of the “science” is perhaps slightly ahead of mainstream (odd in a non-scientist), his presentation of the economic arguments perhaps the same. But the denseness of the arguments, which can only really be judged by his professional peers, effectively draws attention away from the assumptions. Not just the assumption about whether or not it is worth our while acting at all — but the assumptions about the behaviour of other key nations. No one seriously believes that China and India will join in in anything like a wholehearted way; both have said very clearly that they will not. That is a more realistic assumption on which to base our policy.
 
Equally, although what economists now seem to call adaptation (our ability to manage the problem through technological advances) is duly dealt with by the report, it seems to be less important in the calculations than some believe.
 
If I were going to live long enough to see the outcome of all this, I’d stake quite a lot on technological innovation being the only useful long-term solution. Common sense, and history, suggest precisely that.
 
The extreme uncertainties now reluctantly being faced by the Rudd Government come with very considerable costs. As the debate over petrol prices demonstrates, there may be an immediate political cost to the Government.
 
More seriously, it is slowly coming to terms with the fact that it alone will be responsible now for making economic decisions that will be intended to stand for generations, decisions made on dubious assumptions and fallible economic and scientific modelling.
 
This now is made worse by the PM’s visible unease with the technical detail, clearly demonstrated on TV last weekend. And even if (as seems likely) the Government manages to distance itself from the Garnaut model, it is still committed to the difficult task of coming up with an emissions regime which works, which is simple and transparent, which does minimal economic damage, which doesn’t involve pork-barrelling and rent-seeking on a massive scale, and which is internationally acceptable.
 
Perhaps it simply cannot be done. But there will be no real harm if we put the decision off until the basis for making it is a good deal clearer.
Title: The real climate change culprit is methane gas from cows and sheep
Post by: mr anderson on July 09, 2008, 07:03:50 pm
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/the-missing-link-in-the-garnaut-report-20080709-3cjh.html?page=-1

PROFESSOR Ross Garnaut has managed to write a 548-report on climate change in which he mentions Australia's largest current contribution to climate change precisely once — in the glossary, where we find a definition of "enteric fermentation".

Never heard of it? It's what goes on in the digestive systems of ruminants, like cattle and sheep. It produces methane, Australia's largest but also most under-appreciated contribution to climate change over the next few decades.

The second-largest current contribution is coal. It gets mentioned 272 times in the report — as it should.

Why is methane so under-appreciated? There's a political reason and a technical reason.

The political reason is that if telling Australians that they need to pay more for petrol and electricity is tough, telling them they need to consume less beef, lamb and dairy products is going to be tougher still.

As for the technical reason, maybe the best way to explain it is like this: Suppose I offer you $1000 if you let me hold a blowtorch to your leg for 10 seconds.

When you decline, I explain that you should not focus on just that 10 seconds when the torch is applied to your leg. I have calculated that the average temperature applied to your leg over the 20-minute period that starts when I apply the blowtorch, will be only 48 degrees, which is hot, but quite bearable.

That, in effect, is the approach Garnaut takes to methane in his draft report.

Just like the crazy guy with the blowtorch, Garnaut underestimates the heating impact of methane by averaging it over 100 years.

Methane is mostly switched off after just a decade, and almost entirely gone after 20 years, so averaging it over a century dramatically reduces its apparent impact.

The problem is that during the decade in which it is doing its damage, it has had a much larger impact than talk about its average impact over a century would lead you to believe.

The source of Garnaut's methane howler becomes clear when he introduces the climate scientist's term "radiative forcing" in his report but soon shows that he does not really understand what it means and why it is so important.

Radiative forcing refers to factors that change the difference between incoming and outgoing energy in a climate system.

Positive forcings warm the system, negative forcings cool it down. There are two ways in which Garnaut misunderstands forcing. The first, as we have already seen, is the use of relative forcing averaged over 100 years.

That would be reasonable if there were no urgency about dealing with climate change, but we don't have 100 years before tipping points are crossed, so we should not be averaging methane's forcing over 100 years. This mistake leads Garnaut to rate methane as 25 times more potent, per tonne, than carbon dioxide in causing global warming, whereas the correct figure, if we average over 20 years, is that it is 72 times more potent. That's a hugely significant difference.

The second misunderstanding is the opposite of looking a century ahead. Garnaut includes in his report a chart of contributions to climate radiative forcing. It's an accurate historical description of what has heated up the planet. It includes the full impact not only of our recent activities, but of those of our parents, grandparents and more distant ancestors all the way back to 1750.

Carbon dioxide dominates this picture. No surprise there. Some of the carbon dioxide currently heating up the planet, and shown in Garnaut's chart, was put into the atmosphere by the pioneers who cleared 1 million square kilometres of the US forests more than a century ago.

More of it came out of the exhaust pipes of all the T-model Fords that came off Henry Ford's assembly lines.

On the other hand, the methane in the chart is all ours. Almost every bit of it was put there in the past 20 years. The historical chart is interesting if you want a historical picture, but it is irrelevant if we are interested in what we are doing now, and how we might get out of this mess. If that is our concern, we need to focus most attention on the impacts of current forcings during the next 20 years.

These are the forcings we are causing now and can do something about. If we were to chart them, methane and carbon dioxide would be almost equal in significance. That is what Garnaut seems to miss.

The practical implication is that his draft report recommends against including methane emissions from cattle and sheep in his proposed emission trading scheme.

To ignore Australia's biggest contribution to climate forcing is just plain silly.

Australia's methane emissions come primarily from 28 million cattle, 88 million sheep and a bunch of leaky coal mines. The livestock emissions, on their own, will cause significantly more warming in the next 20 years than all our coal-fired power stations.

The good news is that methane is easy to deal with.

We don't have to wait for engineers to solve a bunch of really tough infrastructural problems. We can do it now. Just stop breeding so many sheep and cattle in Australia. And because methane is such a huge contributor to climate change, this is not just an "earth hour" stunt. This is the real deal.

Geoff Russell is a mathematician and computer programmer. Peter Singer is professor of bioethics at Princeton University and Laureate Professor at the University of Melbourne. Barry Brook is Sir Hubert Wilkins professor of climate change at the University of Adelaide.
Title: Re: The real climate change culprit is methane gas from cows and sheep
Post by: TruthHunter on July 09, 2008, 07:32:07 pm
Stop farting, everyone. It causes global warming!  :D
Title: Re: The real climate change culprit is methane gas from cows and sheep
Post by: Saint on July 09, 2008, 07:34:45 pm
Careful! They'll chip us and tax us on each and every "emission". A global farting tax.
Title: On Tonight's Q & A: It's not easy being Green: Video now available
Post by: mr anderson on July 09, 2008, 07:36:14 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!

(http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/img/medium_bel_m1610499.jpg)

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

(http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/img/craig_emer_m1611020.jpg)
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.

(http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/img/andrew_bol_m1609986.jpg)
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.

(http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/img/christine_m1609987.jpg)
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.

(http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/img/linda_jaiv_m1609989.jpg)
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.

(http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/img/helen_coon_m1609988.jpg)
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.
Title: Re: The real climate change culprit is methane gas from cows and sheep
Post by: mr anderson on July 09, 2008, 07:50:40 pm
South Park: Global Warming Disaster!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhtITYmL9a0&feature=related
Title: Re: The real climate change culprit is methane gas from cows and sheep
Post by: munkey on July 09, 2008, 07:55:47 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
Title: Clean air and a penalizing plan
Post by: mr anderson on July 09, 2008, 09:10:54 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.
Title: Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
Post by: mr anderson on July 09, 2008, 10:30:54 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."
Title: Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
Post by: mr anderson on July 09, 2008, 10:39:06 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."
Title: Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
Post by: mr anderson on July 10, 2008, 02:16:52 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

(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/07/10/world/leaders600.jpg)

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.”
Title: Re: (Climate Change) Sceptics grow bold - Andrew Bolt
Post by: mr anderson on July 10, 2008, 03:53:15 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


Title: Re: The real climate change culprit is methane gas from cows and sheep
Post by: mr anderson on July 10, 2008, 03:58:35 am
(http://blogs.news.com.au/images/uploads/cow-gas-tank-404_686141c.jpg)

I kid you not, this is real! lol

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/laugh_or_die_of_fright/
Title: Re: On Tonight's Q & A: It's not easy being Green - Temp Sticky
Post by: mr anderson on July 10, 2008, 07:45:52 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.
Title: Re: The real climate change culprit is methane gas from cows and sheep
Post by: mr anderson on July 10, 2008, 08:31:55 am
(http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r20/m-r-anderson/ghostbusters-12.jpg)
Title: Re: On Tonight's Q & A: It's not easy being Green - Temp Sticky
Post by: mr anderson on July 10, 2008, 08:37:22 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)
Title: ICSC ADVISOR PROFESSOR BOB CARTER ON RADIO NEW ZEALAND
Post by: mr anderson on July 10, 2008, 11:23:07 pm
July 8, 2008: Professor Bob Carter on Radio New Zealand’s "Morning Report"

http://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/national/mnr/academic_critical_of_world_powers_to_reduce_carbon_emissions

http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/
Title: Garnaut rules out emissions trading petrol price link
Post by: mr anderson on July 11, 2008, 03:33:48 am
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/07/11/2301520.htm

(http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200807/r270546_1136915.jpg)

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."
Title: Seeking the middle
Post by: mr anderson on July 11, 2008, 05:12:17 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.
Title: Re: The real climate change culprit is methane gas from cows and sheep
Post by: Kilika on July 11, 2008, 04:06:29 pm
Cow farts? OMG, these people have absolutely lost their minds!
Title: Flying into an apocalypse
Post by: mr anderson on July 11, 2008, 09:12:47 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
Title: Emissions of fear, greed
Post by: mr anderson on July 11, 2008, 10:51:49 pm
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24006173-5000117,00.html

(http://www.news.com.au/common/imagedata/0,,6141635,00.jpg)
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.
Title: Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
Post by: mr anderson on July 12, 2008, 04:00:15 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.
Title: Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
Post by: mr anderson on July 12, 2008, 10:21:58 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."
Title: Top 1000 polluters to need permits
Post by: mr anderson on July 13, 2008, 08:50:17 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.
Title: Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
Post by: mr anderson on July 13, 2008, 11:20:27 pm
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.
Title: Rudd talks tough on climate change
Post by: mr anderson on July 14, 2008, 05:03:45 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
Title: Re: Rudd talks tough on climate change
Post by: TruthHunter on July 14, 2008, 06:43:05 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.
Title: More coal protest arrests at Newcastle
Post by: mr anderson on July 14, 2008, 08:41:07 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."
Title: Wikipropaganda - Spinning green
Post by: mr anderson on July 14, 2008, 08:51:30 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.
Title: PM's $5bn green gamble against Treasury advice
Post by: mr anderson on July 14, 2008, 08:12:44 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.
Title: SBS presents the new climate change cult
Post by: mr anderson on July 14, 2008, 08:19:29 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?
Title: Re: SBS presents the new climate change cult
Post by: mr anderson on July 14, 2008, 08:31:08 pm
Not to mention blaming livestock especially for emissions.
Title: Alarm on carbon trading scheme
Post by: mr anderson on July 14, 2008, 08:40:32 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
Title: Climate Change Coalition and I
Post by: mr anderson on July 15, 2008, 12:07:56 am
Me:

(http://blogs.news.com.au/images/uploads/june201_thumb.gif)

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. [email protected]

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.
Title: Re: Climate Change Coalition and I
Post by: mr anderson on July 15, 2008, 01:11:20 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.
Title: Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
Post by: mr anderson on July 15, 2008, 05:40:55 am
A Taste of Garnaut - The Climate Challenge
http://www.teachertube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=eb149928e040761246bd
Title: Rudd Government's 'Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme' - Green Paper
Post by: mr anderson on July 15, 2008, 10:11:33 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.)
Title: Re: Rudd Government's 'Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme' - Green Paper
Post by: mr anderson on July 15, 2008, 10:16:30 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
Title: Re: Rudd Government's 'Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme' - Green Paper
Post by: mr anderson on July 15, 2008, 10:18:13 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.
Title: No consensus, and no warming, either
Post by: mr anderson on July 15, 2008, 10:43:54 pm
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/no_consensus_and_no_warming_either/

(http://blogs.news.com.au/images/uploads/gggggg_thumb.gif)


CSIRO keeps secret the source of its latest scare

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/csiro_keeps_secret_the_source_of_its_latest_scare/
Title: CarbonWatch - Paying plenty to do nothing
Post by: mr anderson on July 16, 2008, 02:31:57 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.
Title: Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
Post by: Brocke on July 16, 2008, 06:46:44 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
Title: Opposition was for Rudd’s 'carbon trading scheme' before they were against it
Post by: mr anderson on July 16, 2008, 10:17:18 pm
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/

The Opposition’s climate change spokesman, warming believer Greg Hunt, proves that his policy makes no sense. He says he’s for an emissions trading scheme, of course:

    (T)he Coalition believes Australia should have an emissions trading scheme and proposed just such a scheme prior to the last election.
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24031234-5000117,00.html

It’s just that he’s against what an emissions scheme actually does:

    And we call on Mr Rudd to be honest that this is not just a deferred petrol tax, but is a tax on everything and everyone.

I suggest he apologise to Brendan Nelson for nobbling his much more sensible idea - the Liberals’ only hope and John Howard’s best counsel.
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24026088-5000117,00.html

UPDATE

Wise words from the Asia Wall Street Journal:

    Yesterday’s 516-page (Rudd Government report on emissions cuts) calls for a huge bureaucratic expansion and undefined costs to industry… But they did say electricity prices could rise 16%, and fuel, 9%, when emissions trading begins in 2010.

http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB121623522472659303.html

    You’d expect the Liberals to be howling. Instead, they’re as green as Al Gore…

    Current Liberal leader Brendan Nelson hasn’t tried very hard to distance himself from Mr. Howard’s platform. He hasn’t questioned the science underlining global warming… He’s repeatedly said that he supports an emissions trading scheme without seriously exploring other, more transparent, forms of taxation on industry – or opposing the tax altogether…

    Mr. Nelson’s only attempt to rejig the Liberals’ position was a feeble try last week to step back from that 2012 implementation date and to ask that Australia – which emits only 1.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions – not act until big emitters like China lead the way. But as soon as he floated these common-sense ideas, his deputy Julie Bishop, shadow treasurer Malcolm Turnbull and shadow environment minister Greg Hunt all publicly cried foul. Mr. Nelson fell back into line. So much for leadership…

    Given rising fuel costs, now is the perfect time for the Liberals to point out the economic cost of Labor’s global warming scheme. But they can’t do so effectively if they are carbon-copies of Labor. The public may not understand carbon trading schemes, but they understand hits to their pocketbook. It’s time for the Liberals to start pounding that message home, in unison.
Title: Asia Wall Street Journal - Carbon Copies Down Under
Post by: mr anderson on July 16, 2008, 10:30:10 pm
http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB121623522472659303.html

Asia Wall Street Journal


The global warming craze officially landed in Canberra yesterday, as the Labor government released a sketch of what it calls "one of the highest priorities of the Australian government": its carbon trading scheme. That should signal the beginning of an important debate about the costs of this grand plan. But can the opposition Liberal Party muster a coherent argument?

Yesterday's 516-page report calls for a huge bureaucratic expansion and undefined costs to industry. Canberra has pledged to reduce emissions to 60% of 2000 levels by 2050, and it wants to set emissions caps this year. The government hasn't yet said how much companies will have to pay for all this. But they did say electricity prices could rise 16%, and fuel, 9%, when emissions trading begins in 2010.

You'd expect the Liberals to be howling. Instead, they're as green as Al Gore. Part of this is a legacy issue. Former Liberal Prime Minister John Howard embraced the idea of an emissions trading scheme by 2012 when he saw then-opposition leader Kevin Rudd gaining support by fearmongering about global warming. Mr. Howard said he'd implement carbon trading only if costs to the Australian economy were capped. His commitment has, for now, left the Liberals mostly on the same page as Labor.

Current Liberal leader Brendan Nelson hasn't tried very hard to distance himself from Mr. Howard's platform. He hasn't questioned the science underlining global warming. (Yesterday's report takes as truth the United Nations' discredited Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates.) He's repeatedly said that he supports an emissions trading scheme without seriously exploring other, more transparent, forms of taxation on industry – or opposing the tax altogether. He hasn't questioned the wisdom of the schemes Australia already has in place to pick winners among clean energy industries, such as mandatory renewable energy targets.

Mr. Nelson's only attempt to rejig the Liberals' position was a feeble try last week to step back from that 2012 implementation date and to ask that Australia – which emits only 1.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions – not act until big emitters like China lead the way. But as soon as he floated these common-sense ideas, his deputy Julie Bishop, shadow treasurer Malcolm Turnbull and shadow environment minister Greg Hunt all publicly cried foul. Mr. Nelson fell back into line. So much for leadership.

Labor is taking full advantage of the Liberals' disarray. Yesterday's report blithely asserts that an emissions trading scheme will touch "around 1,000 Australian companies in total," or "less than 1%" of Australian businesses. In reality, forcing companies to buy pollution permits would raise the cost of energy production and hit every corner of the world's 15th-largest economy.

Labor's report admits as much, noting there will be "adjustment costs" and pledging to offset energy price hikes by temporarily cutting excise taxes on gasoline. But Climate Change Minister Penny Wong played down any change of making such cuts permanent, suggesting yesterday that the Labor government would instead buffer the immediate impact on low-income families through cash handouts.

As for the economic havoc Labor's global warming plan would wreak, you know it's bad when even the labor unions – the Labor Party's core constituency – cry foul. The 130,000-member Australia's Workers' Union, the country's largest blue-collar union, and a local think tank estimate that the cost to the aluminum industry alone in job losses could range "from A$285 million to A$1.124 billion."

Given rising fuel costs, now is the perfect time for the Liberals to point out the economic cost of Labor's global warming scheme. But they can't do so effectively if they are carbon-copies of Labor. The public may not understand carbon trading schemes, but they understand hits to their pocketbook. It's time for the Liberals to start pounding that message home, in unison.
Title: Global warming consensus takes another battering
Post by: mr anderson on July 17, 2008, 03:51:16 am
http://www.prisonplanet.com/two-peer-reviewed-scientific-papers-debunk-co2-myth.html

(http://freespeech.vo.llnwd.net/o25/pub/pp/images/july2008/160708co2.jpg)

Paul Joseph Watson
Wednesday, July 16, 2008


Three top scientists have once again contradicted the claim that a “consensus” exists about man-made global warming with research that indicates CO2 emissions actually cool the atmosphere, in addition to another peer-reviewed paper that documents how the IPCC overstated CO2’s effect on temperature by as much as 2000 per cent.

Professor George Chilingar and Leonid Khilyuk of the University of Southern California, and Oleg Sorokhtin of the Institute of Oceanology of the Russian Academy of Sciences have released a study that they claim completely contradicts the link between CO2 and global temperature increases.

“The writers investigated the effect of CO2 emission on the temperature of atmosphere. Computations based on the adiabatic theory of greenhouse effect show that increasing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere results in cooling rather than warming of the Earth’s atmosphere,” states the preamble to the paper.

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a788582859~db=all

The full study, which appears in the Energy Sources journal, is sure to cause ire amongst climate cult adherants.

No global warming has been observed for the past 10 years as temperatures have gradually declined and studies indicate that there will be no further warming for the next 10 years.

http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/april2008/040408_cools_off.htm
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-563104/Global-warming-stop-NATURALLY-years-say-scientists.html


In a related development, the peer-reviewed Physics and Society journal has published evidence proving that the UN IPCC’s 2007 climate summary “overstated CO2’s impact on temperature by 500-2000%.”

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/press/proved_no_climate_crisis.html

According to the paper, “Computer models used by the UN’s climate panel (IPCC) were pre-programmed with overstated values for the three variables whose product is “climate sensitivity” (temperature increase in response to greenhouse-gas increase), resulting in a 500-2000% overstatement of CO2’s effect on temperature in the IPCC’s latest climate assessment report, published in 2007.”

The paper also outlines evidence to confirm that Mars, Jupiter, Neptune’s largest moon, and Pluto warmed at the same time as Earth warmed, a factor attributed to the Sun having been more active than at almost any other time in the past 11,400 years.

The paper concludes, “CO2 enrichment will add little more than 1 °F (0.6 °C) to global mean surface temperature by 2100.”
Title: Re: Global warming consensus takes another battering
Post by: mr anderson on July 17, 2008, 03:53:50 am
Written by Robert Ferguson
Tuesday, 15 July 2008

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/press/proved_no_climate_crisis.html

FULL: http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/index.cfm


WASHINGTON (7-15-08) - Mathematical proof that there is no “climate crisis” appears today in a major, peer-reviewed paper in Physics and Society, a learned journal of the 10,000-strong American Physical Society, SPPI reports.

Christopher Monckton, who once advised Margaret Thatcher, demonstrates via 30 equations that computer models used by the UN’s climate panel (IPCC) were pre-programmed with overstated values for the three variables whose product is “climate sensitivity” (temperature increase in response to greenhouse-gas increase), resulting in a 500-2000% overstatement of CO2’s effect on temperature in the IPCC’s latest climate assessment report, published in 2007.

Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered [ http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/index.cfm ] demonstrates that later this century a doubling of the concentration of CO2 compared with pre-industrial levels will increase global mean surface temperature not by the 6 °F predicted by the IPCC but, harmlessly, by little more than 1 °F. Lord Monckton concludes –

“… Perhaps real-world climate sensitivity is very much below the IPCC’s estimates. Perhaps, therefore, there is no ‘climate crisis’ at all. … The correct policy approach to a non-problem is to have the courage to do nothing.”

Larry Gould, Professor of Physics at the University of Hartford and Chair (2004) of the New England Section of the American Physical Society (APS), has been studying climate-change science for four years. He said:

“I was impressed by an hour-long academic lecture which criticized claims about ‘global warming’ and explained the implications of the physics of radiative transfer for climate change. I was pleased that the audience responded to the informative presentation with a prolonged, standing ovation. That is what happened when, at the invitation of the President of our University, Christopher Monckton lectured here in Hartford this spring. I am delighted that Physics and Society, an APS journal, has published his detailed paper refining and reporting his important and revealing results.‘

“To me the value of this paper lies in its dispassionate but ruthlessly clear exposition – or, rather, exposé – of the IPCC’s method of evaluating climate sensitivity. The detailed arguments in this paper, and, indeed, in a large number of other scientific papers, point up extensive errors, including numerous projection errors of climate models, as well as misleading statements by the IPCC. Consequently, there are no rational grounds for believing either the IPCC or any other claims of dangerous anthropogenic ‘global warming’.”

Lord Monckton’s paper reveals that –

*The IPCC’s 2007 climate summary overstated CO2’s impact on temperature by 500-2000%;
*CO2 enrichment will add little more than 1 °F (0.6 °C) to global mean surface temperature by 2100;
*Not one of the three key variables whose product is climate sensitivity can be measured directly;
*The IPCC’s values for these key variables are taken from only four published papers, not 2,500;
*The IPCC’s values for each of the three variables, and hence for climate sensitivity, are overstated;
*“Global warming” halted ten years ago, and surface temperature has been falling for seven years;
*Not one of the computer models relied upon by the IPCC predicted so long and rapid a cooling;
*The IPCC inserted a table into the scientists’ draft, overstating the effect of ice-melt by 1000%;
*It was proved 50 years ago that predicting climate more than two weeks ahead is impossible;
*Mars, Jupiter, Neptune’s largest moon, and Pluto warmed at the same time as Earth warmed;
*In the past 70 years the Sun was more active than at almost any other time in the past 11,400 years.
Title: Climate change - Is CO2 the Cause? Excellent talk by Professor Bob Carter
Post by: mr anderson on July 17, 2008, 04:04:53 am
Part I -  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI
Part II - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vN06JSi-SW8
Part III - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCXDISLXTaY
Part IV - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpQQGFZHSno
Title: Emissions plan may hit Senate brick wall
Post by: mr anderson on July 17, 2008, 07:42:15 am
http://news.theage.com.au/national/emissions-plan-may-hit-senate-brick-wall-20080717-3ghe.html

The federal government's plan for emissions trading could hit a brick wall in the Senate, as opposition politicians attack the scheme from all sides.

Climate Change Minister Penny Wong is caught in a tug-of-war between the coalition - which thinks the scheme is too tough - and the Australian Greens, who think it is too soft.

Any legislation will need the support of the opposition or, failing that, the combined backing of five Greens senators, Family First's Steve Fielding and independent Nick Xenophon.

Senator Wong on Thursday scotched talk that a climate impasse could trigger a double dissolution of parliament.

"It's certainly jumping the gun, but can I say we will put forward what we believe is a responsible scheme that's in the national interest," she told reporters in Canberra.

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd acknowledged it would not be easy.

"Well, we will be attacked from both the left and the right," he told Sky News.

The government is seeking to put pressure on the opposition to support the emissions trading scheme - due to begin in 2010 - and to capitalise on the coalition's mixed messages on climate change.

Opposition Leader Brendan Nelson has criticised the scheme, warning it would unfairly target middle-income earners and push up petrol prices.

But opposition climate change spokesman Greg Hunt said the government had copied the Liberals' model.

"Basically, what they've done is they've dusted off the document that we had, adhered to what we said on a short-term approach to petrol, but they've sold out on the long term," Mr Hunt told Fairfax Radio Network.

Nick Minchin, leader of the opposition in the Senate, said the coalition would consider the emissions laws in detail and send them to a Senate committee for examination.

"We're not going to be bullied or rushed," he told ABC Radio.

The Greens are more willing to deal with the government - despite their concerns the scheme is too kind to coal.

"We will negotiate in good faith on the measures necessary to avoid dangerous climate change," Greens spokeswoman Christine Milne told AAP.

"I have every hope that the government will also negotiate in good faith."

Senator Fielding said he had doubts about emissions trading, warning families could bear the brunt, interest rates could rise and the scheme could lead to an "emissions trade recession".

Meanwhile, Mr Rudd has hinted the government's controversial move to means-test a rebate for household solar panels will be reviewed.

Earlier this year, the $8,000 rebate was restricted to households earning less than $100,000, angering environmentalists and the opposition.

Mr Rudd said the government would roll out energy efficiency measures for homes as part of emissions trading.

"On the solar panels point ... all these renewable energy arrangements, particularly those affecting households, are very much in the mix as we now approach the assistance that will help households," he told Fairfax Radio.

Federal Treasurer Wayne Swan said the inflationary impact of emissions trading was unlikely to force the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) to lift interest rates. The cost of living is tipped to rise by 0.9 per cent in the scheme's first year.

"(Reserve Bank) Governor (Glenn) Stevens has made some commentary in public on this issue and he's made the very simple point that the one-off impact of a carbon pollution reduction scheme would be 'looked through' by the Reserve Bank," Mr Swan told ABC Radio.

Senator Wong said emissions trading would not add to the cost of liquefied petroleum gas for motorists. Diesel will also not rise in price.

© 2008 AAP
Title: Climate change debate is being distorted by dogma
Post by: mr anderson on July 17, 2008, 07:53:49 am
http://www.odt.co.nz/opinion/opinion/13601/climate-change-debate-being-distorted-dogma?page=0%2C1

Thu, 17 Jul 2008
Opinion


Prof Geoffrey Kearsley is a geographer developing a programme in environmental communication.
He is head of the Department of Media, Film and Communication at the University of Otago.


Human activity is indeed changing the climate, at least in part, but there is an increasing body of science that says that the sun may have a greater role than previously thought, argues Geoffrey Kearsley.

It is now pretty much taken for granted that global warming is ongoing, that climate change is being driven by human activity and that it is critically important that extraordinary changes be made in fundamental aspects of our economy and way of life.

On the small scale, people plant trees, examine food miles, purchase carbon offsets and modify their travel behaviour.

Cities and even countries vie with one another to become carbon neutral; as a nation, we are contemplating emission controls, taxes and carbon-trading schemes that will have a profound effect on individual households and the national economy alike.

When linked with the other great crisis of our times - peak oil - it has become not only socially desirable to embrace all of this, but sustainability has achieved the status of a higher morality.

It has become politically unacceptable to doubt any of the current dogma.

Not to subscribe wholeheartedly to the sustainability ethos is to be labelled not just a sceptic but a denier, with overtones of Holocaust denial and a wilful, unreasonable immorality.

It is said that we are now beyond the science and that the science of global warming has been finalised or determined and that all scientists agree.

Sceptics and deniers are simply cynical pawns in the pockets of the big oil companies.

This is unfortunate, to say the least.

Science is rarely determined or finalised; science evolves and the huge complexity of climate science will certainly continue to evolve in the light of new facts, new experiences and new understandings.

Here is an example of how science changes.

Early in the 1900s, Alfred Wegener proposed that the continents were once joined up; their coastlines seemed to match, there appeared to be great rifts and tears in the continental fabric.

This view was ridiculed; how could the continents move? What possible force could transport the unimaginable mass of Africa or Australia hundreds and thousands of kilometres across the earth?

Today, of course, plate tectonics is well understood. We know that continents move and we know how and what the consequences are.

Global warming seemed sewn up as well in the year 2000.

Mann's hockey-stick graph showed centuries of modest change culminating in an explosive temperature growth in recent decades, leading to terrifying projections of a climate out of control with the sea rising to drown us all.

 Al Gore's apocalyptic images of tsunami-like flooding and dying polar bears brought global warming into every home.

To sign up to Kyoto was an act of sanctity and belief; only political dinosaurs in the pay of big business would not flock to this new crusade.

Today, the hockey stick has gone.

Its basic data were flawed and the statistical processes inadequate; it failed to describe known climate changes from the historically recorded past, so how could it be a reliable predictor?

Although Mr Gore received the Nobel Peace Prize, his famous movie has been shown to be riddled with inaccuracies, distortions and misrepresentations; it cannot be shown in British schools without a comprehensive explanation of its mistakes and an acknowledgement that it is advocacy, not science.

There is no doubt that the climate is changing; it always has done.

We have become familiar with the regularly repeating glaciations of the past.

Human history has mainly occupied an exceptionally warm interglacial peak in a world that, for the last half million years at least, has generally been much cooler, although, in deep time, the world has been much warmer than now.

In the 1970s, climate science was concerned about when the next ice age might commence; we may have to return to that position.

There have been considerably warmer eras in the past couple of thousand years.

In both the Roman and medieval warm periods, vineyards flourished as far north as York in England; Greenland was indeed green, at least in parts.

By contrast, just 400 years ago, there was a Little Ice Age in America and Europe, at least, that lasted until well into the 1800s.

The historic record confirms all of this, beyond doubt.

What we also know, by historical record and by proxy calculation, is that these large swings in temperature closely correlate with the frequency of sunspots, which are a visible indicator of activity in the sun.

Sunspots vary in number according to a series of short-term and long-term cycles.

In periods of high temperature, sunspots proliferated, but during the Little Ice Age, there were few or none for many decades, a phenomenon known as the Maunder Minimum; the last quarter of the 20th century saw a flurry of activity.

The last cycle was at its energetic peak in 1998, our warmest year for some time.

The mechanism is unclear, but it seems related to solar magnetic influences and the amount of gamma radiation that reaches the earth.

The last 10 years have seen a static or even cooling trend as the sunspot cycle ran down; 2007 saw bitter weather around the world and the mean global temperature dropped by an unprecedented amount.

It is not picking up.

The Antarctic winter sea ice was at its largest extent since satellite observation began, and it snowed in Baghdad and Buenos Aires for the first time in living memory. China's winter was awful.

And now the scary news.

The latest sunspot cycle should have started up around the middle or end of 2006; it didn't.

According to Nasa's forecasts, there should be a sunspot index of 70 or more, as the new cycle ran up.

I looked at a real-time photo of the sun on a recent morning; there are no sunspots at all.

There have only been a couple of brief, tiny ones since the last cycle ended.

Not only that, but the longer trends tell us that by 2020, we will be experiencing an unusually low-energy sun.

Apparently, these are exactly the conditions that preceded the Maunder Minimum and ushered in the Little Ice Age.

The science goes on.

Water vapour is the biggest greenhouse gas by a huge factor.

The link between CO2 and temperature change is erratic; often, carbon follows heat rather than the uncritical popular perception that heat is induced by carbon.

The oceans are a vast reservoir of dissolved CO2; as they warm, they release it and reabsorb it as they cool.

Which causes what? There is much more yet to learn.

My point is this: It may well be that human activity is indeed changing the climate, at least in part, but there is an increasing body of science that says that the sun may have a greater role.

If it does have, then global warming is likely to stop, as it appears to have done since 1998, and if the current sunspot cycle fails to ignite, then cooling, possibly rapid and severe cooling, may eventuate.

The next five years will tell us a great deal. In these circumstances, we should wait and see.

With China and India churning out new thermal power stations at assembly-line speed, our influence on the global climate is negligible.

Surrounded as we are by great oceans, even the alarmist predictions will have relatively minor consequences for us for some time.

We can afford to wait.

There is no point in decimating our economy in the pursuit of carbon neutrality if carbon is not the main culprit or if the climate is now on a new trend.

Instead, now is the time to moderate the pseudo-religious and uncritical belief that global warming is still as we once thought it might have been.
Title: Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
Post by: mr anderson on July 17, 2008, 08:09:29 am
Carbon scheme 'risks business billions'

http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,24036248-913,00.html

STEVE LEWIS, NATIONAL POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT
July 18, 2008 12:30am


ONE of Australia's most senior business leaders has warned the Rudd Government's carbon trading scheme "puts in jeopardy" billions of dollars in potential investment. In a chilling prediction, Woodside Petroleum chief executive Don Voelte claims the Rudd Government's emissions trading scheme could force companies to seek cheaper offshore options.

The robust comments came as Kevin Rudd and his senior Ministers were forced to hose down concerns that its ETS will force up interest rates. The Prime Minister was also forced to defend as "responsible" a controversial plan to protect motorists from petrol price hikes when the scheme is introduced in July 2010.

Climate Change Minister Penny Wong also dismissed speculation the Government would be forced to an early election if the Senate parties decided to block legislation. But the Government's hard-sell of its climate change plan was undermined as business becomes increasingly concerned over the scheme's impact on the economy.

Mr Voelte, who the Government uses as a key business adviser, hit out at the emissions trading scheme, which he said could undermine the North West Shelf and other key resources projects.

"It is definitely going to have an impact. It puts in jeopardy the industry's (liquefied natural gas) plans, depending on how the final outcome of the ETS scheme," he told the ABC's Lateline Business.

Industry has been busy digesting the contents of the Government's 500-page discussion paper on emissions trading. But already, senior business figures have voiced concern the scheme - due to commence in July 2010 - could undermine lucrative export industries.

The threat of a business backlash comes as the Coalition and minor parties also take aim at the ETS.

Senator Wong, who will play a key role negotiating passage of the scheme through the Senate, said she was hopeful of a "reasonable dialogue" with the opposition parties.

The Greens and other key Senate players have voiced reservations over the Government's discussion paper. But Senator Wong argued the Government had struck the right balance - and defended the decision to give coal and other industries lucrative tax breaks.

"We do believe that there needs to be a future for coal in this country," she said.

Mr Rudd was forced to defend the Government's decision to release a discussion paper - while Treasury was still struggling to finalise critical modelling on the scheme's impact.

"We're going to have a longer process of initial and subsequent consultation with business," he said.

The government's action on climate change needed to be taken on a "step by step" basis.

"What we've said with the green paper is, and we're asking industry's response to this, is the actual design of the system," the Prime Minister said.

"It's complex, it's hard, it's difficult to explain, I accept that, and that's what we're seeking industry response to."
Title: No smoking hot spot
Post by: mr anderson on July 17, 2008, 09:05:27 pm
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24036736-7583,00.html

David Evans | July 18, 2008


I DEVOTED six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian Greenhouse Office. I am the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia's compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, in the land use change and forestry sector.

FullCAM models carbon flows in plants, mulch, debris, soils and agricultural products, using inputs such as climate data, plant physiology and satellite data. I've been following the global warming debate closely for years.

When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty good: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the old ice core data, no other suspects.

The evidence was not conclusive, but why wait until we were certain when it appeared we needed to act quickly? Soon government and the scientific community were working together and lots of science research jobs were created. We scientists had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet.

But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming. As Lord Keynes famously said, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"

There has not been a public debate about the causes of global warming and most of the public and our decision makers are not aware of the most basic salient facts:

1. The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it.

Each possible cause of global warming has a different pattern of where in the planet the warming occurs first and the most. The signature of an increased greenhouse effect is a hot spot about 10km up in the atmosphere over the tropics. We have been measuring the atmosphere for decades using radiosondes: weather balloons with thermometers that radio back the temperature as the balloon ascends through the atmosphere. They show no hot spot. Whatsoever.

If there is no hot spot then an increased greenhouse effect is not the cause of global warming. So we know for sure that carbon emissions are not a significant cause of the global warming. If we had found the greenhouse signature then I would be an alarmist again.

When the signature was found to be missing in 2007 (after the latest IPCC report), alarmists objected that maybe the readings of the radiosonde thermometers might not be accurate and maybe the hot spot was there but had gone undetected. Yet hundreds of radiosondes have given the same answer, so statistically it is not possible that they missed the hot spot.

Recently the alarmists have suggested we ignore the radiosonde thermometers, but instead take the radiosonde wind measurements, apply a theory about wind shear, and run the results through their computers to estimate the temperatures. They then say that the results show that we cannot rule out the presence of a hot spot. If you believe that you'd believe anything.

2. There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None. There is plenty of evidence that global warming has occurred, and theory suggests that carbon emissions should raise temperatures (though by how much is hotly disputed) but there are no observations by anyone that implicate carbon emissions as a significant cause of the recent global warming.

3. The satellites that measure the world's temperature all say that the warming trend ended in 2001, and that the temperature has dropped about 0.6C in the past year (to the temperature of 1980). Land-based temperature readings are corrupted by the "urban heat island" effect: urban areas encroaching on thermometer stations warm the micro-climate around the thermometer, due to vegetation changes, concrete, cars, houses. Satellite data is the only temperature data we can trust, but it only goes back to 1979. NASA reports only land-based data, and reports a modest warming trend and recent cooling. The other three global temperature records use a mix of satellite and land measurements, or satellite only, and they all show no warming since 2001 and a recent cooling.

4. The new ice cores show that in the past six global warmings over the past half a million years, the temperature rises occurred on average 800 years before the accompanying rise in atmospheric carbon. Which says something important about which was cause and which was effect.

None of these points are controversial. The alarmist scientists agree with them, though they would dispute their relevance.

The last point was known and past dispute by 2003, yet Al Gore made his movie in 2005 and presented the ice cores as the sole reason for believing that carbon emissions cause global warming. In any other political context our cynical and experienced press corps would surely have called this dishonest and widely questioned the politician's assertion.

Until now the global warming debate has merely been an academic matter of little interest. Now that it matters, we should debate the causes of global warming.

So far that debate has just consisted of a simple sleight of hand: show evidence of global warming, and while the audience is stunned at the implications, simply assert that it is due to carbon emissions.

In the minds of the audience, the evidence that global warming has occurred becomes conflated with the alleged cause, and the audience hasn't noticed that the cause was merely asserted, not proved.

If there really was any evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming, don't you think we would have heard all about it ad nauseam by now?

The world has spent $50 billion on global warming since 1990, and we have not found any actual evidence that carbon emissions cause global warming. Evidence consists of observations made by someone at some time that supports the idea that carbon emissions cause global warming. Computer models and theoretical calculations are not evidence, they are just theory.

What is going to happen over the next decade as global temperatures continue not to rise? The Labor Government is about to deliberately wreck the economy in order to reduce carbon emissions. If the reasons later turn out to be bogus, the electorate is not going to re-elect a Labor government for a long time. When it comes to light that the carbon scare was known to be bogus in 2008, the ALP is going to be regarded as criminally negligent or ideologically stupid for not having seen through it. And if the Liberals support the general thrust of their actions, they will be seen likewise.

The onus should be on those who want to change things to provide evidence for why the changes are necessary. The Australian public is eventually going to have to be told the evidence anyway, so it might as well be told before wrecking the economy.

Dr David Evans was a consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005.
Title: Seven graphs to end the warming hype
Post by: mr anderson on July 17, 2008, 09:10:38 pm
Andrew Bolt
Friday, July 18, 2008 at 07:08am

Are you happy to pay more because of the Government's climate change plan?
(http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r20/m-r-anderson/v.jpg)

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_seven_graphs_to_end_the_warming_hype/

(http://blogs.news.com.au/images/uploads/hadcrut-jan08_thumb.png)

THESE are the seven graphs that should make the Rudd Government feel sick. These are the seven graphs that should make you ask: What? Has global warming now stopped?

Look for yourself. They show that the world hasn’t warmed for a decade, and has even cooled for several years. Sea ice now isn’t melting, but spreading. The seas have not just stopped rising, but started to fall.

Nor is the weather getting wilder. Cyclones, as well as tornadoes and hurricanes, aren’t increasing and the rain in Australia hasn’t stopped falling. What’s more, the slight warming we saw over the century until 1998 still makes the world no hotter today than it was 1000 years ago. In fact, it’s even a bit cooler. So, dude, where’s my global warming?

These graphs should in fact be good news for the Government and all the other warming preachers who warned we were doomed by our gases, which were heating the world to hell. Now Prime Minister Kevin Rudd can at last stop sweating about the warming terrors he told us were coming - the horrific droughts, the dengue fever, the malaria, the devastation to our land and economy.

And he can announce that, hey, emergency over for now. His emissions trading scheme will go into deep freeze while he checks this good news. As for his promise this week to make your power bills go up $200 a year to stop global warming? His promise to make even food more expensive? To put gassy companies out of business, and their workers out of a job?

Cancel all that. As you were, soldier. Good news has come from the front. But now you can see why these graphs terrify Rudd, who has never admitted to a single fact they contain. You think he dares admit he panicked you for no good reason? Wasted countless millions of dollars?

Yet the facts are stark: The world simply isn’t warming as he and his pet scientists said.

That’s why 31,000 other scientists, including world figures such as physicist Prof Freeman Dyson, atmospheric physicist Prof Richard Lindzen and climate scientist Prof Fred Singer, issued a joint letter last month warning governments not to jump on board the global warming bandwagon.

“There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the earth’s climate.”

That’s why Ivar Glaever, who won a Nobel Prize for Physics, this month declared “I am a sceptic”, because “we don’t really know what the actual effect on the climate is”.

And it’s why the American Physical Society this month said “there is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for the global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution.”

So let me go through my seven graphs that help to explain why even Nobel Prize winners question what Rudd keeps claiming—that man is warming the world, and dangerously.

The main graph is from the Hadley Centre of Britain’s Meteorological Office and one of the four bodies measuring world temperature.

As you see, since 1998—an unusually warm year thanks to the “El Nino” pool of warmer water in the Pacific—the world’s temperature dropped back to a steady plateau, followed by a few years of cooling.
(http://blogs.news.com.au/images/uploads/UAH_LT_since_1979_thumb.jpg)

The second graph confirms both the halt in warming, and then cooling. It’s from another of those four bodies, the University of Alabama in Huntsville, which monitors the troposphere—from the ground to 12km altitude.

Only one of the four, in fact, claims temperatures are still rising. That’s NASA, whose program is run by Dr James Hansen, Al Gore’s global warming adviser and a controversial catastrophist whose team’s reworking of data has been heavily criticised for exaggerating any heating.

But before I go on, a caveat: This recent cooling doesn’t disprove the theory that man is warming the world. Ten years is too short to be sure of a trend. Natural factors may for now be countering the effect of our gases. Then again, the theory that man has warmed the world is based on a rise in temperature over a period that’s not much longer—from just 1975 to 1998.

And the computer climate models that scientists use to predict catastrophic warming a century from now somehow never predicted a cooling that’s happening right now.

And these are the models Rudd is betting on with our jobs and cash.
(http://blogs.news.com.au/images/uploads/sl_noib_global_sm_thumb.jpg)

The third graph shows another surprise those models never predicted: the seas have stopped rising.

The waters have crept up for at least 150 years, since the world started to thaw from the Little Ice Age, and well before any likely man-made warming.

But the climate models predicted that a big rise in emissions from all those cars, power plants and factories since World War II would cause an equally big rise in the seas, swelling them as much as 59cm by 2100.

This wasn’t scary enough for alarmists like Al Gore, though, who claimed whole cities could in fact be drowned under 6m of ocean.

But the satellites that have checked sea levels since 1992 find the seas have instead fallen over the past two years. Again, this could be a blip. But it isn’t what the models predicted.

(http://blogs.news.com.au/images/uploads/seaice25_thumb.gif)

The fourth graph seems to confirm a cooling. Forget media scares about a melting North Pole; sea ice has grown so fast in the southern hemisphere there is now more ice in the world than is usual, says the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
(http://blogs.news.com.au/images/uploads/tc-graph-1969-2005_thumb.png)

Graph five punctures another scare. No, global warming hasn’t given us more cyclones - or more tornadoes or hurricanes anywhere. Nor is their proof that cyclones are getting worse, says the American Meteorological Society.
(http://blogs.news.com.au/images/uploads/latest_thumb.gif)

And warming hasn’t stopped our rain, either, despite media hype about a “one-in-a-100 year drought”. See the Bureau of Meteorology records in graph six. It’s just bad luck that the fickle rain now tends to fall where it’s not needed most.

And, please, can we drop that old fiction that the world was never warmer? It’s a false claim made popular by a 2001 report of the IPCC, the United Nations’ climate group, which ran a graph, shaped like a hockey stick, claiming there was no warming for millennia until humans last century gassed up their world.

In fact, that “hockey stick” is now discredited, and last year Dr Craig Loehle, of the US National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, argued that using tree rings to work out past temperatures was clearly unreliable.

He instead produced a graph - No. 7 - of past temperatures using all other accepted proxies.
(http://blogs.news.com.au/images/uploads/loehle_fig3_thumb.jpg)

You see his results (which for statistical reasons stop at 1935): they show humans lived through a medieval period that was warmer than even today. This was a period that historical accounts confirm was so warm that Greenland farmers grew crops on

land now under snow, and British ones grew grapes.

But I repeat: the world may yet warm again, and soon, although scientists at Leibnitz Institute and Max Planck Institute last month predicted it won’t for at least another decade. If at all, say solar experts worried by a lack of sun spots.

But even if none of my graphs disproves the theory that man is causing dangerous warming, they should at least make you pause.

They should at least make you open to other theories of climate change, like that of Dr Henrik Svensmark, head of Denmark’s Centre for Sun-Climate Research, who thinks changes in cosmic rays, which affect clouds, may explain much of the recent warming. And now the cooling, too.

But, above all, when that man with the sandwich board comes tugging at your sleeve again, shouting, “Quick, help me save the world - or die”, hang on to your wallet, friend.

Give that urger my seven graphs instead, and ask him how many more years of no warming will it take before he admits it really is too soon to panic.

(http://freespeech.vo.llnwd.net/o25/pub/pp/images/july2008/180708graph1.jpg)
Title: Re: Seven graphs to end the warming hype
Post by: jimwill on July 17, 2008, 09:32:56 pm
Link to pdf of graphs - global warming graphs (http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/files/080718%20oped%20bolt%20global%20cooling.pdf)

Link to story - Evidence doesn't bare out alarmist claims of global warming (http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24036602-25717,00.html)

(please include links to article sources! :D )
Title: Re: Seven graphs to end the warming hype
Post by: mr anderson on July 17, 2008, 10:10:10 pm
That's what the top link is...

I wasn't aware of the article. The OP is the blog post.
Title: Re: Seven graphs to end the warming hype
Post by: jimwill on July 17, 2008, 10:15:24 pm
Sorry - long day, late, and too many gov. sponsored chemicals!
Title: Re: Emissions plan may hit Senate brick wall
Post by: mr anderson on July 18, 2008, 06:59:21 am
PM's carbon deadline faces Senate delay

Samantha Maiden, Online political editor | July 18, 2008


KEVIN Rudd faces another Senate hurdle to meet his deadline of a 2010 start date for a carbon pollution trading scheme, with Opposition senators set to send the proposal to a review committee. The Prime Minister said yesterday he would be seeking bipartisan support for the scheme from the Liberal Party in a bid to deal the Greens out of the negotiations.

But the Government remains under fire from business groups over the impact of the scheme, with Treasurer Wayne Swan refusing to offer a guarantee on Sky News this morning that no liquid natural gas projects would be lost to Australia as a result of its introduction. Any legislation will need the support of the Opposition or, failing that, the combined backing of five Greens senators, Family First's Steve Fielding and independent Nick Xenophon.

But the attempt to prevent the Government from being forced to negotiate with the Greens, who argue the current plan is too pro-business and will push for much tougher targets in exchange for their support, could force Labor to accept a delay in the introduction of the scheme. The key difference between the Rudd Government and the Coalition on a trading scheme is that the opposition want the scheme to start two years later in 2012, rather than 2010.

It is certain to extract a delayed start date as the price of Coalition support in the Senate for the Government's proposal to allow business more time to plan for the impact.

“We will make our decisions in the (lower) house and in the Senate based on the long-term interest of Australia,” opposition Treasury spokesman Malcolm Turnbull told ABC Radio.

“What we will be doing is examining Labor's proposal with great care ... to ensure that it does not put Australian jobs, Australian industries at peril.

“Mr Rudd is already showing signs of hastiness and a .. determination ... to put politics ahead of good government.

“In his haste, he is jeopardising the jobs and the livelihoods, the prosperity of millions of Australians.”

The Government is also under fire today over claims $60 billion in planned LNG investments could be shelved because the emissions trading scheme is “backwards” and penalises exports of clean gas.

Woodside Petroleum chief Don Voelte told The Australian the carbon pollution reduction scheme, unveiled by the Government on Wednesday, would make it impossible for two $30 billion West Australian offshore LNG projects to go ahead.

“The emissions trading scheme will knock planned projects with relatively high (carbon) emissions right off the block,” he said.

Mr Swan refused to offer a guarantee on Sky News this morning that no LNG projects would be lost to Australia as a result of the introduction to the scheme.

"We will protect the national interest,” he said.

"This industry is important to Australia.”

But Mr Swan said the Government also had to deliver a carbon pollution trading scheme that had "integrity".
Title: Chevron says Carbon Plan threatens Australian LNG
Post by: mr anderson on July 18, 2008, 07:13:37 am
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601081&sid=aqWYzSuuj7DE&refer=australia

By Angela Macdonald-Smith


July 18 (Bloomberg) -- Chevron Corp., the largest holder of natural gas resources in Australia, said the country's plan to limit carbon emissions threatens to stall development of LNG projects needed to meet rising world energy demand.

Chevron is "seriously concerned'' that a proposed emissions trading system, due to start in 2010, may derail ``multi-billion dollar'' investments planned at its Gorgon and Wheatstone liquefied natural gas projects off the northwest coast, the U.S. company's Australian unit said today.

The government on July 16 outlined a carbon trading system, without specifying whether LNG producers would be compensated for the extra cost. Inpex Holdings Inc. today cited carbon trading as one of the biggest risks for LNG projects in Australia, while Woodside Petroleum Ltd. Chief Executive Officer Don Voelte told The Australian the plan may shelve A$60 billion ($58 billion) of LNG projects by penalizing clean gas exports.

``If the scheme is confined to local producers, rather than implemented globally, it could limit prospects for meeting Asia's fast-growing LNG demand needs over the next decade,'' U.S. consultant Poten & Partners said in a report. ``Such schemes present unique challenges in producing countries like Australia, where they could undermine the competitiveness of LNG and other important extractive industries.''

Capital-Intensive

Chevron's 15 million metric ton-a-year Gorgon venture, which includes Royal Dutch Shell Plc and Exxon Mobil Corp., is already seeking to tackle a surge in construction costs that has delayed the project and prevented the partners approving the investment. The San Ramon, California-based company is planning a standalone project at Wheatstone, also 15 million tons a year, that would start up after Gorgon.

``LNG represents the most capital-intensive industry in Australia,'' Chevron's Australian unit said today in an e-mail. ``Government policy must not impose additional costs which would impact upon the ability of LNG projects to compete fairly in international energy markets.''

Based on the government's Green Paper on emissions trading, released two days ago, the oil and gas industry may not qualify as a trade-exposed energy-intensive industry that would be eligible for compensation for placing a cost on carbon, said Michele Villa, partner, risk advisory services at Ernst & Young LLP.

Emission Permits

According to the Green Paper, companies that emit between 1,500 tons and 2,000 tons of carbon dioxide for each million of Australian dollars of revenue generated will be considered energy-intensive and will get about 60 percent of carbon permits for free, Villa said at a conference in Darwin. That rises to 90 percent of free permits for companies that emit more than 2,000 tons of carbon dioxide for each million of revenue, he said.

That means aluminum, steel and cement companies will ``very likely'' qualify for some free permits, while oil and gas companies may not as they emit between 1,000 tons and 2,000 tons for each million of revenue, Villa said. The companies would then have to buy all the permits they need to match their emissions.

Woodside's initial advice is that its emissions-intensity falls below the 1,500 tons per million dollar threshold, meaning it would have to buy all its permits, said Roger Martin, a Perth-based spokesman. The company, operator of the North West Shelf LNG venture, emitted 1.64 million tons of carbon dioxide last year, while Woodside-operated projects emitted 7.35 million tons, he said.

A typical LNG venture such as Gorgon or Browse may emit 1 million tons to 3 million tons of carbon dioxide a year, Villa said. That would amount to a cost of A$20 million to A$30 million each year, assuming no free permits and a carbon price of A$20-A$30, he said.

Australian Competition

``This is why the LNG industry is so concerned,'' Villa said.

Australian LNG ventures compete against rivals in countries including Indonesia, Russia and Malaysia, where there are no plans to introduce a cost on carbon. Perth-based Woodside is building the A$12 billion Pluto LNG project and is proposing the Browse venture, also in Western Australia.

``It must be remembered that all other countries with which Australia competes to supply LNG have not shown any inclination to embrace reductions in greenhouse gas emissions,'' Chevron said.

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd said today the government will negotiate with companies on the planned carbon trading system, the details of which have yet to be determined.

'Argy-Bargy'

``We will now be in consultation with industry over the next six-month period, getting all branches of industry about the state of their emissions and therefore, what adjustment, support they could expect from the government under that,'' Rudd told reporters in Brisbane, according to an e-mailed transcript. ``There is going to be a lot of argy-bargy on the way through, as there inevitably is.''

Inpex, which is seeking to develop the A$12 billion Ichthys LNG project in Australia, said it was too early to tell whether the carbon trading plan would derail the venture.

The proposed carbon plan ``places an additional challenge that the industry has to cope with as a whole and projects have to cope with individually,'' Sean Kildare, general manager of external affairs at the Tokyo-based company's Inpex Browse unit, told reporters in Darwin.

To contact the reporter on this story: Angela Macdonald-Smith through the Sydney newsroom at [email protected]
Title: Re: Seven graphs to end the warming hype
Post by: Brocke on July 18, 2008, 05:20:16 pm
From the Herald Sun no Less!

...now, what's the catch? This must be a Murdock spin piece to discredit Global Warming skeptics or confuse the public. Never the less it's in print and I'm happy about that! Now we wait for the CSIRO to debunk...



Evidence doesn't bare out alarmist claims of global warming
Article from: Herald Sun

Andrew Bolt

July 18, 2008 12:00am

THESE are the seven graphs that should make the Rudd Government feel sick.

These are the seven graphs that should make you ask: What? Has global warming now stopped?

Look for yourself. They show that the world hasn't warmed for a decade, and has even cooled for several years.

Sea ice now isn't melting, but spreading. The seas have not just stopped rising, but started to fall.

(http://i128.photobucket.com/albums/p182/Brocke1964/hwtglobalwarming.jpg)

Full Size PDF
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/files/080718%20oped%20bolt%20global%20cooling.pdf

Nor is the weather getting wilder. Cyclones, as well as tornadoes and hurricanes, aren't increasing and the rain in Australia hasn't stopped falling.

What's more, the slight warming we saw over the century until 1998 still makes the world no hotter today than it was 1000 years ago.

In fact, it's even a bit cooler. So, dude, where's my global warming?

These graphs should in fact be good news for the Government and all the other warming preachers who warned we were doomed by our gases, which were heating the world to hell.

Now Prime Minister Kevin Rudd can at last stop sweating about the warming terrors he told us were coming - the horrific droughts, the dengue fever, the malaria, the devastation to our land and economy.

And he can announce that, hey, emergency over for now. His emissions trading scheme will go into deep freeze while he checks this good news.

As for his promise this week to make your power bills go up $200 a year to stop global warming? His promise to make even food more expensive? To put gassy companies out of business, and their workers out of a job?

Cancel all that. As you were, soldier. Good news has come from the front.

But now you can see why these graphs terrify Rudd, who has never admitted to a single fact they contain.

You think he dares admit he panicked you for no good reason? Wasted countless millions of dollars?

Yet the facts are stark: The world simply isn't warming as he and his pet scientists said.

That's why 31,000 other scientists, including world figures such as physicist Prof Freeman Dyson, atmospheric physicist Prof Richard Lindzen and climate scientist Prof Fred Singer, issued a joint letter last month warning governments not to jump on board the global warming bandwagon.

"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the earth's atmosphere and disruption of the earth's climate."

That's why Ivar Glaever, who won a Nobel Prize for Physics, this month declared "I am a sceptic", because "we don't really know what the actual effect on the climate is".

And it's why the American Physical Society this month said "there is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for the global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution."

So let me go through my seven graphs that help to explain why even Nobel Prize winners question what Rudd keeps claiming -- that man is warming the world, and dangerously.

The main graph is from the Hadley Centre of Britain's Meteorological Office and one of the four bodies measuring world temperature.

As you see, since 1998 -- an unusually warm year thanks to the "El Nino" pool of warmer water in the Pacific -- the world's temperature dropped back to a steady plateau, followed by a few years of cooling.

The second graph confirms both the halt in warming, and then cooling. It's from another of those four bodies, the University of Alabama in Huntsville, which monitors the troposphere -- from the ground to 12km altitude.

Only one of the four, in fact, claims temperatures are still rising. That's NASA, whose program is run by Dr James Hanson, Al Gore's global warming adviser and a controversial catastrophist whose team's reworking of data has been heavily criticised for exaggerating any heating.

But before I go on, a caveat: This recent cooling doesn't disprove the theory that man is warming the world.

Ten years is too short to be sure of a trend. Natural factors may for now be countering the effect of our gases.

Then again, the theory that man has warmed the world is based on a rise in temperature over a period that's not much longer -- from just 1975 to 1998.

And the computer climate models that scientists use to predict catastrophic warming a century from now somehow never predicted a cooling that's happening right now.

And these are the models Rudd is betting on with our jobs and cash.

The third graph shows another surprise those models never predicted: the seas have stopped rising.

The waters have crept up for at least 150 years, since the world started to thaw from the Little Ice Age, and well before any likely man-made warming.

But the climate models predicted that a big rise in emissions from all those cars, power plants and factories since World War II would cause an equally big rise in the seas, swelling them as much as 59cm by 2100.

This wasn't scary enough for alarmists like Al Gore, though, who claimed whole cities could in fact be drowned under 6m of ocean.

But the satellites that have checked sea levels since 1992 find the seas have instead fallen over the past two years. Again, this could be a blip. But it isn't what the models predicted.

The fourth graph seems to confirm a cooling. Forget media scares about a melting North Pole; sea ice has grown so fast in the southern hemisphere there is now more ice in the world than is usual, says the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Graph five punctures another scare. No, global warming hasn't given us more cyclones - or more tornadoes or hurricanes anywhere. Nor is their proof that cyclones are getting worse, says the American Meteorological Society.

And warming hasn't stopped our rain, either, despite media hype about a "one-in-a-100 year drought". See the Bureau of Meteorology records in graph six. It's just bad luck that the fickle rain now tends to fall where it's not needed most.

And, please, can we drop that old fiction that the world was never warmer? It's a false claim made popular by a 2001 report of the IPCC, the United Nations' climate group, which ran a graph, shaped like a hockey stick, claiming there was no warming for millennia until humans last century gassed up their world.

In fact, that "hockey stick" is now discredited, and last year Dr Craig Loehle, of the US National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, argued that using tree rings to work out past temperatures was clearly unreliable.

He instead produced a graph - No. 7 - of past temperatures using all other accepted proxies.

You see his results (which for statistical reasons stop at 1935): they show humans lived through a medieval period that was warmer than even today. This was a period that historical accounts confirm was so warm that Greenland farmers grew crops on

land now under snow, and British ones grew grapes.

But I repeat: the world may yet warm again, and soon, although scientists at Leibnitz Institute and Max Planck Institute last month predicted it won't for at least another decade. If at all, say solar experts worried by a lack of sun spots.

But even if none of my graphs disproves the theory that man is causing dangerous warming, they should at least make you pause.

They should at least make you open to other theories of climate change, like that of Dr Henrik Svensmark, head of Denmark's Centre for Sun-Climate Research, who thinks changes in cosmic rays, which affect clouds, may explain much of the recent warming. And now the cooling, too.

But, above all, when that man with the sandwich board comes tugging at your sleeve again, shouting, "Quick, help me save the world - or die", hang on to your wallet, friend.

Give that urger my seven graphs instead, and ask him how many more years of no warming will it take before he admits it really is too soon to panic.

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24036602-5000117,00.html
Title: Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
Post by: Brocke on July 18, 2008, 06:09:40 pm
High fliers clipped for climate woes

By Jeremy Lovell in London

July 19, 2008 01:16am
Article from: Reuters

Businessmen who take flights rather than use video conferencing are adding to global warming that is condemning millions of the world's poorest people to death, according to Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu.
The former Anglican Archbishop of Cape Town said developed countries had caused global warming and must therefore take the lead in slashing emissions of climate changing carbon gases.

"It is the countries which are the least responsible for causing climate change that are paying the heaviest price," he said in a video message to a meeting of the World Development Movement lobby group.

"Do not fly in the face of the poor by allowing the emissions produced by endless and unnecessary business flights to keep growing."

Scientists say average global temperatures will rise by between 1.8 and 4.0 degrees Celsius this century due to burning fossil fuels for power and transport. They note that emissions at altitude are many times worse than at ground level.

These rising temperatures will cause droughts, floods, crop failures and water shortages, putting millions of lives at risk.

Archbishop Tutu, a Nobel Peace laureate and tireless campaigner for global justice and equality, said scientists predicted that up to 185 million Africans would die this century as a direct result of climate change.

"Climate change is for real. As I speak, famine is increasing, flooding is increasing, as is disease and insecurity globally because of water scarcity," he said.

"As an African I urgently call on ordinary people in rich countries to act as global citizens, not as isolated consumers. We must listen to our consciences, and not to governments who speak only about economic markets.

"These markets will cease to exist if climate change is allowed to develop to climate chaos."

Archbishop Tutu said the developed nations must pass laws forcing them to cut their carbon emissions by at least 80 percent.

"In South Africa we confirmed that if we act on the side of justice we have the power to turn tides," he said.
 
The Group of Eight rich nations agreed last week - against strong resistance from the United States - that global emissions should be cut by 50 per cent by 2050 but they did little else.

British economist Nicholas Stern, whose seminal report in 2006 spelled out the global costs of climate change and galvanised the international agenda, said recently the developed world had to cut emissions by 80 per cent by mid-century.

He said the current world annual average was seven tonnes of carbon per head - ranging from 20 tonnes in the United States to half that in South Africa and almost zero in Chad - and that had to be cut to an average of just two tonnes per head.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,24043606-23109,00.html
Title: 'Seven graphs' - Arguments rebutted
Post by: mr anderson on July 19, 2008, 12:48:03 am
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/arguments_rebutted/

(http://blogs.news.com.au/images/uploads/RSSglobe_thumb.png)

Environmental Health Australia [1]  has carefully considered the scientific data I presented yesterday [2] that suggested global warming had stopped - or at least paused. And its Victorian president, Geoff Fraser, has emailed this closely reasoned critique in response:

    Environmental Health Australia struggles to determine how any reader from age 4 up could support and credit your article. It was lazy and represents the opinions of no-one. It may have had some place in journalism about 20 years ago. 10,000 farmers out there call for your resignation or hope your air conditioner breaks down when it reaches 50 degrees in your modest urban environment.
[1] http://www.eh.org.au/about/index.php
[2] http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_seven_graphs_to_end_the_warming_hype/


That’s the response in full.

Incidentally, could Fraser name those 10,000 farmers he claims have called for my resignation? Or is that just another global warming lie mistake?

UPDATE

Congratulations to Tony Wright, who becomes the first[3] Age journalist to mention that, um, well, in fact the world hasn’t actually heated over the past 10 years, despite everything we’ve written that suggested it had. But this is how he does it:

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/how_many_believers_are_left/ [3]

    Among the few writing simple messages for the masses have been those sceptics who have discovered testimony that the world’s temperature over the past 10 years has cooled [4], rather than warmed, and who have delighted in presenting this as evidence that climate change is a fraud. That 10 years offers evidence of anything approaching consequence is itself fraudulent, of course, but it sounds more palatable than the prospect of a world about to turn on its inhabitants because of their carbon-burning behaviour. http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/sale-of-the-century-20080718-3hgw.html?page=-1 [4]

I realise, of course, it is foolish to presume that Wright has simply made an honest error in understanding the arguments I put [5], and that I am wasting my time trying to reason him out of a position that reason never put him in.

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_seven_graphs_to_end_the_warming_hype/ [5]

But let me nevertheless point out as simply as I can the fallacies in Wright’s angry aside:

    1. It is not “testimony” that I have discovered - as in some say-so from someone. What I reported was just the hard and indisputable evidence of the leading monitoring organisations in the world that the planet of late has not warmed, and that sea ice is increasing, wild weather not worsening, rain still falling, and sea levels even now dropping. Can Wright dispute any of that? Has he even tried to incorporate that into his narrative of calamity?

    2. I have not said “the world’s temperature over the past 10 years has cooled”, and I wonder why Wright found it necessary to exaggerate what I in fact did say, which was: “the world hasn’t warmed for a decade”.

    3. Nor did I “present… this as evidence that climate change is a fraud”. I in fact have always accepted that climate changes, and the world has warmed until 1998. Nor have I even said (which Wright may actually mean) that the theory of man-made warming is a fraud. I in fact accept that thousands of scientists have been genuine in suggesting this as a theory - note, theory.  Further, I did not present my graphs as proof that the theory was false. Instead, I said only this:

        This recent cooling doesn’t disprove the theory that man is warming the world. Ten years is too short to be sure of a trend. Natural factors may for now be countering the effect of our gases. Then again, the theory that man has warmed the world is based on a rise in temperature over a period that’s not much longer—from just 1975 to 1998. And the computer climate models that scientists use to predict catastrophic warming a century from now somehow never predicted a cooling that’s happening right now.

    Again, why did Wright find in necessary to exaggerate?

    4. Wright then makes in turn an accusation of fraud not just against me, but against 31,000 scientists, including some as eminent and deeply respected as Professor Freeman Dyson, saying: “that (arguing that) 10 years offers evidence of anything approaching consequence is itself fraudulent.”

    Once again, in my article I indeed note that 10 years was too short a period to be considered proof of an end to warming, even though it was contrary to what the global warming models predicted were the consequences of a steep rise in emissions. But I ask why 10 years of no warming is too short for so many scientists to even ask a question, when just 20 years of warming before that was enough to make Wright absolultely, religiously convinced not just that the world was heating fast to disaster, but that man was to blame.

That’s four exaggerations, misstatements, evasions or slanders from Wright in just one brief paragraph of dismissal.

If Wright’s theory of man-made apocalyptic warming was so strongly backed by evidence, Wright would not need to so mistake and distort evidence that questions it. His absurd reaction, his refusal to look frankly at the latest data, is therefore yet one more sign that his theory is not just weak, but crumbly. No wonder he’s so angry.
Title: Re: Seven graphs to end the warming hype
Post by: Brocke on July 19, 2008, 02:06:45 am
No smoking hot spot

The Australian
David Evans | July 18, 2008

I DEVOTED six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian Greenhouse Office. I am the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia's compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, in the land use change and forestry sector.

FullCAM models carbon flows in plants, mulch, debris, soils and agricultural products, using inputs such as climate data, plant physiology and satellite data. I've been following the global warming debate closely for years.

When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty good: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the old ice core data, no other suspects.

The evidence was not conclusive, but why wait until we were certain when it appeared we needed to act quickly? Soon government and the scientific community were working together and lots of science research jobs were created. We scientists had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet.

But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming. As Lord Keynes famously said, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"

There has not been a public debate about the causes of global warming and most of the public and our decision makers are not aware of the most basic salient facts:

1. The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it.

Each possible cause of global warming has a different pattern of where in the planet the warming occurs first and the most. The signature of an increased greenhouse effect is a hot spot about 10km up in the atmosphere over the tropics. We have been measuring the atmosphere for decades using radiosondes: weather balloons with thermometers that radio back the temperature as the balloon ascends through the atmosphere. They show no hot spot. Whatsoever.

If there is no hot spot then an increased greenhouse effect is not the cause of global warming. So we know for sure that carbon emissions are not a significant cause of the global warming. If we had found the greenhouse signature then I would be an alarmist again.

When the signature was found to be missing in 2007 (after the latest IPCC report), alarmists objected that maybe the readings of the radiosonde thermometers might not be accurate and maybe the hot spot was there but had gone undetected. Yet hundreds of radiosondes have given the same answer, so statistically it is not possible that they missed the hot spot.

Recently the alarmists have suggested we ignore the radiosonde thermometers, but instead take the radiosonde wind measurements, apply a theory about wind shear, and run the results through their computers to estimate the temperatures. They then say that the results show that we cannot rule out the presence of a hot spot. If you believe that you'd believe anything.

2. There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None. There is plenty of evidence that global warming has occurred, and theory suggests that carbon emissions should raise temperatures (though by how much is hotly disputed) but there are no observations by anyone that implicate carbon emissions as a significant cause of the recent global warming.

3. The satellites that measure the world's temperature all say that the warming trend ended in 2001, and that the temperature has dropped about 0.6C in the past year (to the temperature of 1980). Land-based temperature readings are corrupted by the "urban heat island" effect: urban areas encroaching on thermometer stations warm the micro-climate around the thermometer, due to vegetation changes, concrete, cars, houses. Satellite data is the only temperature data we can trust, but it only goes back to 1979. NASA reports only land-based data, and reports a modest warming trend and recent cooling. The other three global temperature records use a mix of satellite and land measurements, or satellite only, and they all show no warming since 2001 and a recent cooling.

4. The new ice cores show that in the past six global warmings over the past half a million years, the temperature rises occurred on average 800 years before the accompanying rise in atmospheric carbon. Which says something important about which was cause and which was effect.

None of these points are controversial. The alarmist scientists agree with them, though they would dispute their relevance.

The last point was known and past dispute by 2003, yet Al Gore made his movie in 2005 and presented the ice cores as the sole reason for believing that carbon emissions cause global warming. In any other political context our cynical and experienced press corps would surely have called this dishonest and widely questioned the politician's assertion.

Until now the global warming debate has merely been an academic matter of little interest. Now that it matters, we should debate the causes of global warming.

So far that debate has just consisted of a simple sleight of hand: show evidence of global warming, and while the audience is stunned at the implications, simply assert that it is due to carbon emissions.

In the minds of the audience, the evidence that global warming has occurred becomes conflated with the alleged cause, and the audience hasn't noticed that the cause was merely asserted, not proved.

If there really was any evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming, don't you think we would have heard all about it ad nauseam by now?

The world has spent $50 billion on global warming since 1990, and we have not found any actual evidence that carbon emissions cause global warming. Evidence consists of observations made by someone at some time that supports the idea that carbon emissions cause global warming. Computer models and theoretical calculations are not evidence, they are just theory.

What is going to happen over the next decade as global temperatures continue not to rise? The Labor Government is about to deliberately wreck the economy in order to reduce carbon emissions. If the reasons later turn out to be bogus, the electorate is not going to re-elect a Labor government for a long time. When it comes to light that the carbon scare was known to be bogus in 2008, the ALP is going to be regarded as criminally negligent or ideologically stupid for not having seen through it. And if the Liberals support the general thrust of their actions, they will be seen likewise.

The onus should be on those who want to change things to provide evidence for why the changes are necessary. The Australian public is eventually going to have to be told the evidence anyway, so it might as well be told before wrecking the economy.

Dr David Evans was a consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24036736-7583,00.html
Title: Holy smokescreen can't last for Rudd
Post by: mr anderson on July 19, 2008, 03:47:49 am
By Laurie Oakes
July 19, 2008 04:00am

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,24041381-5007146,00.html


DID the Government deliberately time the release of its Green Paper on emissions trading to coincide with the Pope's visit to Australia?

Almost certainly. It would be naive to think otherwise.

At the core of the scheme was a message of pain - higher gas and electricity prices, other prices rising across the economy, and plans to fully compensate only those at the bottom end of the income scale.

Ministers had been worried about how voters would react. They knew it would be a hard political sell.

But the celebrations surrounding World Youth Day and the Pope's activities in Sydney, to a significant extent, distracted attention from the bad news.

The Green Paper did not dominate headlines the way it would have done at any other time.

The details were shoved well down most TV news bulletins as the colour and movement of the Pope and the pilgrims took precedence.

Criticisms were largely drowned out.

The Prime Minister and his advisers must have known this would happen when they chose last Wednesday as the best day to launch what is now called the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.

The dates of the Pontiff's visit, after all, have been known for many months. The hype started to build well in advance.

The only question is whether ministers and minders would be cynical enough to exploit a major religious event for political ends.

You bet they would!

All's fair in love and politics.

Just remember the unsavoury incident involving the British Labour Government when Osama bin Laden's terrorists attacked New York and Washington on September 11, 2001.

One of Tony Blair's spin doctors circulated an email to colleagues describing it as "a very good day" to bury bad news. She was sacked, but only because the email was leaked to the media and caused outrage.

But Benedict XVI's visit did more for Rudd than just obscure for the moment some of the less pleasant aspects of the emissions trading scheme and its impact on living costs.

As one of Canberra's most experienced spinners sees it: "This was a hard strategy to launch with smiling faces.

"You had to have the PM and other ministers talking grimly about the need for tough action and sacrifice.

"But, because of the timing, that was able to be juxtaposed with a caring, softer Rudd on television with the Pope in front of warm and happy crowds. I don't know if it was deliberate, but it was certainly beneficial for the Government."

Also beneficial for the Government was the fact that almost nothing in the Green Paper was new.

Opposition environment spokesman Greg Hunt is pretty right when he says that all Rudd and Co did was dust off the model for an emissions trading system adopted by the Howard Government last year.

That model was designed by a taskforce headed by the then secretary of the prime minister's department Peter Shergold.

The team of public servants that worked on the Shergold report was basically the same as the team which put together the Rudd Government's Green Paper.

No wonder, then, that - apart from some filling out of detail in the Green Paper and Rudd's insistence on an earlier starting date - the documents are almost identical.

Really, we're not far advanced on where we were this time last year. In the meantime, millions of dollars have been spent getting the work done all over again.

Sorry, taxpayer.

But the fact that business and industry organisations had signed on to John Howard's plan means they cannot really shun Rudd's, as some of them might have been tempted to do had it come out of the blue.

Also, because the Green Paper sticks so closely to the Shergold-Howard blueprint, it is not easy for the Coalition to back away from it either.

Rudd is relying on this to help him get his emission trading scheme through the Senate.

The only really significant difference between the Shergold model and that laid out in the Green Paper is the decision to offset increases in petrol prices through matching cuts in excise for the first three years at least.

When Hunt and shadow treasurer Malcolm Turnbull proposed cent-for-cent excise cuts (as part of the Opposition's petrol populism), the Rudd Cabinet decided discretion was the better part of valour and agreed - against the strong advice of Labor's climate change guru Professor Ross Garnaut.

So even that change was authored by the Liberals.

Poor old Garnaut must be wondering why Rudd hired him. He has laboured mightily, produced a thick interim report, and is still carrying out economic modelling that will inform his final recommendations on an emissions trading scheme later in the year.

But the Government has not even waited for his completed work before making its decisions. And it has ignored much of what he has proposed so far.

It seems the professor's role was really to frighten the horses. Now the Government can say to voters, business and the Opposition: "Look. What we're doing is not nearly as nasty as Garnaut wanted."

Just the same, Rudd and his key ministers still face a difficult task in making the scheme electorally palatable.

Rudd left the Green Paper launch entirely in the hands of Climate Change Minister Penny Wong. She is a rising talent, but something this important and complex should have involved the leader.

Howard was there for the launch of the Shergold Report.

And it is Rudd, after all, who has called climate change the great moral issue of our time.

This, perhaps, is the downside of hiding behind the Pope. Rudd may have avoided some initial unpleasantness, but he has to confront the bad news eventually.

As Prime Minister, it is up to him to carry the main burden of selling this scheme and its consequences for Australian households.

It is Rudd - far more than Wong or Treasurer Wayne Swan - who has to explain to voters why it is necessary for their cost of living to rise.

He has to explain this particularly to the aspirational working families who put Labor into office last year and will not get anything like full compensation for the price increases they now face.

People will accept sacrifice, but only if they are convinced it is justified.

Using His Holiness as political cover might have seemed like a good idea at the time, but it diverted Rudd from this all-important task of persuasion.
Title: Re: 'Seven graphs' - Arguments rebutted
Post by: mr anderson on July 19, 2008, 06:44:16 am
UPDATE 2

Geoff Fraser, who wrote the above letter claiming to state the view of Environmental Health Australia, and signing it as its Victorian president, now wishes in comments below to correct the record:

    I write to advise these comments were my own and that it was irresponsible of me to infer in any way they are an Environmental Health Australia position. I see a positive in everything and at least the issues continue to be debated.

Apparently “debate” is a term he extends to embrace mere abuse and false claims to speak on behalf of not just EHA but 10,000 farmers.
Title: Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
Post by: mr anderson on July 19, 2008, 09:44:27 am
Iemma's electricity sale devalued by $5 billion

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,24038121-5006009,00.html

By Malcolm Farr, National Political Editor
July 18, 2008 12:00am


THE Federal Government has done Premier Morris Iemma a small favour by protecting some of the value of NSW's coal-fuelled electricity generators.

But its measures to put a cost on carbon emissions will mean the price tag on the NSW electricity system must be cut by billions of dollars.

It could mean the $15 billion ambit price is reduced by as much as $5 billion. Back in 1999, when the sell-off was first proposed, the price could have been closer to $20 billion.

The Daily Telegraph understands that the office of State Treasurer and climate change sceptic Michael Costa had made this case to the Federal Government.

A high-profile argument against privatisation in NSW has been that measures to limit climate change gases by penalising coal-fuelled facilities would push prices for the NSW electricity generators into the cellar.

Coal-fired power stations will be protected from the harshest cost impact of the Government's carbon pollution reduction scheme, according to proposals released on Wednesday.

That is despite being among the most prominent contributors to emission of climate change gases.

But most of this protection will go to the dirtier, brown coal generation system of Victoria.

There is suspicion that the help for power stations in yesterday's green paper was "partly motivated by a desire to fatten up coal-fired generators for leasing in NSW", said Guy Pearse, a former staffer in the Howard Government and critic of its climate change policies.

Climate Change Minister Penny Wong yesterday acknowledged the Federal Government wanted to address the threat to future investment in coal-powered electricity.

"And that is why we have flagged in the green paper that we would look at some limited direct compensation to secure the investment environment for electricity," Senator Wong said.

"In addition, we flagged our electricity sector adjustment scheme which is essentially aimed at making the sector transition to a cleaner, greener electricity generation future. We recognise that will take some time."

The green paper noted that power stations were long-life assets with limited alternative uses - described as "sunk capital costs". The Government decided investors in power generation would be scared off by the imposition of a full carbon price on operations.
Title: Don’t ask Jesus, but Al instead
Post by: mr anderson on July 19, 2008, 10:17:34 pm
Spotted in a San Franciso Bay shop - and for serious:

(http://blogs.news.com.au/images/uploads/IMG_0715_thumb.jpg)

The answer, of course, is that Gore would build a huge mansion, power it with more electricity in a month than an average family would use in the year. He’d drive everywhere in convoys, fly in private planes, make a fortune flogging “green” investments and give $250,000 speeches suggesting other people live more simply.

Since you ask.

UPDATE

Speaking of hypocrites, what prize would you give to the men who shot the award-winning ads promoting carbon-cutting Earth Hour?

    A: Hairshirts by Chanel.

    B: Glow-in-the-dark vests.

    C: Solar-powered cameras.

    D: Air tickets to Cannes.

I know. Too easy. After all, What Would Al Gore Do? http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/lights_off_flights_on/

UPDATE 2

The Sun-Herald, which helped to organise Earth Hour, avoids mentioning the prize.

The six concerned anti-carbonites all won flights to Cannes.

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt
Title: Risk management applies to emissions too
Post by: mr anderson on July 19, 2008, 10:29:40 pm
http://business.theage.com.au/business/risk-management-applies-to-emissions-too-20080718-3hme.html

Malcolm Maiden
July 19, 2008


THERE'S a graph on page 3 of the summary chapter of the Rudd Government's green paper on emissions trading that traces annual average temperatures in Australia going back to 1910, courtesy of the Bureau of Meteorology.

The bar chart part of it shows an unmistakable shift from about 1980 onwards into a period when temperatures are elevated above the mean.

But more recent years are less elevated, and a line that tracks the 10-year moving average peaks around 1996, and then turns gently down.

A similar effect is observable in global temperature indices too, and as long as that continues, questions about the nature of the link between carbon dioxide production and global warming will persist.

It's logical that they should: this Government's attack on carbon emissions and the push for a planet-wide assault is predicated not just on the notion that global temperatures are elevated - on that point, there can be no doubt - but on there being a significant, direct, cause-and-effect link between carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere and global temperatures.

If the link is not as strong as expected, then the entire cost-benefit equation on an attack on carbon dioxide emissions would be either modified or undermined.

The case for emission reduction would be fundamentally unchanged, but the time available for action extended, for example, if the recent loss of temperature momentum was a result of offsetting forces (in the sceptics camp, a sharp downturn in sunspot activity has had currency recently). Carbon dioxide-related temperature increases would be masked for a period of time -but would still be building, ready to reassert themselves aggressively when the offsetting influence faded.

If, on the other hand, it emerged that the link between carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere and temperature was weaker than expected, the case for aggressive action would be undermined, because emissions reduction would generate a lower benefit from an unchanged cost.

At this stage, the recent softening of the temperature data is statistically meaningless, just as the 2005 hurricane season in the Gulf of Mexico was (the following years in the Gulf were relatively calm).

There is insufficient data to refute the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's projections that global temperatures, having risen by about three-quarters of a degree Celsius since industrialisation began, will rise by a catastrophic 4.5 degrees by 2100 on a do-nothing scenario, with 0.6 degrees of that already built in by existing industrialisation.

As the climate change website Realclimate noted in a post earlier this year, temperatures remain elevated, and looking at only several years of data "is looking primarily at the 'noise' of inter-annual variability rather than at the forced long-term trend". There are expectations of what the trend will be, in the IPCC's projections, for example, but the trend must be confirmed over time, as the noise of particular weather events is smoothed.

Ross Garnaut considered the issue in his draft final report earlier this month, and asked Australian National University econometricians Trevor Breusch and Farshid Vahid to examine temperature statistics since the late 1990s in the context of longer-term patterns.

They concluded that the upwards movement in global temperature over the past 130 to 160 years qualified as a trend, that the trend became steeper after the mid-1970s, and that there was no significant evidence for a break in trend in the late 1990s: temperatures recorded in most of the past decade were at heights that could not be explained with confidence by models that did not allow for a warming trend, the academics said.

My conclusion is that the recent deviations in temperature from what could be called the global warming status quo certainly bear watching, but that the precautionary principle still applies. Carbon emission reduction strategies are an example of what business and investors do routinely: hope for the best, but plan for something less optimal. The losses now being booked on assets that were priced for perfection during the 2004-07 sharemarket boom are an example of what grief is harvested when risk is not fully taken into account.

The Rudd Government's inclination to capitalise on the relatively early 2010 introduction of carbon trading by "soft-launching" emissions permit trading with extensive compensation gives it room to recalibrate if evidence of a temperature slowdown mounts.

But business leaders and investors must not forget that the precautionary principle applies, and that regardless of the science, the current political reality is the one informed by the IPCC: political momentum for a global response is building, and it is the local scheme that will mainly determine investor outcomes here, anyway.

That means that the calls by Woodside chief executive Don Voelte and Qantas chief risk officer Rob Kella for their companies to be better compensated in the scheme are the first of many. The scheme will ration emission permits and, in the trade-affected sector, compensate the heaviest emitters per dollar of revenue for 90% of their permit cost, and less heavy emitters with 60%. Those who do not make the 90% dress circle are obviously going to make the best case they can for higher offsets.

Broadly speaking, the political investment reality is that the scheme is negative for energy-intensive companies, and positive for emissions reduction technology, which will find its way to market through a wave of public offers, and a smaller number of successes. Specific winners and losers depend on the outcome of the lobbying over offsets, and on news later this year about the start-up carbon price, and how aggressively emissions will be capped.

[email protected]
Title: Re: Don’t ask Jesus, but Al instead
Post by: Sub-X on July 19, 2008, 10:56:32 pm
 :D Excellent thread  ;)
Title: Re: Don’t ask Jesus, but Al instead
Post by: GoingEtheric on July 19, 2008, 11:10:34 pm
oh brother  ::)
some people aren't left, or right. just dumb.
Title: Re: Don’t ask Jesus, but Al instead
Post by: MooseHunter on July 19, 2008, 11:18:03 pm
This is in-your-face personality cult, but what is more ridiculous is the fact that it's all based on pure lies, while that same demi-god figure is making millions off of those lies, and his way of living is more like little princes flying on private jets and living in huge mansions.. are they conditioning us to accept that we ought to live by different standards that our demi-gods? You bet.
Title: Re: Don’t ask Jesus, but Al instead
Post by: GoingEtheric on July 19, 2008, 11:26:44 pm
This is in-your-face personality cult, but what is more ridiculous is the fact that it's all based on pure lies, while that same demi-god figure is making millions off of those lies, and his way of living is more like little princes flying on private jets and living in huge mansions.. are they conditioning us to accept that we ought to live by different standards that our demi-gods?
nahhh. they just know the enviro-freaks will justify like "But in all that luxury and traveling around, his efforts do more good than harm", and the rest have accepted that as the standard lifestyle of prominant people.
Title: Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
Post by: Brocke on July 20, 2008, 03:32:51 pm

Australians want emissions scheme

July 21, 2008 02:15am
Article from: AAP

MOST Australians believe we should be pushing ahead with a greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme regardless of whether other countries do the same, according to a poll.

While 77 per cent of Australians are behind Kevin Rudd's drive to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, 60 per cent have little or no understanding of how an emissions trading scheme would work, according to the latest Nielsen poll published in Fairfax newspapers today.

Sixty-eight per cent of people said they were prepared to pay more for goods and services if costs increased as a result of the scheme, Fairfax News reported.

Last week federal Opposition Leader Brendan Nelson contradicted senior colleagues by saying that Australia should do nothing until other big polluting countries acted, but only 19 per cent of respondents to the poll agreed with this course of action.

The poll of 1,400 voters was taken from Thursday to Saturday.

On Wednesday, the government released its green paper outlining how a domestic emissions trading scheme would work.

Yesterday it launched a multi-million-dollar ``awareness'' campaign to explain how an emissions trading scheme would work.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,24049325-23109,00.html
Title: Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
Post by: mr anderson on July 20, 2008, 11:02:38 pm
Australians want emissions scheme

July 21, 2008 02:15am
Article from: AAP

MOST Australians believe we should be pushing ahead with a greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme regardless of whether other countries do the same, according to a poll.

While 77 per cent of Australians are behind Kevin Rudd's drive to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, 60 per cent have little or no understanding of how an emissions trading scheme would work, according to the latest Nielsen poll published in Fairfax newspapers today.

Sixty-eight per cent of people said they were prepared to pay more for goods and services if costs increased as a result of the scheme, Fairfax News reported.

Last week federal Opposition Leader Brendan Nelson contradicted senior colleagues by saying that Australia should do nothing until other big polluting countries acted, but only 19 per cent of respondents to the poll agreed with this course of action.

The poll of 1,400 voters was taken from Thursday to Saturday.

On Wednesday, the government released its green paper outlining how a domestic emissions trading scheme would work.

Yesterday it launched a multi-million-dollar ``awareness'' campaign to explain how an emissions trading scheme would work.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,24049325-23109,00.html
Let the propaganda begin!

Are you happy to pay more because of the Government's climate change plan?
(http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r20/m-r-anderson/v.jpg)

Mr Rudd's rating as preferred PM has fallen three points since last month but he leads Brendan Nelson by a huge 65-20%.

Some choice huh?
Title: Govt ads to push carbon trade plan
Post by: mr anderson on July 20, 2008, 11:12:37 pm
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/07/20/2308747.htm?section=business

The Federal Government is beginning an advertising campaign about its carbon trading policies, as it continues to reassure businesses and families about the effect of the changes.

The Government released its discussion paper on an emissions trading scheme last week, and is now consulting with industry and community groups before the draft legislation is released at the end of the year.

Climate Change Minister Penny Wong told Channel Nine that Opposition Leader Brendan Nelson had agreed that a public information campaign would be needed.

Some newspaper advertisements have already appeared and Senator Wong says the campaign will be governed by new rules on public advertising.

"I'd anticipate you'd see advertising fairly soon, and the purpose of it frankly is to ensure people understand why we're doing this," she said.

"We do actually want the community to engage very closely with this issue."

Ms Wong also says the Government will negotiate with small and medium businesses on the best way to assist them to be more energy efficient.

Only the top 1,000 emitting companies will have to buy and trade permits to pollute under the proposed scheme.

But some small business lobby groups are concerned there has not been enough focus on the way the scheme will effect those companies which are not directly involved.

"What we have proposed is a climate change action fund," Ms Wong said.

"Specifically part of the remit of that fund is to focus assistance and support on small and medium enterprises on issues such as energy efficiency and how to finance the sort of capital investment to reduce energy use that they will need."

The Opposition says it will examine the legislation very carefully, but Opposition treasury spokesman Malcolm Turnbull has told the ABC's Insiders program that he is still concerned that the Government is rushing into the scheme.

"The important thing is not just getting it done, the important thing is getting it right," he said.

He says at the moment the scheme is flawed, and shows a lack of focus and discipline.

But Treasurer Wayne Swan told Channel Ten that the proposed scheme would make a big difference for Australia and the world.

"What we do in terms of public policy through our carbon pollution reduction scheme will make a big difference, what individuals do in their communities and in their homes also make a difference," he said.

"So I think those two things combined mean that as a country, we can move forward and secure economic gains from this important reform."
Title: Sale of the century
Post by: mr anderson on July 20, 2008, 11:14:35 pm
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/sale-of-the-century-20080718-3hgw.html?page=-1

(http://images.theage.com.au/2008/07/18/162616/wr_sl_oped_spooner-420x0.jpg)

STAND by for one of the most intense government advertising blitzes since the Howard government used Joe Cocker's roaring plea to Unchain My Heart to flog its GST.

The Rudd Government has, of course, changed the rules on government advertising, essentially requiring that future ad campaigns convey only non-political factual information, and that the Auditor-General cast his jaundiced eye over the material before giving it the nod.

Whatever the process, the Government knows it desperately needs to roll out some pretty persuasive propaganda — sorry, factual information — if it is not to lose the Australian public in a fog of carbon emissions.

Almost everyone in Kevin Rudd's team says these days that an emissions trading scheme is "the biggest challenge any government has taken on". They're not being flippant. They know the hard sell has barely begun.

What they don't know is how to go about that hard sell, because trying to explain simply to a nation why it might be a good thing to cause more economic pain in order to reduce something that cannot be seen or felt is literally tougher than wrestling a wraith of smoke.

The truth is, relatively few Australians have any real idea about what an emissions trading scheme is, or how it works, or what it might or might not achieve, despite the millions of words written and spoken in the media. The words have simply increased since Professor Ross Garnaut issued his draft report on climate change and Senator Penny Wong this week released the Government's green paper on the subject.

The problem is that vast numbers of those words appear to have been consumed by and directed at relatively small and elite groups — politicians, lobbyists, bureaucrats, big business, journalists and those already engaged in environmental issues. And almost all of them have been using language that is clearly unfathomable to those Australians who are not part of the loop.

Gough Whitlam, a great communicator, knew that Australians hate being confused by insider language. He wouldn't even use the initials OECD, preferring to refer to "other countries to which we are prepared to compare ourselves". Since then, politico-speak has gone downhill so far that Kevin Rudd at full flight may as well be speaking Mandarin, and many political and environmental commentators follow.

Among the few writing simple messages for the masses have been those sceptics who have discovered testimony that the world's temperature over the past 10 years has cooled, rather than warmed, and who have delighted in presenting this as evidence that climate change is a fraud. That 10 years offers evidence of anything approaching consequence is itself fraudulent, of course, but it sounds more palatable than the prospect of a world about to turn on its inhabitants because of their carbon-burning behaviour.

During a visit to the huge Portland Alcoa aluminium smelter this week, your columnist met a gathering of long-time smelter workers, elected as representatives of the workforce. All were angered by what they felt was Kevin Rudd's failure to explain in plain language what his Government's intentions were. To a man they said they had never met anyone who understood what was meant by an emissions trading scheme. The Government made clear some days ago it was cognisant of the problem when it suddenly dropped reference to an emissions trading scheme and replaced it with the more user-friendly "carbon pollution reduction scheme".

Those wickedly perceptive satirists John Clarke and Bryan Dawe were all over the confusion on the ABC's 7.30 Report this week. Dawe became increasingly bemused as Kevin Rudd (played by Clarke) made it obvious he didn't know how an emissions trading scheme worked, either.

Dawe: Can you tell me how it works?

Rudd (Clarke): It works by reducing emissions, Bryan. The whole point of it is the reduction of those dangerous emissions. It reduces the emissions.

Dawe: I understand that, of course, but how does it work?

Rudd: It works by reducing emissions …

Dawe: But how are the emissions traded?

Rudd: They're traded in different ways, Bryan. There are various different trading methods in this area, just as there are in any other area …

Satire is one thing, of course, but the federal Coalition is making it equally clear it is going to cause as much political mischief on the matter as it can while keeping a straight face.

The Opposition's spokesman on climate change, Greg Hunt, was busily trying yesterday to sow doubt in the public mind about the Labor Government approach.

"Now what do we know about the Government's position?" he asked rhetorically on ABC radio, answering himself by declaring the Government knew nothing of targets, costings and compensation and "they can't even say whether the new system will reduce emissions".

Hunt would have known what a cynical game he was playing — only a day previously he had claimed the Rudd Government had virtually stolen the former Howard government's policy on emissions abatement.

Cynicism, however, is going around.

Rudd and his colleagues have been deep into the murky world of perception management in their approach to climate change.

When Rudd appointed Garnaut to review what ought to be done, Garnaut was presented as the expert who would point the Government in the direction of the good and the pure. Shortly before he brought down what the Government realised would be a draft report that would be a bit too pure and alarming to an electorate suffering seismic economic shocks, Garnaut suddenly became no more than an "input" into future government decision making.

When Garnaut's draft report proved to be just what the Government feared, it seemed perfectly happy to let the public panic about what it would mean for petrol and power prices and industrial jobs. But only for a few days.

This week, Wong's speech to the National Press Club came as a salve to the public perception. The Government wouldn't go down the gnarly Garnaut path, motorists would be granted petrol excise relief, coal would get a reprieve and big trade-exposed polluting industries would receive a get-out-of-jail card, too.

All very well. But if Rudd and Wong are going to remain in control of public perception as the real decisions get closer, they had better be working on a great big plain-speaking advertising campaign. Non-political, of course.

Tony Wright is national affairs editor.
Title: Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
Post by: Brocke on July 20, 2008, 11:31:07 pm
If only people were more aware and actually cared what was going on, they wouldn't fall for this sloppy propaganda spin.
Title: Questioning the Climate Change Minister
Post by: mr anderson on July 21, 2008, 01:47:30 am
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/im_sorry_but_i_tried/

Andrew Bolt

At the Melbourne Press Club today, I asked Climate Change Minister Penny Wong the following question (from memory):

    The IPCC, the UN’s climate change body, in its February report said it had detected human-induced global warming in just one 25 year period, up to around 1998. Since 1998, the consensus of the four bodies that measure the world’s temperature is that the world has not warmed. It has not warmed for a decade, and over the past couple of years has actually cooled. Minister, how many more years of no-warming will it take before you accept that the global warming theory on which you’ve based your huge carbon cutting scheme is actually wrong? One more year of no-warming? Five years? Or 15 years?

I’m afraid that Ms Wong did not answer my question. Then again, she did not question the premise, either. Instead she said she had to go with the “consensus” science, and talked about record low inflows into the Murray and into city dams, as if a drought in one part of Australia was proof that the whole world was warming, and, furthermore, man was to blame.

There was no chance for a follow-up question, and Wong - personally a very nice person - may have got away with that filibustering and sleight of hand with many of the more gullible in the audience. But I suspect this is the question that will start to haunt her, because the facts - and an honest answer - is so deadly to her cause.

So no cigar today, but not for want of trying. Or do you think I should have asked a better question?
Title: Re: Questioning the Climate Change Minister
Post by: mr anderson on July 21, 2008, 01:52:04 am
I submitted a comment.

Perhaps quote these guys.

In a report titled "The First Global Revolution" (1991) published by the Club of Rome, a globalist think tank, we find the following statement: "In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.... All these dangers are caused by human intervention... The real enemy, then, is humanity itself."

Or

Richard N. Haass, the current president of the Council on Foreign Relations, stated in his article "State sovereignty must be altered in globalized era," that a system of world government must be created and sovereignty eliminated in order to fight global warming, as well as terrorism. "Moreover, states must be prepared to cede some sovereignty to world bodies if the international system is to function," says Haass. "Globalization thus implies that sovereignty is not only becoming weaker in reality, but that it needs to become weaker. States would be wise to weaken sovereignty in order to protect themselves..."

Although it's too hardcore for most zombies to even understand what sovereignty means.
Title: Re: Questioning the Climate Change Minister
Post by: TruthHunter on July 21, 2008, 03:08:18 am
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/im_sorry_but_i_tried/

Andrew Bolt

At the Melbourne Press Club today, I asked Climate Change Minister Penny Wong the following question (from memory):

    The IPCC, the UN’s climate change body, in its February report said it had detected human-induced global warming in just one 25 year period, up to around 1998. Since 1998, the consensus of the four bodies that measure the world’s temperature is that the world has not warmed. It has not warmed for a decade, and over the past couple of years has actually cooled. Minister, how many more years of no-warming will it take before you accept that the global warming theory on which you’ve based your huge carbon cutting scheme is actually wrong? One more year of no-warming? Five years? Or 15 years?

I’m afraid that Ms Wong did not answer my question. Then again, she did not question the premise, either. Instead she said she had to go with the “consensus” science, and talked about record low inflows into the Murray and into city dams, as if a drought in one part of Australia was proof that the whole world was warming, and, furthermore, man was to blame.

There was no chance for a follow-up question, and Wong - personally a very nice person - may have got away with that filibustering and sleight of hand with many of the more gullible in the audience. But I suspect this is the question that will start to haunt her, because the facts - and an honest answer - is so deadly to her cause.

So no cigar today, but not for want of trying. Or do you think I should have asked a better question?

You're lucky you weren't tased. How dare you question a government official?
Title: Re: Questioning the Climate Change Minister
Post by: mr anderson on July 21, 2008, 03:13:45 am
It's not me...  ;)
Title: Climate change ads 'miss big picture'
Post by: mr anderson on July 22, 2008, 01:00:17 am
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,24060190-29277,00.html

By Carrie Berdon

July 22, 2008 03:37pm
Article from: AAP


THE Federal Government's multimillion-dollar advertising campaign on climate change is "fluffy" and does not look at the bigger global climate change picture, Opposition Leader Brendan Nelson says.

The Government has launched a taxpayer-funded campaign on television, radio and in print to sell its emissions trading scheme to the public.

The ads illustrate the dangers of climate change through images of chimneys and parched earth.

Dr Nelson said he agreed Australians needed educating in the economics of climate change and the emissions trading scheme, but the Rudd Government should make it clear it was a global issue.

"I think it's important ... that he makes it clear to Australians that the environmental damage that will come to Australia, but also to the rest of the world as a result of climate change is only going to be done by the major emitters of the world," he said today.

"And if Australia acts alone without commitments and actions from the other emitters, we will do enormous economic damage to Australia for no environmental gain at all," he said.

"(The ads) seem a bit fluffy at the moment."

Federal Climate Change Minister Penny Wong has declined to say how much the ad campaign will cost, although media reports estimate the Government will spend $9 million this year.

Commonwealth Auditor-General Ian McPhee approved the ad campaign on Friday, saying it complied with new rules cracking down on government advertising which promote political interests.

According to his review, the ads will stretch into October, with a fresh round of TV advertising planned for September.
Title: Climate science is never settled
Post by: mr anderson on July 22, 2008, 01:03:31 am
http://business.theage.com.au/business/climate-science-is-never-settled-20080721-3ivh.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap2

Geoffrey Kearsley
July 22, 2008
   

There's no point ruining the economy pursuing carbon neutrality if carbon is not the main culprit or the climate is on a new trend.

IT IS now pretty much taken for granted that global warming is ongoing, that climate change is being driven by human activity and that it is critically important that fundamental changes be made to our economy and way of life.

On the small scale, people plant trees, examine food miles, purchase carbon offsets and modify travel behaviour.

Cities and even countries vie with one another to become carbon neutral; as a nation, we are contemplating emission controls, taxes and carbon-trading schemes that will have a profound effect on individual households and the national economy.

When linked with the other great crisis of our times — peak oil — it has become not only socially desirable to embrace all of this, but sustainability has achieved the status of a higher morality. It has become politically unacceptable to doubt any of the current dogma.

It is said that we are now beyond the science and that the science of global warming has been finalised or determined and that all scientists agree. Sceptics and deniers are simply cynical pawns in the pockets of the big oil companies. This is unfortunate.

Science is rarely determined or finalised. Science evolves and the huge complexity of climate science will certainly continue to evolve in the light of new facts, new experiences and new understandings.

For example, early in the 1900s, Alfred Wegener proposed that the continents were once joined up; their coastlines seemed to match, there appeared to be great rifts and tears in the continental fabric.

This view was ridiculed; how could the continents move? What possible force could transport the unimaginable mass of Africa or Australia hundreds and thousands of kilometres across the earth? Today, of course, plate tectonics is well understood. We know that continents move and we know the consequences.

Global warming seemed sewn up as well in the year 2000. Michael Mann's hockey-stick graph showed centuries of modest change culminating in an explosive temperature growth in recent decades, leading to terrifying projections of a climate out of control, with the sea rising to drown us all. Al Gore's apocalyptic images of tsunami-like flooding and dying polar bears brought global warming into every home.

Today, the hockey stick has gone. Its basic data was flawed and the statistical processes inadequate; it failed to describe known climate changes from the historically recorded past, so how could it be a reliable predictor? Although Gore received the Nobel Peace Prize, his celebrated documentary has been shown to be riddled with inaccuracies, distortions and misrepresentations; it cannot be shown in British schools without a comprehensive explanation of its mistakes and an acknowledgement that it is advocacy, not science.

There is no doubt that the climate is changing; it always has done. We have become familiar with the regularly repeating glaciations of the past. Human history has mainly occupied an exceptionally warm interglacial peak in a world that, for the last half million years at least, has generally been much cooler, although, in deep time, the world has been much warmer than now.

In the 1970s, climate science was concerned about when the next ice age might commence; we may have to return to that position.

There have been considerably warmer eras in the past couple of thousand years. In both the Roman and medieval warm periods, vineyards flourished as far north as York in England; Greenland was indeed green, at least in parts. By contrast, just 400 years ago, there was a Little Ice Age in America and Europe, at least, that lasted until well into the 1800s. The historic record confirms this.

What we also know, by historical record and by proxy calculation, is that these large swings in temperature closely correlate with the frequency of sunspots, which are a visible indicator of activity in the sun. Sunspots vary in number according to a series of cycles. In periods of high temperature, sunspots proliferated, but during the Little Ice Age, there were few or none for many decades, a phenomenon known as the Maunder Minimum; the last quarter of the 20th century saw a flurry of activity.

The last cycle was at its energetic peak in 1998, our warmest year for some time. The mechanism is unclear, but it seems related to solar magnetic influences and the amount of gamma radiation that reaches the earth. The last 10 years have seen a static or even cooling trend as the sunspot cycle ran down; 2007 saw bitter weather around the world and the mean global temperature dropped by an unprecedented amount. It is not picking up. The Antarctic winter sea ice was at its largest extent since satellite observation began, and it snowed in Baghdad and Buenos Aires for the first time in living memory. China's winter was awful.

And now the scary news. The latest sunspot cycle should have started up around the middle or end of 2006; it didn't. According to NASA's forecasts, there should be a sunspot index of 70 or more, as the new cycle ran up.

I looked at a real-time photo of the sun on a recent morning; there are no sunspots at all. There have only been a couple of brief, tiny ones since the last cycle ended. Not only that, but the longer trends tell us that by 2020, we will be experiencing an unusually low-energy sun. Apparently, these are exactly the conditions that preceded the Maunder Minimum and ushered in the Little Ice Age.

There is much more yet to learn. My point is this: It may well be that human activity is indeed changing the climate, at least in part, but there is an increasing body of science that says that the sun may have a greater role.

If it does have, then global warming is likely to stop, as it appears to have done since 1998, and if the current sunspot cycle fails to ignite, then cooling, possibly rapid and severe cooling, may eventuate. The next five years will tell us a great deal. In these circumstances, we should wait and see.

With China and India churning out new thermal power stations at assembly-line speed, our influence on the global climate is negligible. Surrounded as we are by great oceans, even the alarmist predictions will have relatively minor consequences for us for some time.

We can afford to wait. There is no point in decimating our economy in the pursuit of carbon neutrality if carbon is not the main culprit or if the climate is now on a new trend.

Instead, now is the time to moderate the pseudo-religious and uncritical belief that global warming is still as we once thought it might have been.

Professor Geoffrey Kearsley is a geographer developing a program in environmental communication at the University of Otago in New Zealand.
Title: Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
Post by: Brocke on July 22, 2008, 03:42:28 am
Rudd carbon cost 'could be billions'

By Carrie Berdon

July 22, 2008 05:04pm
Article from: AAP

OPPOSITION Leader Brendan Nelson has sided with businesses in demanding Prime Minister Kevin Rudd allow Australia's emission levels to increase to accommodate industry expansion.

Dr Nelson said Australia risks losing billions of dollars in new investment and seeing the flight of some industries offshore under the Labor Government's plan.

Businesses are pushing for a scheme first outlined by former prime minister John Howard that would allow major export industries to emit greenhouse gases in excess of the overall national target, so long as they created new business using the world's best environmental practice.

Conservationists claim the scheme is counterproductive and would push up Australia's total emissions when the aim is to bring them down.

The Government's recent green paper has already proposed that trade-exposed energy-intensive industries be given free permits for a proportion of their emissions, but only to existing companies.

Woodside Petroleum chief Don Voelte has said two major liquefied natural gas (LNG) projects, worth more than $60 billion, could be shelved due to the new scheme despite gas being a lower source of emissions than burning coal.

Dr Nelson said looking after core industries was paramount to the health of Australia's economy.

"If you've got people in the LNG, petroleum, cement and aluminium industries that are investing in world's best practice environmental technologies, then I think we need to have the capacity in the short to medium term to allow them to go above targets," he said in Sydney today.

"It makes common sense to see that we're environmentally credible and that we're also economically responsible as far as growth is concerned and making sure that we keep industries and jobs in Australia.

"The last thing that this country can afford is to have $60bn in LNG contracts lost ... or to have major fuel refiners go offshore or indeed to lose our aluminium, cement or other industries."

Dr Nelson said it was crucial for Australia to wait until the world's major emitters met in Copenhagen next year to lay out a response to global emissions before 2012.

"If Mr Rudd is fair dinkum about this ... he should postpone his 2010 implementation date," he added.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,24060708-5007133,00.html
Title: Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
Post by: Brocke on July 22, 2008, 03:44:04 am
Car industry claims luxury tax to catch half of all sales

By Lenore Taylor

July 22, 2008 12:01am
Article from: The Australian

BY 2030 half the new cars sold in Australia will be hit by the 33 per cent luxury car tax if trends continue, the industry will tell a Senate inquiry today as it urges a lifting of the tax's $57,000 threshold.

The Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries will also ask the Senate to overrule government attempts to retrospectively apply its budget decision to increase the tax from 25 to 33 per cent from July 1, since the tax hike is still not yet law, The Australian reports.

The luxury car tax is one of four budget measures referred to Senate committees by the Coalition before it lost its Senate majority at the end of June, a move Treasurer Wayne Swan slammed at the time as "completely irresponsible".

But the car industry is intent on using the committee process to win changes to the law from the new Senate when it sits in August - with the Government now needing support from two independents and the Greens to pass legislation that is opposed by the Coalition.

FCAI chief executive Andrew McKellar will tell the Senate committee in Adelaide today that from the time it was introduced in the late 1970s, an ever-rising percentage of Australian-sold vehicles had been caught by the tax - from 2.5 per cent in 1979 to 11 per cent last year.

The top selling "luxury" car as defined by the tax is not a Porsche or a Maserati, but a Toyota Landcruiser Wagon, and within five years it is likely that cars such as Nissan Patrol wagons and Mitsubishi Pajero five-doors will also be caught by the tax.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,24058021-5007133,00.html
Title: Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
Post by: Brocke on July 22, 2008, 03:48:42 am
Aussies in dark over carbon scheme

July 21, 2008 05:58pm
Article from: AAP

AUSTRALIANS don't know what to make of Ross Garnaut's plan on climate change, a survey says.

An Essential Research poll released today showed respondents were evenly split between thinking his draft report released earlier this month got the balance right, went too far, or did not go far enough.

The most common response was "don't know'', which attracted 32 per cent of respondents.

However, people had a clearer answer on whether some industries should be exempted from emissions trading - no.

Fifty-four per cent of those surveyed said the system should apply to all industries.

Twenty-five per cent thought industries with a special reliance on carbon should be given more time to take up the scheme.

Just 5 per cent thought certain industries should be exempt.

The Federal Government in its green paper released last week has proposed exempting agriculture from emissions trading for at least the first five years, while some exporters will be given most of their permits for free.

The poll of just over 1000 people was taken online last week.

It also canvassed the public's thoughts on federal Opposition Leader Brendan Nelson, who did not fare well.

Few thought he was visionary (20 per cent), good in a crisis (23 per cent) or a capable leader (32 per cent).

Only 23 per cent thought Dr Nelson more honest than most politicians and 31 per cent believed he was down to earth.

Of the 15 personality traits surveyed, Dr Nelson beat Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's ratings in a survey last month on just one: he was perceived to be less demanding.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,24054258-5007133,00.html
Title: Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
Post by: Brocke on July 22, 2008, 04:25:48 am
Climate ads wasteful propaganda: Joyce

12:00 AEST Tue Jul 22 2008
7 hours 25 minutes ago

Barnaby Joyce has accused the government of hypocrisy after launching an emissions trading campaign.Barnaby Joyce has accused the government of hypocrisy after launching an emissions trading campaign.

Joyce says the emissions trading ad is propaganda.
By Cathy Alexander

A taxpayer-funded advertising campaign on climate change is a wasteful "propaganda piece", says Nationals senator Barnaby Joyce.

The Rudd government has launched a multi-million dollar campaign on television, radio and print to sell its plan for emissions trading.

Senator Joyce accused the government of hypocrisy, because it had strongly criticised the previous Howard government's Work Choices ad campaign.

"I've seen the ads and the ads are basically a little piece of Labor propaganda," he told AAP.

"There's a sense of (the government) being quite hypocritical in this after the tirade ... they had about the coalition's ads trying to promote Work Choices."

Opinion polls show most people do not understand emissions trading.

The government says the advertisements are part of a public information campaign.

To date, the ads illustrate the dangers of climate change, using images of chimneys and parched earth, but do not appear to explain emissions trading.

Senator Joyce said the ads contained no hard information about how emissions trading worked, and what it would cost households.

"When I've finished the ad I don't know exactly what my power bill's going to go up by," he said.

"If they believe in their policy they should first of all clearly describe it ... but clearly describing it does not require me to see it on prime time television.

"It's a propaganda piece."

Climate Change Minister Penny Wong has declined to say how much the ad campaign will cost, although media reports estimate the government will spend $9 million on it this year.

Commonwealth Auditor-General Ian McPhee approved the ad campaign on Friday, deciding it complied with new rules cracking down on government advertising which promotes political interests.

According to his review, the ads will stretch into October, with a fresh round of TV advertising planned for September.

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=601471&rss=yes
Title: Re: Climate change ads 'miss big picture'
Post by: Cruise4 on July 22, 2008, 07:44:23 am
Money well spent  ;D
Title: Re: Climate change ads 'miss big picture'
Post by: mr anderson on July 22, 2008, 08:01:28 am
I saw one tonight.

T-o-t-a-l fear mongering propaganda.

I'm searching for one now..

Here's a satirical one from Rove; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vd1BvG1SMD0
Title: Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
Post by: mr anderson on July 22, 2008, 08:36:59 am
Even if there not even addressing the problem...any dissent is fkn welcome!
Title: Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
Post by: mr anderson on July 22, 2008, 08:58:31 pm
Recent reply from the Climate Change Coalition:

Matt,

I have checked who and what Timothy Ball is and am underwhelmed. The attached is believable. Note that it includes confidence limits in most numbers. Your last offering also underwhelms me. I am sorry but I have to put you in the class of a conspiracy theorist. Unfortunately I too fall into that category when considering why we are so far behind where we should be on peak oil, climate change, fish stocks, water and sustainability generally. There are forces at work that prevent action.

In 1994 I was on ABC radio talking about what we needed to do on water. In 2007 we had a “crisis”. All of these things are predictable. The science is there if we choose to read the writing that is on the wall.

Your fears on cross species, biological weapons etc are all logical and well grounded. Bear in mind we have had the ability to nuke the world for decades and have not used it. GMO? Depends on what you are talking about. Our wheat industry would not have been as robust without the modifications by William Farrer. In those days we had to splice and graft whole plants, we can just do it faster now.

As for saying peak oil is by design – well that is a straight contradiction of facts. I have sent you two graphs. ASPO have been studying this for years. Fossil fuels are finite. There is a thing called energy balance – how much energy do you have to put in to get energy out. We are entering a new paradigm where we must take that into account. The age of cheap energy is coming to an end, not by design but by simple equations such as those espoused by Einstein. The laws of thermodynamics are as entrenched as those of gravity. We have yet to learn how to defy gravity or the fundamental laws of the universe. Maybe we will learn one day but don’t hold your breath.
 

Steve.
[email protected] (Be polite, mature when contacting him)
Title: Business, unions form alliance over carbon trading
Post by: mr anderson on July 22, 2008, 09:18:13 pm
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,24063860-421,00.html

    *  Alliance formed over Rudd's carbon trading scheme
    * 'It's about ensuring we don't harm Australian industry'
    * Alliance wants to protect investment and jobs


SOME of the nation's richest companies are forging an alliance with Australia's biggest blue-collar union to prevent the Rudd Government's carbon trading scheme shutting key industries.

In a rare display of workforce unity, the likes of Qantas, Rio Tinto, Shell, Alcoa and BlueScope Steel are teaming with the Australian Workers Union in an effort to halt an exodus of investment and jobs.

The business/union alliance highlights the Government's challenge as it tries to frame an emissions trading scheme that doesn't ruin the economy.

AWU national secretary Paul Howes will host the roundtable with business leaders at the traditional home of militant unionism in Sydney's Sussex St.

However, the union leader - who some government ministers believe is intent on hijacking the emissions trading debate - claims the campaign is not anti-Labor.

"It is not about fighting the Government; it is about working with the Government co-operatively to ensure we don't unnecessarily harm Australian industry," Mr Howes said.

The Business Council of Australia and other key employer groups will also be at today's meeting, working to try to ensure emissions-intensive industries - such as aluminium, steel, oil and gas - have a viable future.

The Sydney talkfest comes a week after Climate Change Minister Penny Wong released a discussion paper on emissions trading - but failed to outline what the expected costs of carbon trading will be.

Mr Howes and many of the chief executives attending the Sydney roundtable are concerned the Government will sell out heavy polluting industries, destroying some regional centres.

Woodside Petroleum has warned that billions of dollars in future investment will be at risk if Canberra imposes a tough pollution-cutting ETS - ahead of other countries such as China and India.

Despite this doom and gloom scenario, the AWU boss claims early analysis of Ms Wong's discussion paper had identified some positive outcomes.

"I haven't had any companies jumping up and down, saying, 'It's the end of the world, we are going to shut down tomorrow'," Mr Howes told The Daily Telegraph.

"There are a lot of people who are happy with it. I think the Government has struck the right balance - but the devil is in the detail."
Title: Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
Post by: Brocke on July 22, 2008, 09:58:29 pm
I think by next year you can correct him on the "not using the nuclear option" statement...unfortunately.

I can never understand the strange juxtaposed dual thinking of the "mainstream" sheeple. On one hand they believe that the world is chaotic and out of control with very little organization. On the other hand they claim that science and technology will move ahead with care and responsibility and the interest off all humans in mind.

 :-\
Title: Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
Post by: mr anderson on July 22, 2008, 10:11:38 pm
I think by next year you can correct him on the "not using the nuclear option" statement...unfortunately.

I can never understand the strange juxtaposed dual thinking of the "mainstream" sheeple. On one hand they believe that the world is chaotic and out of control with very little organization. On the other hand they claim that science and technology will move ahead with care and responsibility and the interest off all humans in mind.

 :-\
Perhaps you can take the baton and contact this guy...  :D

If you want I can email the full exchange over the weeks.
Title: Cut migration to cut gases
Post by: mr anderson on July 22, 2008, 10:33:24 pm
http://www.theage.com.au/environment/cut-migration-to-cut-gases-20080722-3jd0.html

Adam Morton and Michelle Grattan
July 23, 2008


A PROMINENT social scientist has called on the Federal Government to slash its migration intake as the best path to meeting its goal of cutting its greenhouse emissions in half by mid-century.

Monash University social scientist Bob Birrell says Australia has little hope of meeting its emissions target - a 60% cut by 2050 - unless it halts predicted population growth of about 10 million over the next four decades.

Writing in the journal People and Place, Dr Birrell and Ernest Healy argue Australia's inflated per capita emissions - the highest in the developed world - mean global emissions grow when it accepts migrants from lower-emitting countries. Australia emits about 26 tonnes of carbon dioxide a head. Countries that send large numbers of migrants to Australia have much lower per-head emissions: 11 in Britain, four in China, two in India.

"I don't think there is any question that moving people from Asia to Australia adds a massive additional burden to the global emissions level," Dr Birrell said yesterday. "The reason people are coming here is because they want to share our standard of living. They will buy cars, probably dirty cars."

Climate Change Minister Penny Wong said the massive cuts in emissions needed to tackle climate change would be possible only through technology breakthroughs leading to zero-emissions electricity.

And coal and power workers became the latest to apply pressure for adequate protection under an emissions trading policy, with the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union warning that the Government must avoid "mass job losses".

National secretary Dave Oliver said "Government intervention is crucial if we are to avoid mass job losses such as occurred following tariff reductions and free trade agreements in the past. This means actually having a national plan for Australian manufacturing, including investing in research and development."

The union today releases a poll of 400 members in Gippsland, NSW and Queensland, which showed strong support for action on climate change. Sixty three per cent agreed the Government should be acting even if it meant higher energy prices.
Title: Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
Post by: Brocke on July 23, 2008, 12:02:08 am
Perhaps you can take the baton and contact this guy...  :D

If you want I can email the full exchange over the weeks.

I think you have done an excellent job, way better than I could have.

This guy Steve has totally bought into Peak Oil. Five years ago he would have been called a nut. Now, it's the acceptable paradigm.

 ;)
Title: Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
Post by: KiwiClare on July 23, 2008, 12:26:09 am
Has Steve's seen the documentary that shows that free and clean energy inventions are being suppressed?  It helps to get folk thinking outside of the square, that one. 

Free Energy: The Race to Zero Point
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7365305906535911834

I heard that a man who had worked for Shell for over 2 decades, was taken to a room full of suppressed inventions at the Shell HQ in Holland.

Water Powered Car
http://waterpoweredcar.com/


Title: Re: Don’t ask Jesus, but Al instead
Post by: KiwiClare on July 23, 2008, 01:42:43 am
I love it -  :D  ;D  and in case anyone forgot he was Bill Clinton's buddy - have you seen The Clinton Chronicles? Make sure you do - it will make your toes curl. The level of criminality evinced by Bill Clinton would make the Mafia blush, yet Gore stood by him.

 Plus remember Al Gore is a politician, he is the son of a politician and he graduated with a BA in Government, not with a Bachelor of Science. He is duplicitous. He doesn’t practice what he preaches. When he was Vice President, he did nothing for genuine environmental problems, such as the dissemination of DU, nanotechnology and GMOs. And throughout the years he has flogged the “carbon polluters,” he and his family have been aiding and profiting from an oil company on a grand scale. Gore’s political influence has enabled the Occidental Petroleum Company, which former CEO, Armand Hammer said had Gore’s father in his back pocket, to acquire the oil-drilling rights over 47,000 acres of the Elk Hills reserve in California. Not only did the 1997 sale represent the largest quantity of public land to be turned over to a private corporation in US history, but it also spelt doom for the Kitanemuk people’s traditional lands and encroached upon an area environmentalists said was home to three rare animal species. On the very same day as the sale, in an audacious display of hypocrisy, one which should serve as a warning to us all, Gore gave a speech on the “terrifying prospect” of global warming, a problem that he ascribed to the unchecked use of fossil fuels, such as oil!.

Al Gore: The Other Oil Candidate, (29/8/2000), by B. Mesler at http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=468
Title: Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
Post by: mr anderson on July 23, 2008, 05:01:30 am
I think you have done an excellent job, way better than I could have.

This guy Steve has totally bought into Peak Oil. Five years ago he would have been called a nut. Now, it's the acceptable paradigm.

 ;)
As Bill Hicks said *Throwing seeds* "Planting seeds...planting seeds".

Yeah it's the Climate Change Coalition so it's his job lol.



Title: Australian Gov't 'Climate Change' Advertisements
Post by: mr anderson on July 23, 2008, 10:51:50 pm
This was after PM Rudd said he would promise to stop political advertising by Government

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/where_are_rudds_climate_catastrophe_fridge_magnets/


http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/coverington/index.php/theaustralian/comments/climate_ad_paints_eery_future/

Caroline Overington Blog | July 22, 2008 | 29 Comments


THERE is a joke doing the rounds in Canberra, and it goes like this: I’ll believe in climate change when a chunk of ice falls off Penny Wong.

This is not to say that Wong is icy, per se, but the coolness with which she approaches the end of the world is somewhat unnerving. But then, so too is the Rudd Government’s new climate change commercial.

First up, let’s say the commercial looks just like the British climate change ads, launched in 2006.

They had solar panels, wind farms, smoke stacks, barren earth, dry riverbeds … and deer. Ours have solar panels, wind farms, smoke stacks, barren earth, dry riverbeds … and sheep.

Their deer run, startled, across the landscape. Our sheep stand there, looking gormless.

Our commercial also has a naked baby. It doesn’t explode into flames or blister under the reddening sun or anything, so one assumes it’s part of the ongoing Australian series: our children, nude for your pleasure.

Anyway, what the ad doesn’t tell the viewers is what they really need to know, which is: what is the Rudd Government’s emissions trading scheme, exactly? And how much will it cost me, as a citizen, or us, as shareholders in business?

There may be a reason they’re not saying, of course. They may have no idea.

Still, one good thing has come out of it. There was a rumour that Cate Blanchett was going to narrate the ads, but since when is Ms Blanchett an authority on climate change? Let’s be sensible, and wait to hear what Angelina Jolie has to say.

WHAT DO YOU THINK?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLDsF1YVQ38
Title: Aus Opposition Leader doubts climate change?
Post by: mr anderson on July 23, 2008, 11:09:09 pm
“I see there is an emerging body of scientific opinion which questions the role of carbon in all of this, but I’m strongly of the view that we give the planet the benefit of the doubt”. - Dr. Brendan Nelson

http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/yoursay/index.php/theaustralian/comments/leader_looking_muddled/

[email protected] I suggest emailing him urging him to watch Global Warming or Global Governance.
Title: UK: Limit families to two children 'to combat climate change'
Post by: Optimus on July 25, 2008, 05:11:40 pm
Limit families to two children 'to combat climate change'
GPs should tell parents not to have more than two children to help in the battle against climate change, according to doctors.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2454215/Limit-families-to-two-children-to-combat-climate-change.html
By Rebecca Smith, Medical Editor
Last Updated: 4:28AM BST 25 Jul 2008

The world's population increases by 1.5m each week and babies born in the UK will use more greenhouse gases during their lifetime than those born in the developing world.

Two doctors, writing in the British Medical Journal, suggest that doctors should talk to their patients about climate change and encourage them to think about the consequences of having a big family.

Investing in contraception would help in the fight against climate change, they argue.

John Guillebaud, emeritus professor of family planning and reproductive health, at University College London and GP Dr Pip Hayes, from Exeter wrote: "Unplanned pregnancy, especially in teenagers, is a problem for the planet, as well as the individual concerned.

"But what about planned pregnancies? Should we now explain to UK couples who plan a family that stopping at two children, or at least having one less child than first intended, is the simplest and biggest contribution anyone can make to leaving a habitable planet for our grandchildren?

"We must not put pressure on people, but by providing information on the population and the environment, and appropriate contraception for everyone (and by their own example), doctors should help to bring family size into the arena of environmental ethics, analogous to avoiding patio heaters and high carbon cars."

They said it is not necessary to resort to the sort of draconian measures used by countries like India and China and by improving access to contraception, the number of unplanned pregnancies would be reduced.

The authors quoted examples such as Iran where the average family size reduced from 5.5 to two, the level needed to simply maintain the current population, within 15 years after a policy was introduced to teach all couples about family planning and contraception before they married.

They also pointed out that The Optimum Population Trust calculates that 'each new UK birth will be responsible for 160 times more greenhouse gas emissions . . . than a new birth in Ethiopia'.

Prof Martin Parry, co-chair, of a working group of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said: "There are lots of good reasons for having a sensible population policy but climate change is not necessarily an additional strong reason for reducing population.

"The main cause of climate change has been dirty development. What we need to do if focus on improving our standard of living by clean development and that can be done without substantial changes in population policy."

Have Your Say: Should GPs tell parents how many children they should have?
Title: Re: UK: Limit families to two children 'to combat climate change'
Post by: TruthHunter on July 25, 2008, 07:57:33 pm
What do you do if someone marries has two children then divorces and marries again? Can you deny the partner who hasn't had any children their right to have two because the other partner already has two? What about people who have lots of one night stands, some of which may not even know they have children?  How about people who never bother to get married? Do they count as a couple? What about adoption? Can you adopt more children if you already have two, especially if the adopted children come from outside the country?
Title: Re: UK: Limit families to two children 'to combat climate change'
Post by: mr anderson on July 25, 2008, 10:57:16 pm
Seriously I saw this very talking point on the Q&A website. www.abc.net.au/qanda

http://www2b.abc.net.au/tmb/Client/Message.aspx?b=114&m=6743&ps=20&dm=2

This is not an entirely original thought but we should extend the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) to include new births in excess of two per couple.

Within a year of the birth of a "qualifying" child the couple would have to surrender emission permits to a total amount that would be based on the total value of the annual per capita estimated emissions over the lifetime of that child.

To maximize economic efficiency the permits would be tradeable on the Carbon Exchange like all other permits.

I could go on but more fertile minds than mine could refine and expand on these ideas.
Title: Australian Retail Association: Show us the science on Climate Change, Wong
Post by: mr anderson on July 25, 2008, 10:58:52 pm
http://www.retail.org.au/index.php/news/Retailers_caution_against_Carbon_Pollution_Reduction_Scheme_ARA_says%3A_Show_us_the_science_Wong

Retailers caution against Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme ARA says: Show us the science Wong

Posted by: Kerrie Flanagan on Thu, 24 July 2008 13:04:44

Peak retail industry body the Australian Retailers Association (ARA) has cautioned against the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme planned to be implemented by 2010 and has called on Minister for Climate Change Penny Wong to open up broader debate about global warming and the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS).

ARA Executive Director Richard Evans said retailers are concerned about the proposed start date of the ETS.

"Before GST was introduced, it was debated going into an election and then after an election during the legislative process. The Rudd Government is calling ETS the biggest economic shift since the introduction of GST, yet they plan to legislate within 12 months and implement by 2010. It is simply too soon.

"Contrary to the discussion surrounding the introduction of GST, there has been no debate regarding the science behind the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. The Government's rhetoric and dismissive scare tactics are diluting any doubts about the impact of carbon pollution on climate change.

"Rocket scientist and climate change expert David Evans (who produced FullCAM - used by the Australian Government to calculate its land-use carbon accounts for the Kyoto Protocol) has publicly stated most of the public and key decision makers are not aware of the most basic, salient facts about the causes of global warming. He states:  ‘There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None.' (The Australian, ‘ No smoking hot spot', Friday 18 July 2008).

"The real inconvenient truth for the Rudd Government may be that science doesn't back up the theory behind ETS. We're very concerned about the costs of ETS being passed onto consumers along the entire supply chain. A very real question to ask is the likely impact of ETS on the cost of a basket of food," Evans said.

"This will significantly impact retailers who are heavy energy users, particularly when refrigeration of groceries is taken into account, but retailers have been ignored in terms of financial offsets and rebates. There is no economic modeling included in the Green Paper but retailers and consumers alike need to be asking questions about the impact of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme on grocery prices.

"There has been too much passive discussion surrounding ETS and not enough questioning. This is the biggest economic shift since GST and it is time for all Australians to roll their sleeves up and get involved in this debate rather than just accept the current dismissive ideological narrative," Evans said.

The Australian Retailers Association (ARA) is the peak industry body in Australia's $292 billion retail sector which employs over 1.2 million people. As an incorporated employer body under the Workplace Relations Act and with a range of member services including business consulting, policy development, advocacy and education, the ARA supports and represents over 5000 members throughout Australia. Visit www.retail.org.au or call 1300 368 041.
Title: Re: Australian Retail Association: Show us the science on Climate Change, Wong
Post by: KiwiClare on July 26, 2008, 06:57:45 am
There's been no debate around the issue of climate change because everyone is supposed to have been too brainwash to be able to think  ::)

The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.
H. L. Mencken
Title: Re: Australian Gov't 'Climate Change' Advertisements
Post by: KiwiClare on July 26, 2008, 07:09:49 am
That ad is bollocks.  Al Gore would love it.
 It states that addressing the issue of "climate change" will help the economy.  How will paying carbon taxes help the economy?
And I don't know why the ad says "think" throughout most of it...they don't want people to think, they want them to accept what they are told. As Stephen Leacock stated: "Advertising may be described as the science of arresting the human intelligence long enough to get money from it."
Title: Re: Australian Gov't 'Climate Change' Advertisements
Post by: GoingEtheric on July 26, 2008, 07:20:25 am
Think, think , think... Subliminal use, for sure.
Sounds like the same british PR firm, mate.
Title: Re: Aus Opposition Leader doubts climate change?
Post by: KiwiClare on July 26, 2008, 07:44:48 am
Quote
[email protected] I suggest emailing him urging him to watch Global Warming or Global Governance.

And Endgame?
Title: Re: Aus Opposition Leader doubts climate change?
Post by: mr anderson on July 26, 2008, 08:10:15 am
And Endgame?
Starting off slow  :D
Title: Re: Aus Opposition Leader doubts climate change?
Post by: la Resistance on July 26, 2008, 02:43:04 pm
Oh please do. Something about Brendan Nelson interests me; especially the fact that the News media seem to be so rough on him (why!?).
Title: Re: Aus Opposition Leader doubts climate change?
Post by: mr anderson on July 26, 2008, 10:04:54 pm
Oh please do. Something about Brendan Nelson interests me; especially the fact that the News media seem to be so rough on him (why!?).
I never have found that out. Just the cult of personality Kevin Rudd has, but I've heard that some Labor supporters are already wising up; 7 months into a 3 year term. Who knows what the next 2 years will bring with Iran a few months away.

It's almost identical with Obama, he's popular so naturally all the popularity will drain from McCain.
Title: Re: Aus Opposition Leader doubts climate change?
Post by: la Resistance on July 27, 2008, 12:12:55 am
I never have found that out. Just the cult of personality Kevin Rudd has, but I've heard that some Labor supporters are already wising up; 7 months into a 3 year term. Who knows what the next 2 years will bring with Iran a few months away.

It's almost identical with Obama, he's popular so naturally all the popularity will drain from McCain.

Funny that they're already leery of Kevin, isn't it? I think it's great that we had the change-up in the Liberal Party, I had had it up to my eyes with Hoplophobe Howard; and Costello is a bitter dweeb. Doctor Nelson intrigues me...

...I wonder if we can show him what happened with Ron Paul? I'm thinking, that medical doctor photo of Paul with the baby, could inspire Nelson... If he wised up to what the world's undercurrents are, he could deliver democracy in Australia and be very dangerous. Perhaps that's why the media don't trust him?

Besides that, if he is ostracized, he will be cynical of the media anyway, and hopefully open to alternatives... One can hope... I should write an e-mail.


...with Iran a few months away, there is no way I am going anywhere near the Reserves - because I'm pretty sure a land-war involving Russia could incite a national defense emergency.
Title: Re: Aus Opposition Leader doubts climate change?
Post by: mr anderson on July 27, 2008, 12:21:35 am
Funny that they're already leery of Kevin, isn't it? I think it's great that we had the change-up in the Liberal Party, I had had it up to my eyes with Hoplophobe Howard; and Costello is a bitter dweeb. Doctor Nelson intrigues me...

...I wonder if we can show him what happened with Ron Paul? I'm thinking, that medical doctor photo of Paul with the baby, could inspire Nelson... If he wised up to what the world's undercurrents are, he could deliver democracy in Australia and be very dangerous. Perhaps that's why the media don't trust him?

Besides that, if he is ostracized, he will be cynical of the media anyway, and hopefully open to alternatives... One can hope... I should write an e-mail.


...with Iran a few months away, there is no way I am going anywhere near the Reserves - because I'm pretty sure a land-war involving Russia could incite a national defense emergency.
I doubt there'd be a draft BUT remember the Anzus Treaty.

Article IV

Each Party recognizes that an armed attack in the Pacific Area on any of the Parties would be dangerous to its own peace and safety and declares that it would act to meet the common danger in accordance with its constitutional processes.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall be immediately reported to the Security Council of the United Nations. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.

Article V

For the purpose of Article IV, an armed attack on any of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack on the metropolitan territory of any of the Parties, or on the island territories under its jurisdiction in the Pacific or on its armed forces, public vessels or aircraft in the Pacific.

If there is a draft run to a neighbouring pacific island or Central Australia in regional towns.

(http://www.intute.ac.uk/sciences/worldguide/maps2/817_a.jpg)
Title: Seven graphs to embarrass a warming professor
Post by: mr anderson on July 27, 2008, 10:18:16 pm
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/vvvv/
Title: Rudd slammed for getting climate change 'all wrong'
Post by: mr anderson on July 28, 2008, 01:00:41 am
http://www.livenews.com.au/Articles/2008/07/23/Rudd_slammed_for_getting_climate_change_all_wrong

MP3 Interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LHKUIpMuSs

A former senior advisor to the Federal Government claims the Prime Minister has got it wrong on climate change.

Dr David Evans has said the decision makers and the public are unaware of the evolving research, and are still stuck in the science of 1995. He says the government is misleading the public on climate change, giving false facts on global warming.

Dr Evans has told 2GB’s Jason Morrison they're basing all their climate change policies on data that's years out of date.

“Since 1990 western governments have spent about $50 billion in research and associated sort of stuff, looking for the causes of climate change, looking for any evidence.

“The only thing we ever found was the old ice core data but that has been reversed by the new ice course. What we found instead was the evidence that carbon emissions definitely do not cause the current global warming.”

Dr Evans has slammed Penny Wong, saying her argument that the hottest years on record all occurred in the last 13 years, is incorrect. He also questioned her lack of evidence to prove carbon emissions cause climate change.

Meanwhile, Labor’s multi-million dollar advertising campaign on climate change has been slammed again, with Brendan Nelson saying it’s fluffy and doesn't look at the global picture.

The Rudd government has launched a campaign to sell its emissions trading scheme with ads that show the dangers of climate change through images of chimneys and parched earth.

The opposition leader says he agrees there's a need to educate Australians over the economics of climate change and the emissions trading scheme, but says the campaign must include the fact there's also damage done by other nations, and that Australia can't go it alone.
Title: Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
Post by: Brocke on July 28, 2008, 07:12:40 am

OMG the disinfo and propaganda. No wonder people believe it!



The human face of climate change (Global Humanitarian Forum)
28 Jul 2008
Source: IFRC

VIDEO: The human face of climate change
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OruIaPiFFHc

Reuters and AlertNet are not responsible for the content of this article or for any external internet sites. The views expressed are the author's alone.

This video, produced by the Red Cross, the Global Humanitarian Forum and dev.tv, gives a direct insight into the impact of climate change on people's lives around the world.

There are interviews with farmers, disaster survivors, aid volunteers, officials and children from Bangladesh, the Bahamas, Bolivia, Britain, Malawi and the Maldives.

A schoolgirl in the Bahamas explains why she's decided to learn to swim, a Bangladeshi Red Crescent volunteer tells how people were killed by Cyclone Sidr despite his efforts to warn them, and a park ranger in La Paz says unpredictable weather has made farming coca more attractive than coffee.

http://www.alertnet.org/thefacts/reliefresources/121724475680.htm
Title: Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
Post by: Brocke on July 28, 2008, 07:25:57 am
Women more worried about climate change than men: poll

A new poll shows women are more worried than men about climate change and they're more anti-coal.

The poll comissioned by Greenpeace shows 40 per cent of women think Australia's coal exports should be cut compared to 27 per cent of men.

The burning of coal to generate electricity is considered a key driver of climate change and the largest source of Australia's greenhouse gas emissions.

Greenpeace campaigner Simon Roz says it's contradictory and immoral for Prime Minister Kevin Rudd to be expanding Australia's export coal industry while talking about urgent action on climate change.

http://www.livenews.com.au/Articles/2008/07/28/Women_more_worried_about_climate_change_than_men_poll
Title: Exaggerators: IPCC accused by its own
Post by: mr anderson on July 29, 2008, 09:27:58 am
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/exaggerators_ipcc_accused_by_its_own/

Andrew Bolt
Wednesday, July 30, 2008 at 12:03am


IPCC external reviewer Dr Madhav Khandekar says the UN body has exaggerated the costs of global warming:

    Using unpublished work to bolster claims of escalating economic costs while ignoring peer reviewed studies which document otherwise is an unacceptable and unscientific practice…

    The exaggerated claim of GW impacts by the IPCC has led to a distortion of the reality of climate change and its future impact. The earth’s climate has changed and is changing continuously, a fact accepted by most climate scientists on both sides of the present debate. Is the present climate change deleterious to human societies? Are there beneficial aspects of climate change that have been overlooked? Do adverse impacts outweigh beneficial impacts? We do not have all the answers yet. There is a definite need to carefully analyze climate change impact on world-wide human societies. The IPCC assessment is far from objective and needs to be critically re-assessed.

The full paper, kindly sent to me by Dr Khandekar, a former research scientist with Environment Canada who holds a PhD in meteorology and has worked in the fields of climatology, is below:

    MULTI-SCIENCE PUBLISHING CO. LTD.
    5 Wates Way, Brentwood, Essex CM15 9TB, United Kingdom
    Reprinted from
    ENERGY &
    ENVIRONMENT
    VOLUME 19 No. 5 2008

    HAS THE IPCC EXAGGERATED ADVERSE IMPACT
    OF GLOBAL WARMING ON HUMAN SOCIETIES?
    by
    Madhav L Khandekar

    HAS THE IPCC EXAGGERATED ADVERSE IMPACT
    OF GLOBAL WARMING ON HUMAN SOCIETIES?

    Madhav L Khandekar1
    Environmental Consultant Unionville Ontario CANADA

    1. INTRODUCTION
    Has the IPCC exaggerated adverse impact of Global Warming on human societies?
    Yes, Certainly! Let me explain: While reviewing the IPCC WGII (Working Group
    II) Chapter “Assessment of observed changes and responses in natural and managed
    systems” (Chpt.1, WGII IPCC, 2007) as an external reviewer, I felt time and time
    again that there were areas where the chapter authors highlighted adverse impact of
    GW (Global Warming) on human societies, while downplaying possible beneficial
    impacts. The IPCC authors referred to several publications which projected adverse
    impacts while ignoring many excellent studies which have questioned these
    projections. Throughout the text of this important chapter of WGII, there were many
    instances where adverse impact was highlighted or exaggerated, while possible
    beneficial impacts were totally ignored. Further, IPCC authors while assessing
    observed changes in natural systems chose to highlight only those changes which
    support the GW hypothesis while completely ignoring other observed changes which
    did not conform to the human-induced GW hypothesis and change. Such cherrypicking
    of observed climate change to bolster claims of human-caused GW and
    climate change is disingenuous and does not help understand the real cause of how and
    why the earth’s climate has changed in historical and geological times.
    A detailed reading of the Chapter left me with an impression that the deleterious
    impact of GW on human societies was so imminent and overwhelming that unless
    something is done right away (to curb the warming), human societies world over are
    about to perish!

    The following section provides selected examples (from Ch 1 WGII) of
    exaggerated claims made by the IPCC authors:

    713
    1Dr Madhav L Khandekar is a former Research Scientist from Environment Canada and is presently on the
    editorial board of the Journal Natural Hazards ( Kluwer, Netherlands). Khandekar has been in the fields of
    weather & climate for over fifty years and has published over 120 papers, reports, book reviews etc. While
    at Environment Canada, Khandekar wrote a monograph on ocean surface wave analysis and modeling which
    has been published by Springer-Verlag in 1989. Khandekar is an External Reviewer for the IPCC 2007
    Climate Change Documents.

    Address for correspondence: 52 Montrose Crescent, Unionville, Ontario, Canada, L3R 7Z5:
    [email protected]

    714 Energy & Environment · Vol. 19, No. 5, 2008

    2. SELECTED EXAMPLES
    1. Executive Summary: Here the GW impacts are listed under several
    categories, in each a deleterious impact is prominently spelled out. Examples:
    increasing droughts and flash floods, widespread coastal erosion, cryospheric
    changes and resulting glacial floods, increased run-off in snow & glacial
    basins, lower crop yields due to warming with an example for the Sahel region
    (Africa) due to reduction in decadal scale precipitation, impact on human
    health (cholera etc) related to El Nino-Southern Oscillation incidences,
    increased vector-borne diseases and some water-borne diseases, increasing
    global catastrophes and significant increases in the values of exposure at risk.
    2. Observed Changes in systems & Sectors: Here examples given are:
    cryospheric reduction world-wide and rapid glacier melts in South America,
    escalating sea-level rise, the European heat wave of summer 2003, increase in
    world-wide drought areas and possibly in flood areas as well, changes in
    coastal processes due to escalating sea-level rise.

    3. Terrestrial & Biological Systems: changes in phenology (seasonal activities
    of animals and plants) and their northward migration in Europe.

    4. Agriculture & Forestry: The overall discussion emphasizes reduction in
    crops and yields due to warming with specific example of Sahel region;
    increased risk of forest fire activity with increasing temperature.

    5. Human Health: Here an increased possibility of outbreak of malaria with
    examples from East Africa ( Kenya) and South Asia, water-borne disease like
    cholera in South Asia and other ENSO (El Nino-Southern Oscillation) related
    health impacts in Asia are highlighted.

    6. Disasters & Hazards: A general theme here is “ increase in catastrophic
    events like floods, droughts, heat waves etc and related economic losses
    worldwide which are all directly related to warming of the earth’s surface
    temperature’. As supporting evidence, a couple of unpublished documents are
    cited, while several published studies refuting such increases are ignored.

    3. A REALITY CHECK WITH OBSERVATIONS
    AND PEER-REVIEWED STUDIES

    It is imperative to analyze various claims made above in the context of the reality of
    climate as it continues to evolve in different regions of the earth. It is also important
    to carefully assess all available literature and observed data to determine if the present
    climate does indeed follow the “Global Warming” path as projected by the IPCC
    scientists and the climate model projections.

    The Executive Summary for Chapter 1 uses terms like “increase in floods, flash
    floods etc” which are very general in nature and do not appear to have been thoroughly
    analyzed to determine if there is indeed a ‘human influence’ in such events. Several
    peer-reviewed studies published in recent literature document an increase in extreme
    weather (EW) however, a close analysis reveals that such ‘increase’ is more a
    perception than reality. In a report prepared for the Government of Alberta in western
    Canada (Khandekar 2002), I have examined typical EW events like thunderstorms,
    tornadoes, floods, droughts, heat waves for the Canadian Prairie provinces and
    concluded that none of the EW events showed any increase in recent years. I have also
    examined such EW events elsewhere (Khandekar et al, 2005) and the general
    conclusion was that these events did not show any systematic increase/decrease in
    recent years. As synthesized by Khandekar et al (2005) “the link between GW & EW
    is more a perception than reality, this perception being fostered as a result of increased
    awareness and media attention to such weather events”. Additional discussion on EW
    will be presented in a later section.

    A reality check for some of the items listed earlier is presented below:
    1. Cryospheric Reduction: Glacier retreat and advances are part of natural
    variability and not a direct consequence of GW as IPCC authors seem to imply
    in their assessment. The authors have avoided referring to many studies readily
    available in peer-reviewed literature while emphasizing studies which
    purportedly show ‘rapid’ shrinking of world-wide glaciers and associated sealevel
    rise. One of the most talked about examples is the ‘vanishing ice cap on
    Mt Kilimanjaro’ in equatorial Africa. This melting has been going on for well
    over a hundred years now as documented in a paper by Kaser et al (2004). The
    paper by Kaser et al discounts any GW impact and suggests a drastic drop in
    atmospheric moisture at the end of the 19th century and the ensuing drier
    climate as possible reasons for the declining ice cap. Ironically however, the
    authors of Ch1 did not refer to this important paper as well as several other
    papers on the glaciers in the Swiss Alps and elsewhere (e.g., Hormes et al
    2001, 2006). A few other papers suggest glacier shrinking to solar variability
    during the Holocene in particular. The issue of glacier retreat and advance is
    much more complex than what IPCC authors have presented in their simplistic
    treatment using the GW hypothesis.

    2. The European summer 2003 heat wave: The heat wave in Europe during
    June-July of 2003 was an exceptional event and received wide publicity
    because of a large number of fatalities due to dehydration and heat stress
    which affected several thousand elderly people in France and elsewhere in
    Western Europe. Although an exceptional weather event, the 2003 European
    heat wave was by no means unprecedented and was a result of a persistent
    upper-level ridge of high pressure over the Continent (see AMS Bulletin,
    June 2004). Linking the 2003 heat wave in Europe to human activity is
    unconvincing and without any merit. Such heat waves have occurred in the
    past in various parts of the earth and have been triggered by various
    reasons, most commonly due to an anomalous but not uncommon
    atmospheric flow pattern. What is of interest here is that just six months
    earlier, the winter months of December 2002 and January 2003 were
    unusually cold in many parts of North America, Europe and this unusually
    cold winter was felt even in the tropical latitudes of Vietnam and
    Bangladesh where several hundred people died of long exposure to
    significantly below normal temperatures. The winter season of 2002/03 over
    Northern Hemisphere was much more wide-spread globally than the
    Has the IPCC Exaggerated Adverse Impact of Global Warming on Human Societies? 715
    European heat wave of summer 2003. The IPCC authors highlighted the
    European heat wave as an example of human activity induced EW event,
    but completely ignored the unusually cold winter season of 2002/03. Also
    the summer (June/July/August) of 2004 was one of the coldest over most of
    North America. These and many other recent climate anomalies of cold as
    well as warm season are most certainly due to natural climate variability
    and are in no way associated with human activity.

    3. Changes in phenology: Most studies cited in this area are almost
    exclusively for Europe where considerable research efforts have documented
    changes in bird and vegetation migration in the last few years. However a
    significant lack of such studies from other regions of the world makes it
    difficult to draw any conclusion about climate change link to this
    ‘northward’ migration. The IPCC authors do not provide any explanation for
    lack of studies in other regions while concluding climate change impact on
    (global-scale) phenology.

    4. Impact on Agriculture: The IPCC authors imply a deleterious impact of GW
    warming on agriculture by providing an example of Sahel region where
    recurring droughts have reduced peanut crop yield in recent years. The IPCC
    authors completely ignore increased agriculture yields in other grain
    producing regions (India, Canada, USA, Australia) where the mean
    temperature has warmed by about 1C in the last fifty years, however grain
    yields have not declined at all. In India, improved farming and irrigation
    technology has resulted in four to five fold increases in rice and wheat yield
    since 1950 (see Selvaraju 2003). Similar increase in grain yield has been
    recorded in other grain producing countries which IPCC authors have
    completely ignored. The IPCC authors also ignore the beneficial impacts of
    increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide on world-wide forestry. Recent
    satellite data show convincingly that the world forests have been enriched due
    to increasing concentration of carbon dioxide and this has helped increase the
    “greening” of the earth’s surface.

    5. Disasters & Hazards: The IPCC continues with its theme of “increased
    catastrophes world-wide leading to increased economic losses”. The evidence
    for increased economic losses is presented using an obscure unpublished study
    (Miller et al 2006) while several peer-reviewed studies, notably by the highly
    respected US climatologist Stanley Changnon are completely ignored.
    Changnon and his associates have amply documented that the Shifting
    Economic Impacts from Weather Extremes is a Result of Societal Change, Not
    Global Warming (Chagnon 2003, Chagnon et al 2001). Using unpublished
    work to bolster claims of escalating economic costs while ignoring peerreviewed
    studies which document otherwise is an unacceptable and
    unscientific practice.

    6. Human Health: The IPCC raises the specter of malaria becoming more
    prevalent in a warmer future climate. The IPCC also refers to possible increase
    in cholera and other ENSO related health impacts in south Asia, in particular.
    Several studies by Dr Paul Reiter, an expert epidemiologist at the Pasteur
    Institute in Paris (e.g., Reiter 2001) demonstrate that the mosquito-borne
    716 Energy & Environment · Vol. 19, No. 5, 2008
    diseases like malaria and dengue fever were prevalent in Europe and elsewhere
    even during the Little Ice Age. Reiter further demonstrates that the control of
    malaria and dengue is determined by human activity, ecology and vector
    biology and there is no simple relationship to changing climate or to GW. The
    IPCC reference to cholera and other ENSO related health impacts in south
    Asia is a normal occurrence during the Asian Monsoon season and has no
    relation to GW or climate change.

    4. EXTREME WEATHER, SEA-LEVEL RISE AND OTHER ISSUES
    Extreme Weather (EW) and Sea-level Rise (SLR) are two of the most contentious
    issues in the present debate on GW impact. The IPCC Documents and climate
    models project increasing EW events and an escalating SLR as the earth’s mean
    temperature rises in future. As mentioned earlier, the EW/GW link is more a
    perception than reality, primarily due to increased media attention. Many EW events
    of the past have remained unnoticed and unreported due to lack of observing
    technology and/or due to lack of interest in these events at the time. The recent
    media hype about EW events has provided a new spin to these events as the
    harbinger of future climate! Ironically, some of the winter season EW events are
    also being linked with GW impact which neither the IPCC nor the climate models
    project as possible GW impact. The recent statement on EW put out by the WMO
    (World Meteorological Organization, Geneva) includes some winter weather
    extremes of the Southern Hemisphere (SH). Two noteworthy winter weather
    extremes from the SH this year are: 1. several centimeters of snow in Buenos Aires
    (Argentina) on July 7, 2007, followed by a shivering temperature of –22C! The last
    time it snowed in Buenos Aires was in 1918! 2. On 27 June 2007, a cold front moved
    across South Africa bringing the country’s first significant snowfall since 1981 (25
    cm in parts of the country). Many other winter weather extremes have been reported
    in recent years (see Khandekar 2003, 2004). Interestingly, none of the climate
    models offer any explanation for the increasing frequency of winter weather
    extremes in recent years.

    The SLR and its estimate for the next one hundred years has been a subject of
    several dozen studies in recent years. Many of these studies assume significant melting
    of the Arctic and Antarctic ice shelves (principally Greenland and West Antarctic ice
    sheets) during the next 50 to 100 years and this melt-down could produce an escalated
    SLR with values as high as 1 to 2 meters (or more) over the next 100 years. There are
    several uncertainties in these estimates and the possibility of significant melt-down of
    Arctic & Antarctic Ice Sheets remains far from certain. Other recent papers now seem
    to suggest that the SLR due to melting of mountain glaciers and ice caps (outside of
    Arctic & Antarctic) will only be about 5 cm over next 100 years, just half the earlier
    estimate. Another recent paper (Holgate 2007) documents that the SLR during the first
    half of the 20th century was higher than the latter half of the century, thus discounting
    any suggestion about ‘escalating SLR at present’.

    For many countries in the higher latitudes of both the Hemispheres, the present
    climate change (milder winters, reduced house-heating cost, longer agricultural
    season) can be beneficial in general. The IPCC scientists have completely missed this
    aspect of climate change.

    Has the IPCC Exaggerated Adverse Impact of Global Warming on Human Societies? 717

    5. CONCLUDING REMARKS
    The exaggerated claim of GW impacts by the IPCC has led to a distortion of the reality
    of climate change and its future impact. The earth’s climate has changed and is
    changing continuously, a fact accepted by most climate scientists on both sides of the
    present debate. Is the present climate change deleterious to human societies? Are there
    beneficial aspects of climate change that have been overlooked? Do adverse impacts
    outweigh beneficial impacts? We do not have all the answers yet.
    There is a definite need to carefully analyze climate change impact on world-wide
    human societies. The IPCC assessment is far from objective and needs to be critically
    re-assessed.

    ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
    I wish to express my sincere appreciation to Benny Peiser for encouraging me to
    prepare this article.

    REFERENCES
    AMS Bulletin 2004: Annual Climate Review 2003, p. S1–S72, Bulletin American
    Meteorological Society June 2003.
    Changnon S A et al 2000: Trends in socio-economic impacts related to weather & climate
    extremes in the USA. Bulletin, American Meteorological Society, 81, 437–442.
    Changnon S A 2003: Shifting economic impacts from weather extremes in the United States: A
    result of societal change, not global warming. Natural Hazards 29, June 2003, 273–290.
    Holgate S J 2007: On the decadal rates of sea level change during the twentieth century.
    Geophysical Research Letters, 34 L01602, doi:10.1029/2006GL028492.
    Hormes A. et al 2001: The Alps with little ice: evidence for eight Holocene phases of reduced
    glacier extent in the central Swiss Alps. The Holocene, 11, 255–265.
    Holmes A. et al 2006: A geochronological approach to understanding the role of solar activity
    on Holocene glacier length variability in the Swiss Alps. Geogra. Ann. 88A(4),
    281–294(Swedish Society for Anthropology & Geography).
    Khandekar M L 2002: Trends and changes in extreme weather events: An assessment with a
    focus on Alberta and Canadian Prairies. Report prepared for Alberta Environment (Canada),
    October 2002, ISBN 0-7785-2428-0, p.56.
    Khandekar M L 2003: Comments on WMO statement on extreme weather events. EOS, V 84,
    No. 41, 14 October 2003( FORUM).
    Khandekar M L 2004: Are climate model projections reliable enough for climate policy? Energy
    & Environment 15 521–525.
    Khandekar M L et al 2005: The global warming debate: A review of the state of science. Pure
    & Applied Geophysics 162 1557–1586.
    Miller S et al 2006: Weather related catastrophe loss trends and the impact of climate change.
    To be published ( to be circulated prior to publication) [comment: This is all the info available
    on this study. I find it incredible that the IPCC authors would use this obscure unpublished study
    718 Energy & Environment · Vol. 19, No. 5, 2008
    to bolster claims of increased economic losses while ignoring other available studies which
    refute such claim].
    Reiter Paul 2001: Climate change and mosquito-borne disease. Environmental Health
    Perspectives, 109, 141–161.
    Selvaraju R 2003: Impact of El Nino-Southern Oscillation on Indian food-grain production. Int’l
    J of Climatology 23 187–206.
    Has the IPCC Exaggerated Adverse Impact of Global Warming on Human Societies? 719
Title: Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
Post by: Biggs on July 30, 2008, 01:06:26 pm
Excellent resource on AGENDA 21 - lots of useful official references and documents etc

http://www.amerikanexpose.com/agenda21/index3.html
Title: Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
Post by: Biggs on July 30, 2008, 01:15:14 pm
Rumor Mill News Reading Room Archive

AGENDA 21 - SUSTAINABLE MEDICINE + SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT = DUTY TO DIE!!

Posted By: RayelansMailbag <Send E-Mail>
Date: Sunday, 8 April 2007, 9:29 p.m.
CCW On-Target!
Originally Inspired by Northpoint Tactical Teams (NPT)

http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi/noframes/read/102323

"If you think globalism, Agenda 21 and "community plans" only concern the environment under the noble banner of "saving the earth"... YOU COULD VERY WELL END UP "DEAD" WRONG, as in "dead as a do-do bird!"
Sustainable Medicine + Sustainable Development = Duty to Die
The UN global agenda and "Global Management System" is ALSO about the medical mafia and "sustainable medicine" under the rubric of "sustainable development", better known as

POPULATION REDUCTION.

Dr. Kavorkian was just the initial volley to condition the masses concerning "quality of life".
These qualify of life issues concern not only the "right to die"... but the requirement that you DO!
All Life Forms are Equal?

According to Sustainable Medicine and the UN Biodiversity Treaty, human beings are merely one single strand in nature’s web where all living things are equal. No person has more value than an oak tree, salmon, or long-fingered salamander.

The polar bear lives out its beautiful bearish existence catching fish for food in the Arctic. The bear never presumes to hop a plane to retire in sunny Florida where he burns expensive fossil fuel to get there, cannot fish for himself, and needs Medicare to keep his white hairs on his tough hide. But the person who lives in frigid Minnesota or northern New York, called a snowbird, arrogantly flies south to Florida to live out his long, brutish old age burdening the environment and taxing the medical budget.
No person has more value than a wolf, lion, snake, or cougar that attacks a human being simply by intrinsic animal nature. The animal that kills a person acts according to his natural animal instinct. The person who kills an animal for food or for sport acts by volitional human reason propelled by a fatal human will to dominate the ecosystem.

The cardinal principle of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development is: Human beings are…entitled to a healthy and productive life in harmony with nature. Lives not in harmony with nature are lives unworthy of life.

Healthy, fit people burden the carrying power of the earth and are eco-sustainable only with the restrained, intentionally limited technology of Sustainable Medicine. Sick people are not eco-sustainable. Human beings and their expensive, consuming, polluting civilization have a duty to die. [Excerpt from Part III, Sustainable Medicine + Sustainable Development = Duty to Die by the late Madeleine Pelner Cosman, Ph.D.]

THINK IT WON'T AFFECT YOU OR YOUR LIFE?
THINK AGAIN!
YOUR 'OX' WILL GET GORED... IT'S JUST A MATTER OF TIME!
A REAL TIME EXAMPLE... BY VACCINATION.

WHO MURDERED AFRICA.

That is NOT a question! It is a declarative statement.

WHO, the U.N. World Health Organization, MURDERED Africa with the AIDS virus. That's a provocative statement, isn't it? The made-for-TV-news suspects in this mystery, the homosexuals, the green monkey, and the Haitians were only PAWNS in this deadly attack on the non-Communist world. If you believe the government propaganda that AIDS is hard to catch then you are going to die even sooner than the rest of us! The common cold is a virus. Have you ever had a cold? How did you catch it? You really don't know, do you? If the cold virus were fatal, how many people would there be left in the world?

According to William Campbell Douglass, M.D., the WHO, in published articles, called for scientists to work with deadly agents, known as "retro viruses" made from such things as bovine leukemia virus in cows and visna virus in sheep. While these viruses are lethal to the animals, they are non-reactive in humans. "Retro virus" means that they can change the genetic composition of cells that they center. The WHO called for scientists to attempt to make a hybrid virus that would be deadly to humans by the use of these retro-viruses! "An attempt should be made to see if viruses can in fact exert selective effects on immune function. The possibility should be looked into that the immune response to the virus itself may be impaired if the infecting virus damages, more or less selectively, the cell responding to the virus."

THAT'S AIDS! What the WHO is saying in plain English is, "Let's cook up a virus that selectively destroys the T-cell system of man... an Acquired Immune Deficiency" or "AID's" for short. WHY WOULD THE WHO WANT TO DO THIS? Population control and reduction so as maintain "sustainable communities."
But what about the "green monkey?" Some of the best virologists in the world and many of those directly involved in AIDS research, such as Robert Gallo and Luc Montagnier have said the green monkey may be the culprit. You know the story: A green monkey bit a native on the ass and, bam - AIDS all over central Africa.

There is a fatal flaw here. A very strange fatal flaw. Because Gallo, Montagnier and other virologists know that the AIDS virus doesn't occur naturally in monkeys. In fact it doesn't occur naturally in any animal. AIDS started practically simultaneously in the United States, Haiti, Brazil, and Central Africa. Was the green monkey a jet pilot? According to Dr. William Douglas, examination of the gene structure of the green monkey cells proves that it is not genetically possible to transfer the AIDS virus from monkeys to man by natural means.

Because of the artificial nature of the AIDS virus, it will not easily transfer from man to man until it has become very concentrated in the body fluids through repeated injections from person to person, such as drug addicts, and through high multiple partner sexual activity such as takes place in Africa and among homosexuals. After repeated transfer it can become a "natural" infection for man, which it has. So, where did AID's come from, if not the green monkey?

Dr. Theodore Strecker's research of the literature indicates that the National Cancer Institute in COLLABORATION with the World Health Organization, MADE THE AID's VIRUS in their laboratories at Fort Detrick (now NCI), Maryland. They combined the deadly retroviruses, bovine leukemia virus and sheep visna virus, and injected them into human tissue cultures. The result was the AID's virus, the first human retrovirus known to man and now believed to be 100 percent fatal to those infected.

The green monkey is off the hook. But what about the Communists? Communists are in the process of conducting germ warfare from Fort Detrick, Maryland against the free world, especially the United States, even using foreign communist agents within the United States Army's germ warfare unit, euphemistically called the Army Infectious Disease Unit. Don't believe it? Carlton Gajusek, an NIH bigshot a Ft. Detrick admitted it in a March, 1986 article in Omni Magazine at page 106.

So, if the delivery "vehicle" was not a green monkey or a jet plane flown by a green monkey, what was? It was a smallpox vaccine and the geographical sites chosen in 1972 at the conclusion of the WHO Federation Proceedings were Uganda and other African states, Haiti, Brazil and Japan. The present and recent past of AID's epidemiology coincides with these EXACT SAME geographical areas.

There are, as a result of the laboratory experiments completed at Ft. Detrick, Maryland, upwards of 9,000 to the fourth power possible AID's viruses. There are 9,000 base pairs on the genome. So the fun has just begun. Some will cause brain rot similar to the sheep visna virus, some leukemia-like diseases from the cow virus and some that won't do anything. So the virus will be constantly changing and trying out new esoteric diseases on hapless man. The delivery vehicle: VACCINE!

This is not the first time virologists have brought disaster to man. The SV-40 virus from monkey cell cultures contaminated polio cultures. Most people in their 40's are now carrying this virus through contaminated polio vaccinations given in the early 1960's. It is known to cause brain cancer, which explains the increase in this disease following inoculation. This is the "origin" of the green monkey theory of how AID's evolved. The polio vaccine was grown on green monkey kidney cells. SIXTY-FOUR MILLION AMERICANS were vaccinated with SV-40 contaminated vaccine in the 60's. An increase in cancer of the brain, possibly multiple sclerosis, and God only knows what else is the tragic result. The delay between vaccination and the onset of cancer with this virus is as long as 20 to 30 years. 1965 plus 20 years equals 1985. GET THE PICTURE?

The final piece of the puzzle is how AIDS devastated the homosexual population in the United States. It wasn't from smallpox vaccination as in Africa because the medical community doesn't do that any more. There is no smallpox in the United States and so the vaccination was discontinued.

The AID's virus didn't exist in the United States before 1978. You can check back in any hospital and no stored blood samples can be found anywhere that exhibit the AID's virus before 1978. So what happened in 1978 and thereafter to cause AID's to burst upon the scene and devastate the homosexual segment of the population? It was the introduction of the hepatitis B vaccine which exhibits the exact same epidemiology of AID's!

A Doctor W. Schmugner, born in Poland and educated in Russia, came to this country in 1969. Schmugner's immigration o the U.S. was probably the most fateful immigration in our history. He, by unexplained process, became the head of the New York City blood bank. (How does a Russian trained doctor become head of one of the largest blood banks in the world?) Doesn't that strike you as peculiar? It was Dr. Schmugner who set-up the rules for the hepatitis B vaccine studies. Only males between the ages of 20 and 40, who were not monogamous, would be allowed to participate in this study.

The Centers For Disease Control (an oxymoron if there ever was one!) reported in 1981 that four-percent of those receiving the hepatitis B vaccine were AID's-infected. In 1984 they admitted to 60 percent. Now they refuse to give out figures at all because they don't want to admit that 100 percent of hepatitis vaccine recipients are infected with AID's!

So, where is the data on the hepatitis vaccine studies? FDA? CDC? No, the U.S. Department of Justice has it buried where you will never see it. And now you know why "attorney's" figure prominently in the creation of "Uniform" and "Model" Acts and pretended statutory provisions, to "help implement international treaties of the United States or where world uniformity would be desirable." (See: 1990/91 Reference Book, National Council of Commissioners On Uniform State Laws.) It is the attorneys, acting through their respective State Bar Associations, and operating under a different "Constitution And By-Laws", far distant from the depositories of the public records, who have promulgated, lobbied for, passed, adjudicated and ordered the implementation of these "Uniform" and "Model" Acts. That's globalism, Agenda 21, the New World Order and it's sustainable medicine paradigm. This is apparently what Robert Bork meant when he wrote: "We are governed not by law or elected representatives, but by an UNelected, UNrepresentative, UNaccountable committee of lawyers applying no will but their own." (See: The Tempting Of America, Robert H. Bork, pg. 130.)

For a complete review of the foregoing, Google search "William Campbell Douglas, MD".

Sustainable Medicine + Sustainable Development = Duty to Die (Parts I & II)
by Madeleine Pelner Cosman, Ph.D.

Summary: The late Dr. Cosman was an avid defender of freedom. She passed away in March, one year ago. As a tribute to Dr. Cosman and her work, we are publishing an unabridged version of her three part series on Sustainable Medicine.

Full Text: Part I. U.N. AGENDA 21 AND SUSTAINABLE MEDICINE

Legend, not science, states that crabs are easier to boil than frogs.

Frogs placed in a pot of hot water jump out to safety. In a cauldron of crabs, however, if one crab laboriously crawls up the pot wall from the hot water to the rim to escape, the other crabs snatch him back down so they all cook together.

Frogs are individualists who save their skins and know their minds. Crabs are egalitarian communitarians. What is good for one is good for all. Most Americans are either frogs or crabs. Frogs cherish private property, their bodies, and demand personal responsibility for medical directions and medical decisions.

Crabs cherish the state, its central control, and state medical decisions for everyone in the group. Crabs live by Hegel’s philosophy that whatever is efficient is right.

Crab world-view, crab means of analyzing reality, and crab ethics of action are the philosophical foundations of the United Nations’ Agenda 21, Chapter 6, and its Sustainable Medicine.

Sustainable Medicine is central to the concept of Sustainable Development of the world’s landmasses, air, and water.

Sustainable Development esteems the planet’s intrinsically valuable environment. In that bio-diverse environment human beings are a dangerous, capricious burden. In the Agenda 21 worldview, people, especially rich intelligent people, consume too much and they make too many of themselves. Their effects must be curbed and their numbers reduced.

Sustainable Development is a private property land grab. It is justified in the name of global equity, overcoming economic disparities, and assuring global integrity of the environment. Sustainable Medicine is a body grab. It is justified in the name of achieving global medical equity, overcoming health disparities, and assuring an enduring global environment free of too many people.

Sustainable Medicine makes decisions through visioning councils that determine what shall be done or not done to each body in its group in its native habitat. Sustainable Medicine experts do not refer to citizens in sovereign nations but to “humans” in their “settlements.”

Sustainable Medicine uses two classes of public actions to affect the largest numbers of people worldwide most efficiently. The first class of actions attacks high technology products. The method is to create a public health crisis that forces government or industry to eliminate a valuable medical or surgical technology that because of its expense and inequitable distribution makes it medically “unsustainable.” Sustainable Medicine therefore clamors to eliminate such important, life-saving and life-extending medical devices as flexible polyvinylchloride plastic tubings treated with phthalates. During the past 50 years, flexible medical tubing has revolutionized breathing machines, intravenous medicating and blood transfusing, kidney dialysis, parenteral feeding, and neonatal medicine and surgery.

Sustainable Medicine’s second class of public action attacks ideas of high technology scientific progress. The method is to revise people’s expectations for health, for medical care, and for long life “in harmony with the environment”. Sustainable Medicine devotees celebrate human death as natural, inevitable, and environmentally beneficial. Rather than a mere right to die, Sustainable Medicine inculcates a duty to die.

Sustainable Medicine is the pivot around which all other Sustainable Development revolves. Principle #1 of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (1992) states: Human beings are at the center of concerns for sustainable development. They are entitled to a healthy and productive life in harmony with nature. Few Americans know the meaning of Sustainable Medicine, or worse, the implications of healthy life in harmony with nature. However, an Internet Google search for Sustainable Medicine yielded (in May, 2005) a total of 5,850,000 English language references. Germans, English, Canadians, and Scandinavians under socialized medicine appreciate Sustainable Medicine for they daily deal with its rationing, long waiting times for care, low technology, and emphasis on medical caring, not medical curing.

Who decides what shall be done or not done to your body whether healthy, diseased, injured, or fatally ill? Sustainable Medicine uses identical protocols for human body ownership as Sustainable Development proposes for private land ownership.

PEEVE

PEEVE is a valuable acronym for remembering the basic concepts than animate Sustainable Medicine and Sustainable Development. PEEVE incorporates the infamous three “E”s of Sustainable Development: equity, economy, and environment. Sustainable
Medicine is guided by:

P = Precautionary Principle. If any risk, stop. If evidence is inconclusive, stop absolutely. If no proof, stop anyway. The prudent “Better safe than sorry” is perverted to “Safe sorrow for all!”

The pernicious Precautionary Principle destroys risk-benefit analysis. It hinders experiment and innovation. It impedes progress and requires reversion to simpler, more “natural” products. In land use, it requires removing “invasive species” and beneficial genetically manipulated seeds that could harm some plant, insect, or person. In medicine, the Precautionary Principle deprives courageous masses of people of necessary, life-sustaining medication and equipment because of potential harm to a few. The Precautionary Principle propels it proponents beyond intellectual cowardice to anti-technology, anti-progress, Luddite primitivism.

In both land use and medicine, the Precautionary Principle almost always is paired with its craven corollary, the Irreversability Principle. In landscape, the Irreversability Principle requires that rather than mine a precious resource that once extracted is irreversibly used, better save it than spend it on today’s life-sustaining necessities even if people will pay and legally own the resource. In bodyscape, the Precautionary Principle plus Irreversibility Principle withhold beneficial, aggressive, high technology diagnostics and medical therapies that might harm someone or something now or later.

E = Environment over all. Its “intrinsic value” is necessary for future generations on the globe.
Of what value to whom is never explained. Mystical inherent goodness, importance, and protection-worthy vulnerability of the environment make the environment trump all other needs of people and societies. It is better to force people to starve by insect-destroyed crops and to die of malaria than to use the pesticide DDT that potentially might harm birds, fish, polar bears, or human infant reflexes.

E = Equity demands no “disparities” among all people globally, among all people inter-generationally, and among all species of life and non-life: human, animal, plant, and inanimate rock.
Equity between current and future generations requires prudent use, no squandering, and abstaining from use of available assets. Equity among rich and poor requires no greedy group abusing the “carrying capacity” of the world’s natural resources. Species-equity is more important than equity among peoples. In the contest between preserving habitat for spotted owls, long-fingered salamanders, salmon, and fairy shrimp versus habitat and livelihoods of ranchers, loggers, and mineral miners, the “natural needs” and “value” power of animals are superior to those of people. The Sustainable Medicine documents quote the U.N. Biodiversity Treaty’s inscrutable rule: “Nature has an integral set of different values (cultural, spiritual, and material) where humans are one strand in nature’s web and all living things are considered equal. Therefore the natural way is the right way, and human activities should be molded along Nature’s rhythms.”

V = Visioning councils for stakeholders
Sustainable Medicine uses the same “visioning,” vision councils, vision language, vision consensus-building techniques, and vision incentives, bribes, prohibitions, protocols, and principles that facilitate the Sustainable Development land grabs of private property. Local Agenda 21 groups impose laws and regulations on localities that bypass votes of state legislatures and of the U.S. Congress. Depredations of the Endangered Species Act and the Environmental Protection Agency derive from international treaties, and work of non-governmental organizations such as ICLEI, the International Council on Local Environmental Initiatives.

The vision is the cluster of global community ideas. Agenda 21 outsiders impose these concepts upon local citizens and their leaders while encouraging locals to believe they themselves initiated the ideas of the vision. Regulations and restrictions inevitably follow the implanted vision in order to implement it. The implanted vision is viewed as prophecy and revelation of future global peace. Actually, the vision is a tenacious Marxist apparition from old, surly, nihilistic Fabian socialism.
The Wye River Group On Healthcare, for instance, held its National Summit at the University Club in Washington, DC, on September 23rd 2003, attended by the elite of academic medicine, pharmacology, and government including Dr. Mark McClelland, then head of the FDA, now Director of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid. The meeting topic was “Communities Shaping a Vision for America's 21st Century Health & Healthcare.” Experts answered such questions as: Why create a shared vision based on principles and values in America? How best connect community leaders with the vision and enable them to advance change? Is this the right time to spring the vision?

Wye River Group on Healthcare promotes the Sustainable Medicine vision for the future by working in 12 selected cities that have active Sustainable Development visioning groups: Albuquerque, NM, Chicago, IL, Fort Lauderdale, FL, Hanover, NH, Jackson, MS, Muncie, IN, Portland, OR, Raleigh/Durham, NC, Salt Lake City, UT, San Diego, CA, San Antonio, TX, and Spokane, WA. Wye River Group’s separate Foundation for American Health Care Leadership addresses “lack of healthcare infrastructure…health disparities… unique demands of an aging population, unrealistic public expectations, and appropriate use of burgeoning technology” that require “visionary leadership focused on a shared vision” for American health and healthcare.

E = Economic equity. High technology is too expensive and inequitably distributed. Whatever everyone cannot have, no one shall have.

Under Sustainable Development, the use of waterpower or fossil fuel for generating electricity in the Third World will pollute the environment as well as distract the native population from its indigenous culture in harmony with the environment. Wind-power is cleaner and more sustainable, even if not dependable nor adequate for modern progress. Likewise, under Sustainable Medicine, medical Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRIs) for diagnostics, and organ-transplant techniques for life-extending treatments are unsustainable. People must revise their expectations for long life and good health, and reject ever more sophisticated medicine and surgery dedicated to curing rather than to caring. We must reach a level sustainable plateau in medicine, says medical ethicist Dr. Daniel Callahan. As the natural world has its predictable cycles of birth and death, so people, especially Americans, must accept natural limits to life and reject interventions that unnaturally extend life at its beginnings, such as neonatal medicine, and at life’s ends. We must not expect progress, we must not waste, and we must not spend on futile care.

SUSTAINABLE MEDICINE DOCUMENTS

The original documents that enunciate Sustainable Medicine are astonishing in their theory and in their calls for implementation. Few physicians, surgeons, or lawyers have access to the materials that I first reviewed in August 2003. I obtained them directly from their source in Switzerland, the office of Dr. Jasmin von Schirnding, World Health Organization, Geneva.

Documents in English and French are not issued to the general public (and may not be “reviewed, abstracted, quoted, reproduced or translated, in part or in whole, without the prior written permission of WHO”). Some of these texts are available electronically from WHO: <http://www.who.int/wssd/resources/en/>.
Title: Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
Post by: Biggs on July 30, 2008, 01:15:59 pm
Here are typical titles:

1. Health in the Context of Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development: Meeting the Challenges of the 21st Century. <http://www.sustdev.org/explore/health_soc/ed3_pdfs/SDI3-3.pdf> von Schirnding, Y. (2001). Sustainable Development International.

2. Health and Sustainable Development: Key Health Trends. <http://www.who.int/mediacentre/events/HSD_Plaq_02.2_Gb_def1.pdf> WHO. (2002). (WHO/HDE/HID/02.2)

3. Making Health Central to Sustainable Development: Planning the Health Agenda for the World Summit on Sustainable Development. <http://www.who.int/mediacentre/events/HSD_Plaq_02.5_def1.pdf> Report of the WHO meeting: "Making Health Central to Sustainable Development", Oslo, Norway, 29 November - 1 December 2001. WHO. (2002). (WHO/HDE/HID/02.5)

4. Health in the Context of Sustainable Development. <http://www.who.int/mediacentre/events/HSD_Plaq_02.6_def1.pdf> Background document prepared for the WHO meeting: "Making Health Central to Sustainable Development", Oslo, Norway, 29 November - 1 December 2001. WHO. (2002). (WHO/HDE/HID02.6)

5. Health and Sustainable Development. <http://www.who.int/mediacentre/events/HSD_Plaq_02.7_def1.pdf> Summary Report. Meeting of Senior Officials and Ministers of Health, Johannesburg, South Africa, 19-22 January 2002. WHO. (2002). (WHO/HDE/HID/02.7)

6. Johannesburg Declaration on Health and Sustainable Development. <http://www.who.int/mediacentre/events/HSD_Plaq_02.8_def1.pdf> Meeting of Senior Officials and Ministers of Health, Johannesburg, South Africa, 19-22 January 2002. WHO. (2002). (WHO/HDE/HID/02.8)

7. Health and Sustainable Development: Addressing the Issues and Challenges. <http://www.who.int/mediacentre/events/HSD_Plaq_02.12.pdf> WHO Background Paper prepared for the World Summit on Sustainable Development. WHO. (2002). (WHO/HDE/HID/02.12) French version .

8. Chapter 6 of Agenda 21, on Health: <http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/agenda21/english/agenda21chapter6.htmcan>

9. The Johannesburg Plan of Implementation (the plan of action stemming from the World Summit on Sustainable Development) is available at <http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/WSSD_POI_PD/English/POIToc.htm>
Americans must learn Sustainable Medicine theory and implementation for it affects their lives and their property. Seven recurrent themes pervade the Sustainable Medicine documents.

First: Sustainable Medicine scholars who examine interrelationships between bodily health and the natural world conclude that poverty causes and exacerbates disease, and inequitable distribution of valuable land, minerals, and forests causes poverty. Therefore private property in land ownership must be eliminated. The global forest, for instance, is common heritage of all. Those who consume too much greedily “take” from the rest of humanity that has social rights to the arboreal ecosystem. Private taking from the collective is inequitable and immoral even if the over-consumers now own the property from which they benefit.

Second, private industry in the richest nations creates global health-endangering commercial pollution. Commercial filth causes illness and disease in people and burdens the limited “carrying capacity” of the environment.

Third, intellectual property rights in pharmaceuticals hinder Sustainable Medicine everywhere on the planet. Big pharma deprives the poorest nations of their “rights” to inexpensive necessary medicines for their sick citizens. The poor also require free condoms to combat AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases. Poor nations therefore should not be bound by drug patents or by copyrights. The poor require humanitarian free access to all the drugs and sex supplies they require.
Fourth, economic burdens on the poorest nations must be eliminated. Their foreign debts must be cancelled. Economic equity must be created between high income and low-income “human settlements.” Economic disparities must vanish.
Fifth, and most medically important: Sustainable Medicine must eliminate health disparities. There must be no disparities of health among peoples and no disparities of access to medicine and surgery. There shall be no health disparities country to country, so that the poor shall not have less medicine and less health than the rich. There shall be no disparities generation to generation. Those alive now must save medical resources for all generations to come. There shall be no health disparities among human species, animal species, and plant species. Health of people is central to the health of the ecosystem. Yet human health cannot exist at the expense of environmental health.

The sixth concern, therefore, is human quality of life that must be integrated with inter-species equity. The quality of life of people must not exceed the quality of life of animals, birds, fish, amphibians, trees, plants, rocks, and stones in the environment.

Finally, the United States must pay more towards sustaining Sustainable Medicine. American must accelerate payments for medicine to poor countries to reach, annually, US $22 billion by 2007.

Americans must wake up, alert and alarmed to Sustainable Medicine’s intrusions upon their liberties. Demands begin overtly for American money but conclude with covert demands for American lives. Sustainable Medicine ideas will not enhance any individual American’s life. Sustainable Medicine assuredly will promote Americans’ deaths. Agenda 21’s Sustainable Medicine powerfully attacks products of modern medical technology and ideas of modern medical progress.

Part II. ATTACKS AGAINST MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY PRODUCTS
Iron pipes and the iron lung helped patients survive polio in the 1950s. Metal tubing (and ceramic and glass tubes and pipettes) for medical devices soon were replaced by hard, rigid plastic made of polyvinylchloride (PVC). PVC pipes were dramatic improvement over metal. But because PVC originally was not flexible, PVC connectors and elbows were required to make curves and turn corners.

Few parts of the human anatomy are strictly straight or turn at 90-degree angles. Medical and surgical care that required catheters for breathing, feeding, excreting, intravenous medicating, or blood transfusion required long, painful hospital stays with patients hooked up to large, expensive machines that necessarily were constantly monitored.

But 50 years ago a brilliant softener for PVC was invented that made rigid plastic flexible. It revolutionized medicine and surgery worldwide and saved billions of lives.

Medical Plastics and Phthalates

The plastic softener called DEHP, di-ethylhexyl phthalate, suddenly created life-saving flexibility for patients who could be treated safely in hospitals, at home, at work, at a trauma site, and in an ambulance. Elegant tiny catheters now could be crafted for anatomies of premature infants to provide them the breath, food, and waste removal that enabled them to survive. Trauma patients now could survive on intravenous fluids and blood while in transit until arrival at a hospital emergency room or operating theater. Adults otherwise tied to bed or oxygen machinery now could wear nearly invisible nasal tubes connected to portable air machines and continue ambulatory, productive life.

Flexible vinyl catheters for oxygen breathing tubes, infant airways, neonatal rescue tubes, kidney dialysis, intravenous medicating, feeding tubes, and flexible plastic bags for fluids, for medication, for blood collection, blood storage, and blood transfusion have transformed medicine and surgery. Flexible plastic allows efficient outpatient care that decreases overall medical costs, diminishes need for hospital stays and medical personnel, lessens patient morbidity, and reduces patient mortality. Flexible intravenous tubings and bags improve health and well being of billions of patients worldwide. Large numbers of these patients are children.

During the half century of medical phthalate use, about 9 billion patient days of acute care use have been analyzed plus 2 billion patient days of chronic care use. These have yielded unequivocal medical benefits and no known, verifiable medical detriments. Every year more than 500 million IV bags are used in the United States to deliver blood, medication, and other essential fluids to sick and injured patients. Eighty percent of these are made of PVC treated with phthalates. Baxter International makes most of these life-saving products.

No plasticizer or plastic softener other than DEHP has ever been subjected to as much testing for toxicity and as comprehensive testing for safety. For fifty years the scientific community has known that minute amounts of phthalate leach out from PVC medical devices. But all valid scientific evidence shows that these phthalate products are harmless. They cause no adverse health effects in humans.

DEHP has been studied incessantly by the chemical industry, especially by the Chemical Manufacturers Association (CMA) Phthalate Esters Panel in the United States. Phthalates have been investigated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

When the FDA recently invited respected physicians, toxicologists, and scientists to discuss "Plasticizers: Scientific Issues in Blood Collection, Storage, and Transfusion" at a scientific forum, every expert refuted the idea that phthalates have potential negative health effects. Each participant supported the continued use of plasticized medical products.

Former U.S. Surgeon General Dr. C. Everett Koop, chairman of a blue-ribbon panel of independent scientists, concluded in his written report that phthalate esters, DEHP, used in medical devices are absolutely safe for use, and "without DEHP, a wide range of lifesaving medical devices --such as blood bags, cardiac and urinary catheters and a variety of surgical instruments and gadgets -- would lack either the flexibility, transparency, or shelf life to be of much use."

Greenpeace and Health Care Without Harm, however, claim that phthalates might damage people, might be carcinogens, and might affect the testes in infant boys exposed to the chemical. The alleged harm from phthalates is based on animal studies, apparently on rodents. The studies seem also to include unpublished findings that certain baby and adult alligators exposed to phthalates developed shrivelled penises. (Henry Lamb of Freedom 21 reported in 1994 on a similar campaign against chlorine that generalized from the alligators’ penises to genitalia of Congressmen!) No human child or adult has shown adverse effects from phthalates in the half century of testing and successful use.

Yet, Greenpeace laments, "ironically, the very medical products that sustain…children's lives also contaminate their bodies with DEHP." While no reputable medical group has provided verifiable scientific proof of phthalate dangers that Greenpeace and Health Care Without Harm claim, the Environmental Protection Administration (EPA) classes phthalates as a probable human carcinogen. The EPA states that animal studies show that DEHP can damage the heart, liver, testes and kidneys, and interfere with sperm production. California included DEHP in its Proposition 65 list of chemicals that cause birth defects or reproductive harm.
Threats Against Baxter International
Greenpeace andHealth Care Without Harm threatened manufacturers with accusation of political insensitivity to the environment, with endangering vulnerable sick children, and with ruinous class action lawsuits for potential injuries caused by their phthalate-containing products. Baxter International, one of the world’s largest suppliers of flexible medical plastics, caved in to non-scientific but politically incendiary complaints. Other manufacturers are following Baxter’s lead to use alternatives to PVC and phthalate.

Health Care Without Harm has influenced its members to stop ordering Baxter products unless Baxter conforms to the medical activist group. Threats are powerful because Health Care Without Harm consists of several hundred medical, environmental, and social action organizations that meld Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, 41 hospitals (such as Beth Israel Medical Center in New York, New England Medical Center, hospitals of Catholic Health Care West), and such diverse assemblages as the American Nurses Association, Oncology Nursing Society, American Public Health Association, Breast Cancer Fund, and Endometriosis Association.
The Precautionary Principle of possible harm is honored despite five decades of total absence of scientific proof of actual phthalate dangers and total absence of demonstrable negative effects of phthalates. The Precautionary Principle has coerced hospitals and clinics worldwide to stop using PVC intravenous tubes and bags. To escape from political pressures, medical facilities are dumping a known, safe, and effective high technology in favor of an unknown, potentially less safe, and more expensive technology. Inevitably this will lead to deaths of those who otherwise could be saved by delivery systems for medicine and blood that use plastic IV tubing and bags.
Critically ill male infants are thought more at risk than any other patients because almost all of the brilliant multiple tubings keeping them alive are flexible PVC treated with DEHP. Which would intelligent parents choose? To save their fatally ill child’s life by breathing tubes and medicine administered by phthalate-flexible intravenous tubing? Or to not treat their child because of theoretical minuscule risk of his future wrinkled penis? Most parents joyously would welcome their son alive even with mature genitals that wrinkle like an alligator’s. Life with phthalate risk is superior to death with perfect infantile genitalia. Greenpeace and Health Care Without Harm want to eliminate all risk and therefore eradicate the vulnerable ill male child from the imperfect promised land of America.
Phthalates in Commerce Attacks against phthalates extend beyond hospitals and clinics to homes and commerce. Phthalates are a family of industrial chemicals that soften almost all poly vinyl chloride (PVC) plastics. Phthalates also are solvents in cosmetics and other consumer products. People encounter DEHP and other phthalates in beauty products, PVC toys, vinyl shower curtains, car seats, even wallpaper.

Phthalate risks are described as actual not as theoretical by a tricky use of the words can damage that implies “theoretically has potential ability to harm” and also “will harm particular individuals.” HCWC maintains that phthalates can damage the liver, kidneys, lungs and reproductive system, particularly the developing testes. HCWH does not state that the effects in animal studies are not transferred to human beings. Yet HCWH has compiled a comprehensive report about the risks associated with aggregate exposure to phthalates.

HCWC claims to work with several government agencies that already have concluded that patients are likely to be exposed to potentially unsafe amounts of DEHP while receiving medical care. Therefore HCWC praises its work with health care providers and manufacturers to replace DEHP-containing products with safer, affordable alternatives. The FDA, however, correctly worries that alternatives may not be as safe and certainly not as thoroughly studied.

The Precautionary Principle likewise could eliminate any alternative to phthalate for the substitute theoretically could be potentially as toxic as phthalate could be potentially toxic. The logical result of such illogic is the possibility of prohibiting all medical and surgical excellences that currently depend on elegant flexible plastic tubing, such as cardiac catheterization, kidney dialysis, blood transfusion, and even nutrition and hydration. The Precautionary Principle is bound to increase medical costs while it shortens human lives.

The Silent Spring Effect Attacks against plastics are brilliantly orchestrated to achieve the Silent Spring Effect. DDT, the most valuable pesticide in the world, was banned in 1972 by one book and one ruling by one man. Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring falsely blamed DDT for the supposed disappearance of birds whose eggshells were said to crack from DDT, causing baby birds to die. That unscientific research led to the ruling by EPA director William Ruckelshaus that manufacture and use of DDT must stop. Ruckelshaus prohibited DDT despite 9300 pages of testimony from experts that DDT did not appreciably harm birds’ eggs and that DDT is not a human carcinogen. DDT is not mutagenic and not teratogenic, not causing birth defects, to man. (J. Gordon Edwards, J AmerPhysSurg, 03)

A half billion people--over 400 million people in Africa alone--annually die of malaria because no more effective anti-malarial than DDT has yet been discovered. Greenpeace, Health Care Without Harm, the Sierra Club, the Wilderness Society, Earth First, Rainforest Action. Beyond Pesticides, and National Resource Defense Council are among the ideological environmental organizations that forbid DDT-use in any Third World country to which they give money.

The World Bank, United States Agency of International Development (USAID), WHO, UNICEF, and the European Union withhold necessary money to any country that uses DDT. As Paul Driessen and Niger Innis demonstrate, this green activism is eco-imperialism that leads to massive black death. (Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Congress of Racial Equality and Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise, and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power, Black death, <http://www.eco-imperialism.com/>).

Kenya’s Akinye Arunga explains that “Cute indigenous lifestyles simply mean indigenous poverty, indigenous malnutrition, indigenous disease, and childhood death.” The powerful video, “Voices from Africa: Biotechnology and the subsistence farmer” (presented by Cyril Boynes, Congress of Racial Equality director of international programs at the biotechnology conference in the United Nations General Assembly hall on January 18, 2005) revealed that the same ideology that helped ban DDT is banning the lives of Africans and other subsistence societies worldwide.

([email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>)

Radical environmental activists prevent poor Africans from acquiring modern farming methods, adequate electricity, and pesticides to control diseases such as malaria. As Dr. Driessen proves, the anti-biotechnology crusade effectively creates natural population control by depriving the Third World of food and of life. While some dangerous eco-activists are guilty merely of sincere ignorance or conscientious stupidity, others practice deliberate eco-manslaughter.

The Silent Spring method that worked to obliterate DDT has been used to attack chlorine and other valuable chemicals that preserve human health. The seven-part strategy (a variation on Henry Lamb’s four-part analysis) is dazzlingly effective, melding pseudo-science, emotion, and political action to protect the vulnerable young. For DDT the critical imperiled creatures were baby birds. For phthalates, the endangered creatures are baby boys.

The seven steps usually follow this pattern:

(1) create a "scientific" study that predicts a public health disaster

(2) release the study to the media before scientists can review it

(3) generate an intense emotional public reaction

(4) develop a government-enforced solution

(5) intimidate Congress into passing it into law

(6) coerce manufacturers to stop making the product

(7) bully users to replace it or obliterate it
Health Care Without Harm and public health advocates from Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility, a faith-based North American coalition, are trying to Silent Spring all valuable plastics and eliminate them from hospitals.
Coincidentally they intend to Silent Spring plastics from homes, businesses, and world commerce.

Likewise committed to eliminating phthalates is Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR). PSR started in Boston in 1961 and continues as a group of medical practitioners who are anti-war, anti-nuclear, anti-self-defense, and anti-dangerous chemicals, especially “persistent organic pollutants”. Their aim is to end the manufacture and use of phthalates as one of the “the 12 worst toxic chemicals poisoning the earth and its inhabitants.” PSR is accustomed to successful social action, having claimed long ago that children take into their bodies a by-product of nuclear weapons testing, strontium-90. PSR clamored for the Limited Test Ban Treaty and in 1963 the end of U.S. atmospheric testing of nuclear weaponry, for which it shared the 1985 Nobel Peace Prize.
Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) does not limits its actions to speeches, essays, and scientific meetings. PCRM has close ties to the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and the Earth Liberation Front (ELF), both of which are considered domestic terrorist organizations because of their arson and physical attacks against property. Jerry Vlasek, M.D., of Los Angeles, CA., sometimes speaks for ALF. In May, 2005, ALF continued its attacks on the families of pharmaceutical executives, such as those associated with Forest Laboratories in Long Island, NY, accusing them of being “puppy killers” because of their connection with Huntingdon Life Sciences in Britain that tests medicines and household products on animals.

Members of PCRM and PSR are members of the International Society of Doctors for the Environment (ISDE) that supports the elimination of putatively toxic chemicals such as phthalates. Founded in 1990, and located in Geneva, Switzerland, ISDE is a global non-governmental organization (NGO) uniting 10,000 medical doctors, scientists, and health professionals who promote ideas on the environment, health, and toxic chemicals. Their audiences are local medical communities, government policy-makers, corporations, the World Health Organization, and the United Nations.

Healing Without Harm is the mantra of the Teleosis Institute (meaning self-realization). These health care professionals “in service of the global environment” “partner” with others for social and environmental change and who share their vision for Ecologically Sustainable Medicine (ESM). Run by a Berkeley, CA, chiropractor and homeopath, Teleosis aims for sustainable, cost effective, resource-preserving, widely available medical practices that meet “environmental challenges across the globe” and provide for “current and future needs of the global population.” Related is the visionary magazine called Symbiosis, Journal of Ecologically Sustainable Medicine.

Anti-phthalate scientists seem dedicated more to political ideology than to scientific method, more to passion for global governance than to American sovereignty, more to peace and passivity than to triumph over any enemy national, biological, or chemical.

Green power-mongers muster sanctimonious smugness to Silent Spring DDT for use in Africa because it might harm Arctic polar bears, baby birds, and young plants. The true record, however, is glisteningly clear. When South Africa ignored green ideas and used DDT, it slashed malaria by 80% in 18 months and by 93% in three years. That is how America long ago became malaria-free.

Ecuador risked green ire, used DDT, and reduced malaria incidence by 60%. (Driessen) Not far away, however, Bolivia banned DDT and malaria increased 80%. The great triumph of the anti-DDT “Roll Back Malaria” campaign, according to a recent WHO-UNICEF report, is that since inception of its work in 1998, global malaria disease and death rates increased only by 10%. Recall that half a billion African people die annually because of deprivation of DDT in their environment.

Physicians, scientists, and environmentalists who insist on Silent Springing DDT, phthalates, and other discoveries, inventions, and technologies that save human lives, but possibly could harm animals and plants, arrogantly consider all strands in the great web of life equal. Scientists, physicians, and ideologues committed to the biodiversity web ignore the 400 million radiant black human threads that each year malaria cuts short in Uganda, Ethiopia, Kenya, and other parts of Africa.

If those malaria-killed half billion people had not died but instead lived, thrived, and reproduced, the population of the globe would have vastly increased. Green power seems to favor black death.

Green power also favors white death. Eco-imperialists pay for biodiversity at high human cost. When eco-imperialists attack the products of medical progress in the chemicals and technology that affirm and extend human life, the deaths they cause are involuntary. People who die from lack of DDT or lack of phthalate-softened breathing tubes do not choose to exchange their lives to enable a polar bear or a vernal pool or a spotted owl to live. But when eco-imperialists attack the ideas of medical progress that affirm and extend human life, they expect people voluntarily to die because they accept a duty to die. That is the triumph of irrational altruism, the voluntary sacrifice of self. Altruism violates reason, individualism, language, capitalism, private property, human dignity, and human integrity.
Click here to read Part III <http://www.freedom21santacruz.net/site/article.php?sid=432>:

Attack Against Ideas of Medical Progress
March 18, 2007, 21:40:18 GMT

Sustainable Medicine + Sustainable Development = Duty to Die (Parts I & II)
http://www.freedom21santacruz.net/site/article.php?sid=425
Content © 2003 - 2006 Freedom 21 Santa Cruz <http://www.freedom21santacruz.net/site/>, All Rights Reserved.

Agenda 21 is from the UN's Rio de Jeneiro conference in 1992. It's the global contract that binds governments around the world to the UN plan for changing the ways we live, eat, earn, learn and communicate... all under the noble banner of "saving the earth." Via mind control, a dumbed down educational system to the lowest common denominator, the process of Hegelian Dialectics, and incessant media propaganda, people are being conditioned to accept its regulations which will severely limit the use of water, electricity, transportation... and even deny human access to our wilderness areas.

The 1992 Rio event was billed as the agenda for the 21st Century, thus the name "Agenda 21"... and it gathered together 179-nations. The event was called the "UN Conference On Environment And Development." Among other things, it called for a Global Biodiversity Assessment (GBA) of the state of the planet.

It was prepared by the UNEP, the United Nations Environment Programme. This GBA armed UN leaders with the "information" and "science" they needed, in order to VALIDATE their Global Management System (GMS). Its doomsday predictions were DESIGNED to excuse radical population reduction, oppressive lifestyle regulations, and a coercive return to earth-centered religions as the basis for environmental values and self-sustaining human settlements - HABITATS FOR HUMANITY.

Here's an excellent resource of info if you want to know more:
http://www.crossroad.to/text/articles.html#anchor973466 <http://www.crossroad.to/text/articles.html>
BTW, if you look around your local area, you will find an NGO (non-governmental organization) quietly working like so many termites in a wood foundation, undermining your representative form of government, promoting a "Community Plan." These community ["COMMUNE" for the collective!] plans are derived from Agenda 21 and are also covered in the materials referenced at the above website.

Here is one more excellent website that exposes this communistic plan to "DIRECT AND CONTROL ALL HUMAN AND NATURAL RESOURCES" which is the UN's stated goal: <http://sovereignty.freedom.org/>
Title: CO2 (Carbon Dioxide) What is it?
Post by: Brocke on July 30, 2008, 09:33:58 pm
Ok, this may sound sophomoric to most of us on this forum.
We all know that Carbon Dioxide is a "life" gas not a deadly killer.

I found this article while looking for references on the discovery of CO2 and it's relationship to plants and it occurred to me that I should create a thread where people can post ANY references and links that have accurate information about Carbon Dioxide.
Title: Re: CO2 (Carbon Dioxide) What is it?
Post by: Brocke on July 30, 2008, 09:34:39 pm
Carbon dioxide

Carbon dioxide was the first gas to be distinguished from ordinary air, perhaps because it is so intimately connected with the cycles of plant and animal life. When we breathe air or when we burn wood and other fuels, carbon dioxide is released; when plants store energy in the form of food, they use up carbon dioxide. Early scientists were able to observe the effects of carbon dioxide long before they knew exactly what it was.

Around 1630, Flemish scientist Jan van Helmont discovered that certain vapors differed from air, which was then thought to be a single substance or element. Van Helmont coined the term gas to describe these vapors and collected the gas given off by burning wood, calling it gas sylvestre. Today we know this gas to be carbon dioxide, and van Helmont is credited with its discovery. He also recognized that carbon dioxide was produced by the fermentation of wine and from other natural processes. Before long, other scientists began to notice similarities between the processes of breathing (respiration) and burning (combustion), both of which use up and give off carbon dioxide. For example, a candle flame will eventually be extinguished when enclosed in a jar with a limited supply of air, as will the life of a bird or small animal.

Then in 1756, Joseph Black proved that carbon dioxide, which he called fixed air, is present in the atmosphere and that it combines with other chemicals to form new compounds. Black also identified carbon dioxide in exhaled breath, determined that the gas is heavier than air, and characterized its chemical behavior as that of a weak acid. The pioneering work of van Helmont and Black soon led to the discovery of other gases by Henry Cavendish, Antoine-Laurent Lavoisier, Carl Wilhelm Scheele, and other chemists. As a result, scientists began to realize that gases must be weighed and accounted for in the analysis of chemical compounds, just like solids and liquids.

The first practical use for carbon dioxide was invented by Joseph Priestley, an English chemist, in the mid 1700s. Priestley had duplicated Black's experiments using a gas produced by fermenting grain and showed that it had the same properties as Black's fixed air, or carbon dioxide. When he dissolved the gas in water, he found that it created a refreshing drink with a slightly tart flavor. This was the first artificially carbonated water, known as soda water or seltzer. Carbon dioxide is still used today to make colas and other soft drinks. In addition to supplying bubbles and zest, the gas acts as a preservative.

The early study of carbon dioxide also gave rise to the expression to be a guinea pig, meaning to subject oneself to an experiment. In 1783, French physicist Pierre Laplace used a guinea pig to demonstrate quantitatively that oxygen from the air is used to burn carbon stored in the body and produce carbon dioxide in exhaled breath. Around the same time, chemists began drawing the connection between carbon dioxide and plant life. Like animals, plants breathe, using up oxygen and releasing carbon dioxide. But plants also have the unique ability to store energy in the form of carbohydrates, our primary source of food. This energy-storing process, called photosynthesis, is essentially the reverse of respiration. It uses up carbon dioxide and releases oxygen in a complex series of reactions that also require sunlight and chlorophyll (the green substance that gives plants their color). In the 1770s, Dutch physiologist Jan Ingen Housz established the principles of photosynthesis, which helped explain the age-old superstition that plants purify air during the day and poison it at night.

Since these early discoveries, chemists have learned much more about carbon dioxide. English chemist John Dalton guessed in 1803 that the molecule contains one carbon atom and two oxygen atoms (CO2); this was later proved to be true. The decay of all organic materials produces carbon dioxide very slowly, and the earth's atmosphere contains a small amount of the gas (about 0.033%). Spectroscopic analysis has shown that in our solar system, the planets of Venus and Mars have atmospheres very rich in carbon dioxide. The gas also exists in ocean water, where it plays a vital role in marine plant photosynthesis.

In modern life, carbon dioxide has many practical applications. For example, fire extinguishers use CO2 to control electrical and oil fires, which cannot be put out with water. Because carbon dioxide is heavier than air, it spreads into a blanket and smothers the flames. Carbon dioxide is also a very effective refrigerant. In its solid form, known as dry ice, it is used to chill perishable food during transport. Many industrial processes are also cooled by carbon dioxide, which allows faster production rates. For these commercial purposes, carbon dioxide can be obtained from either natural gas wells, fermentation of organic material, or combustion of fossil fuels.

Recently, carbon dioxide has received negative attention as a greenhouse effect gas. When it accumulates in the upper atmosphere, it traps the earth's heat, which could eventually cause global warming. Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution in the mid-1800s, factories and power plants have significantly increased the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by burning coal and other fossil fuels. This effect was first predicted by Svante August Arrhenius, a Swedish physicist, in the 1880s. Then in 1938, British physicist G. S. Callendar suggested that higher CO2 levels had caused the warmer temperatures observed in America and Europe since Arrhenius's day. Modern scientists have confirmed these views and identified other causes of increasing carbon dioxide levels, such as the clearing of the world's forests. Because trees extract CO2 from the air, their depletion has contributed to upsetting the delicate balance of gases in the atmosphere.

In very rare circumstances, carbon dioxide can endanger life. In 1986, a huge cloud of the gas exploded from Lake Nyos, a volcanic lake in northwestern Cameroon, and quickly suffocated more than 1,700 people and 8,000 animals. Scientists have attempted to control this phenomenon by slowly pumping the gas up from the bottom of the lake.

http://science.jrank.org/pages/1209/Carbon-Dioxide.html
Title: Re: CO2 (Carbon Dioxide) What is it?
Post by: KiwiClare on July 31, 2008, 03:51:25 pm
Thanks for posting that Brocke.  :) If people thought analytically and asked themselves questions like this instead of simply absorbing what they are told, I'm sure we wouldn't be in the mess we are in now.
Title: Re: CO2 (Carbon Dioxide) What is it?
Post by: doublethink on July 31, 2008, 04:27:09 pm
Not to mention, even IF CO2 was bad, the ocean, cows, volcanoes, wildfires, and plants all INDIVIDUALLY emit more CO2 than humans.

Environazi Solution, kill all cows and plants. Cover ocean, and volcanoes with some yet unknown bio-degradable, super-strong substance that will absorb the CO2 and emit happy love gas.
Title: Re: Exaggerators: IPCC accused by its own
Post by: KiwiClare on July 31, 2008, 07:13:29 pm
Another IPCC reviewer has serious concerns about the claims made by the IPCC. According to Dr Vincent Gray, a New Zealander who has worked as a reviewer for the IPCC since its inception, there is no evidence that greenhouse gas emissions are harming the climate.  He states: “A series of scientific arguments which appear to support the theory have been assembled. If examined closely, these are found to be based on unsound scientific and mathematical foundations.”

Refer: IPCC Wins the Nobel Prize of Peace, (20/10/07), by Dr V. Gray, at: http://www.nzcpr.com/guest72.htm.
Title: Christopher Monckton warns Climate Change Minister Penny Wong
Post by: mr anderson on July 31, 2008, 09:24:23 pm
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/monckton_warns_wong_youre_steering_labor_to_doom/

Andrew Bolt
Friday, August 01, 2008 at 09:16am


Christopher Monckton warns Climate Change Minister Penny Wong that the Rudd Government's mad plans to cut "carbon pollution" is a disaster built on a fallacy:

    If you introduce an emissions-trading scheme, when it transpires that the scheme and its associated economic damage had never been necessary - and it will, and sooner than you think - you and your party will be flung from office, perhaps forever.

This is Labor's New Age Khemlani moment, in fact. The full email from Lord Monckton to Wong:

    Dear Senator Wong,

    Greetings from Scotland! One of your constituents, Mr. John Cribbes, has asked me to drop you a short email about emissions trading and "global warming".

    I have recently conducted some detailed research into the mathematics behind the conclusions of the UN climate panel on the single question that matters in the climate debate - by how much will the world warm in response to adding CO2 to the atmosphere?

    My research, published in Physics and Society, a technical newsletter of the American Physical Society this month, demonstratres that the IPCC's values for the three key parameters whose product is climate sensitivity are based on only four papers - not the 2,500 that are often mentioned.

    Those four papers are unrepresentative of the literature, in which a low and harmless climate sensitivity is now the consensus. Therefore I should recommend extreme caution before any emissions-trading scheme is put in place. Such schemes will damage Australia's competitiveness, perhaps fatally; they are prone to corruption in that they incentivize over-claiming by both parties to each trade and by the regulator; they are addressing a non-problem; and, even if the problem were real (as a few largely-politicized scientists persist in maintaining), adaptation as and if necessary would be orders of magnitude cheaper than emissions trading or any other attempt at mitigating the quantities of carbon dioxide that we are (harmlessly) adding to the atmosphere.

    Therefore I strongly urge you to reconsider your support for this or any emissions-trading scheme. I have read the Australian Government's paper on the proposed scheme, and the science in it is, alas, largely nonsense.

    Politically, of course, the fatal damage that emissions trading will do to the Australian economy will greatly favour the enemies of the free West, which is why I, as an ally, have locus standi to approach you.

    Climatically, your emissions-trading scheme will not make any significant difference. There are many other environmental problems that are real: I recommend that the Australian Government should tackle those.

    As for the climate, it is a non-problem, and the correct policy approach to a non-problem is to have the courage to do nothing. Similar warnings are being sent to other legislators worldwide by those of us - now probably in the majority among the scientific community, not that one should do science by head-count - who have studied climate sensitivity and have found the UN's analysis lamentably wanting.

    The UN's predictions are already being falsified by events: global temperatures have been falling for seven years, and not one of the climate models relied upon so heavily and so unwisely by the IPCC predicted that turn of events. If you introduce an emissions-trading scheme, when it transpires that the scheme and its associated economic damage had never been necessary - and it will, and sooner than you think - you and your party will be flung from office, perhaps forever. It is, therefore, in the long-term vested interest of your party to think again.
Title: New global warming science
Post by: mr anderson on July 31, 2008, 09:30:41 pm
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2315636.htm

Dr .David Evans


On global warming, public policy is where the science was in 1998. Due to new evidence, science has since moved off in a different direction.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the UN science body on this matter, is a political body composed mainly of bureaucrats. So far it has resisted acknowledging the new evidence. But as Lord Keynes famously asked, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"

Four things have changed since 1998.

First, the new ice cores shows that in the past six global warmings over the past half a million years, the temperature rises occurred on average 800 years before the accompanying rise in atmospheric carbon. Which says that the carbon rises could not have either started or ended the temperature rises, and that there are more powerful forces on global temperatures than atmospheric carbon levels.

This 800 year lag became known and past dispute by 2003, which is very significant. The old low-resolution ice core data, which showed carbon and temperature moving in lockstep for the last half million years, was the only supporting evidence we ever had that carbon caused temperature.

Watch Al Gore's film An Inconvenient Truth carefully. The only reason he presents for believing that carbon emissions cause global warming is the old ice core data.

But now in 2003 we found that temperature causes carbon (a warming ocean releases its dissolved carbon dioxide into the air), not the other way around as previously assumed. By the way, Gore's movie was made in 2005 so he would have known about the new ice core data - it was naughty of him not to mention it.

Second, there is now no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None. There is plenty of evidence that global warming has occurred, and theory suggests that carbon emissions should raise temperatures (though by how much is hotly disputed), but there are no observations by anyone that implicate carbon emissions as a significant cause of the recent global warming.

The world has spent $50 billion on global warming since 1990, and we have not found any actual evidence that carbon emissions cause global warming. Evidence consists of observations made by someone at some time that support the idea that carbon emissions cause global warming.

Computer models and theoretical calculations are not evidence, they are just theory. Comparisons of model outputs to observed results are not evidence because they cannot prove that the model is always right, only that it was right in some instances.

Third, the satellites that measure the world's temperature all say that the warming trend ended in 2001, that 1998 was the warmest recent year, and that the temperature has dropped about 0.6C in the last year (to the temperature of 1980).

Land based temperature readings are corrupted by the 'urban heat island' effect—urban areas encroaching on thermometer stations warm the micro-climate around the thermometer, due to vegetation changes, concrete, cars, houses. Satellite data is the only temperature data we can trust, but it only goes back to 1979.

The satellites go around 24/7, measuring the temperature across broad swathes of the world, everywhere except the poles. NASA, who report only land data and a little ocean data, report a modest warming trend since 2001 and recent cooling. The other three global temperature records use a mix of satellite and land measurements, or satellite only, and they all show no warming since 2001 and a recent cooling.

Fourth, we looked for the greenhouse signature and could not find it.

Each possible cause of global warming has a different pattern of where in the atmosphere the warming occurs first. The signature of increased greenhouse warming is a hotspot 10 km up in the atmosphere over the tropics.

The hotspot is central to our understanding - if there is no hotspot then either there is no significant increased greenhouse warming, or we don't understand greenhouse and all our climate models are rubbish anyway.

We have been measuring the atmosphere for decades using radiosondes—weather balloons with thermometers that radio back the temperature as the balloon ascends through the atmosphere. They show no hotspot whatsoever.

So we now know for sure that carbon emissions are not a significant cause of the global warming. If we had found the greenhouse signature then I would be an alarmist again instead of a skeptic.

These four changes have rendered our current debate over carbon emissions obsolete. Because the changes occurred slowly as the science on each item became more settled, there was no sudden news flash to make us sit up and take notice.

But now that we are finally coming to terms with how expensive it will be to cut back our carbon emissions, the causes of global warming have suddenly become a topic of major economic importance.

So far that debate has just consisted of a simple sleight of hand: show evidence of global warming, and while the audience is stunned at the implications, simply assert that it is due to carbon emissions. In the mind of the audience, the evidence that global warming has occurred becomes conflated with the alleged cause, and the audience hasn't noticed that the cause was merely asserted, not proved.

If there really was any evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming, don't you think we would have heard all about it ad naseum by now?

Policy makers must grapple with the possibility that global temperatures don't rise over the next decade. Deliberately wrecking the economy for the reasons that later turn out to be bogus hardly seems like a recipe for electoral success.

The onus is on those who want to change things to provide evidence for why the changes are necessary. So now is the time for the government to present any evidence they have that carbon emissions cause global warming. I think you'll find they have none, nowadays.
Title: Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
Post by: Brocke on August 02, 2008, 02:21:28 am

A great animated gif showing the changing rainfall patterns from 1900 - 1995

It doesn't show the last 13 years but up to 1995 I can't see any significant change in rainfall.

(http://www.aussurvivalist.com/images/c1900-95_mean_rainfall.gif)
Title: Climate hysterics v heretics in an age of unreason
Post by: mr anderson on August 04, 2008, 06:18:17 am
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24122117-7583,00.html

Arthur Herman | August 04, 2008


IT has been a tough year for the high priests of global warming in the US. First, NASA had to correct its earlier claim that the hottest year on record in the contiguous US had been 1998, which seemed to prove that global warming was on the march. It was actually 1934. Then it turned out the world's oceans have been growing steadily cooler, not hotter, since 2003. Meanwhile, the winter of 2007 was the coldest in the US in decades, after Al Gore warned us that we were about to see the end of winter as we know it.

In a May issue of Nature, evidence about falling global temperatures forced German climatologists to conclude that the transformation of our planet into a permanent sauna is taking a decade-long hiatus, at least. Then this month came former greenhouse gas alarmist David Evans's article in The Australian, stating that since 1999 evidence has been accumulating that man-made carbon emissions can't be the cause of global warming. By now that evidence, Evans said, has become pretty conclusive.

Yet believers in man-made global warming demand more and more money to combat climate change and still more drastic changes in our economic output and lifestyle.

The reason is that precisely that they are believers, not scientists. No amount of empirical evidence will overturn what has become not a scientific theory but a form of religion.

But what kind of religion? More than 200 years ago, Scottish Enlightenment philosopher David Hume put his finger on the process. His essay, Of Superstition and Enthusiasm, describes how even in civilised societies the mind of man is subject to certain unaccountable terrors and apprehensions when real worries are missing.

As these enemies are entirely invisible and unknown, like today's greenhouse gases, people try to propitiate them by ceremonies, observations, mortifications, sacrifices such as Earth Day and banning plastic bags and petrol-driven lawnmowers.

Fear and ignorance, Hume concludes, are the true source of superstition. They lead a blind and terrified public to embrace any practice, however absurd or frivolous, which either folly or knavery recommends.

The knaves today, of course, are the would-be high priests of the global warming orthodoxy, with former US vice-president Gore as their supreme pontiff.

As Hume points out, the stronger mixture there is of superstition, with its ambience of ignorance and fear, the higher is the authority of the priesthood.

As with the Church in the Dark Ages or the Inquisition during the Reformation, they denounce all doubters, such as Evans or Britain's Gilbert Monckton as dangerous heretics, outliers in Gore's phrase: or as willing tools of the evil enemy of a healthy planet, Big Oil.

This is not the first time, of course, that superstition has paraded itself as science, or created a priesthood masquerading as the exponents of reason. At the beginning of the previous century we had the fascination with eugenics, when the Gores of the age such as E.A. Ross and Ernst Haeckel warned that modern industrial society was headed for race suicide.

The list of otherwise sensible people who endorsed this hokum, from Winston Churchill to Oliver Wendell Holmes, is embarrassing to read today.

Then as now, money was poured into foundations, institutes, and university chairs for the study of eugenics and racial hygiene. Then as now, it was claimed that there was a scientific consensus that modern man was degenerating himself into extinction.

Doubters such as German anthropologist Rudolf Virchow were dismissed as reactionaries or even as tools of the principal contaminators of racial purity, the Jews.

And then as now, proponents of eugenics turned to the all-powerful state to avert catastrophe.

A credulous and submissive public allowed politicians to pass laws permitting forced sterilisation of the feeble-minded, racial screening for immigration quotas, minimum wage laws (which Sidney and Beatrice Webb saw as a way to force the mentally unfit out of the labor market) and other legislation which, in retrospect, set the stage for the humanitarian catastrophe to come.

In fact, when the Nazis took power in 1933, they found that the Weimar Republic had passed all the euthanasia legislation they needed to eliminate Germany's useless mouths.

The next target on their racial hygiene list would be the Jews.

Real science rests on a solid bedrock of scepticism, a scepticism not only about certain religious or cultural assumptions, for example about race, but also about itself.

It constantly re-examines what it regards as evidence, and the connections it draws between cause and effect. It never rushes to judgment, as race science did in Germany in the 1930s and as the high priests of climate change are doing today.

Politicians everywhere should be forced to take an oath similar to the Hippocratic oath taken by doctors: above all else, do no harm. The debate in Australia on this issue is rapidly building to a climax.

Before they make decisions that could trim Australia's gross domestic product by several percentage points a year and impose heavy penalties on Australians' lifestyle, Labour and Liberal alike need to re-examine the superstition of global warming.

Otherwise, the only thing it will melt away is everyone's civil liberty.

Arthur Herman is a historian and author, his most recent book is Gandhi and Churchill: The Epic Rivalry That Destroyed an Empire and Forged Our Age. He and Ayaan Hirsi Ali will speak at the Centre for Independent Studies Big Ideas Forum tonight at Sydney Opera House on the Ideas of the Enlightenment.
Title: Re: Climate hysterics v heretics in an age of unreason
Post by: Celebrome on August 04, 2008, 07:13:14 am
Here in montreal they just said that the weather were having is totaly normal and that its the proof of global warming. 95% of the regions in canada had there all time record of rain fall beaten. In montreal the record was 93millimeter and we had 113mm.  Plus we havent had any period of 35.C and +  of 3days in a row wich in french is called Canicule ( i dont know the translation in english sorry ). We had an 3 day that we had 30-32.C this summer  and we usualy get 3 week were whe have temperature between 30-40.c and we didnt have thoses 2-3 week this years. We had weather around 20-27 all summer long wich is below the season normal. This week first week of august where usualy we have nice weather of around 28-35.c   there telling us that were gona have around 20-24.C. WHERE THE f**k IS GLOBAL WARMING HEN??????????????????????????? All i see is weather colder then usual.
Title: Re: Climate hysterics v heretics in an age of unreason
Post by: mr anderson on August 04, 2008, 07:29:26 am
Here in montreal they just said that the weather were having is totaly normal and that its the proof of global warming. 95% of the regions in canada had there all time record of rain fall beaten. In montreal the record was 93millimeter and we had 113mm.  Plus we havent had any period of 35.C and +  of 3days in a row wich in french is called Canicule ( i dont know the translation in english sorry ). We had an 3 day that we had 30-32.C this summer  and we usualy get 3 week were whe have temperature between 30-40.c and we didnt have thoses 2-3 week this years. We had weather around 20-27 all summer long wich is below the season normal. This week first week of august where usualy we have nice weather of around 28-35.c   there telling us that were gona have around 20-24.C. WHERE THE f**k IS GLOBAL WARMING HEN??????????????????????????? All i see is weather colder then usual.
Welcome.

Check out Global Warming or Global Governance: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3069943905833454241

Or torrent: http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/3807470/Global_Warming_or_Global_Governance__-_DVDrip
Title: Re: Climate hysterics v heretics in an age of unreason
Post by: Celebrome on August 04, 2008, 07:48:41 am
dont worry ive seen all thoses documentary on global warming and conspiration like this and i know that global warming is a hoax. I just think that its completely ridiculous to see  how the media keep telling us were in global warming now its happening right NOW!  when all you see outside is cold and rain and more snow. All the proof are there there global warming isnt real, most poeple i talk whit says that global warming isnt real but maybe 5-10% says im crazy and blind but when you confront them whit the truth they try to make fun of you or like one sayd to me  if you dont believe in global warming its like saying that you dont believe that the holocaust happened. LOL  That guy was a complete moron, he is pro obama and refused to see thoses document i had   about thoses 32000 scientist who signed a petition to say that global warming is a hoax. He didnt even want to see the statistic and all those info on how the weather is getting colder and colder. All he cared about was, we need to save Gaia and Al Gore is right. Funny thing is that Al gore won a nobel prize for peace and not science lolololol. How stupid is that?
( have you heard about the movie that is coming out soon ? Disaster movie  wich is going to make fun of global warming and Al gore, Just look at the title  below it they say Al gore was right. Its the same type of movie has Scary movie.)
Title: Re: Climate hysterics v heretics in an age of unreason
Post by: KiwiClare on August 04, 2008, 06:55:56 pm
The author of that article spends quite a few words on the issue of eugenics.  He seems switched on to the NWO agenda.  It is surprising to see that in the mainstream media.
Title: Re: New global warming science
Post by: KiwiClare on August 04, 2008, 07:12:05 pm
Quote
Watch Al Gore's film An Inconvenient Truth carefully. The only reason he presents for believing that carbon emissions cause global warming is the old ice core data.

And the ice core data does not support Gore's contentions.
When they showed The Great Global Warming Swindle in New Zealand a few months ago, they missed out the part that addresses this matter.  The part that shows that even the most fundamental assumption of the theory of man-made global warming – that carbon dioxide causes the temperature to get higher – is not supported by the evidence.  Contradicting Gore’s claim that, “when there is more carbon dioxide, the temperature gets warmer,” ice core data shows that as the temperature rises, the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide follows, with a lag of about 800 years.

I wonder why? Could it be that they are trying to hide something from the public who pays their wages?
Title: Climate change sceptics get science answers
Post by: mr anderson on August 05, 2008, 09:31:36 pm
http://www.adelaide.edu.au/news/news28681.html
Tuesday, 5 August 2008

A new series of free public seminars at the University of Adelaide aims to give climate changes sceptics - and other members of the community - exactly what they want: scientific answers on climate change.

The new Climate Change Q & A seminar series starts this Friday 8 August, with the Bureau of Meteorology joining forces with the University's Research Institute for Climate Change and Sustainability (RIsCCS) to answer the question: "Is the Earth really warming?"

"Each of the six seminars will raise a different commonly asked question about climate change, and it's our job as scientists to provide the answers," says the Director of RIsCCS at the University of Adelaide, Professor Barry Brook.

"This first session will look at the most basic of questions, which seems to be a major sticking point for some: how can the Earth really be warming?

"Remarks such as this get in the way of climate action, as they call into question whether there's a problem to address. For example, we might hear that surface temperature is an unreliable method of tracking temperatures, or that temperatures are actually dropping in places. We may even hear that we're heading into an ice age, or that the hottest year on record was 1934 or 1998.

"The fact that some people are asking these questions means that we, as scientists, have a responsibility to explain the science behind climate change," Professor Brook says. "Members of the public will also get to ask questions at the end of each seminar."

Further seminars in the series will ask:

Can we distinguish between natural and human-induced climate change?
Are the impacts of climate change being overstated?
Will it cost the earth to avoid climate change?

For complete details about the lecture series or to register your interest in attending, please visit: www.adelaide.edu.au/climatechange/

WHAT: Climate Change Q & A - Seminar One: Is the Earth really warming?
by Professor Barry Brook (Director, Research Institute for Climate Change and Sustainability, University of Adelaide)
and Andrew Watson (Regional Director for South Australia, Bureau of Meteorology)

WHEN: 5:30pm to 7:00pm Friday 8 August

WHERE: Lecture Theatre 102, Napier Building, North Terrace Campus, University of Adelaide

COST: Free - all are welcome
Title: Re: Climate change sceptics get science answers
Post by: KiwiClare on August 10, 2008, 07:46:46 pm
Anyone attending these kind of functions might get some ideas from this:
WeAreCHANGE Ohio confronts Al Gore
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ake4C8YhUb4
Title: 60 Minutes - Crunch Time (Climate Change questioning)
Post by: mr anderson on August 20, 2008, 04:51:23 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dq3fcPB2904 - Part I

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fP2ygTPIDiQ - Part II


Reporter: Tara Brown
Producer: Stephen Taylor


It's the story of our lives, the most crucial issue, the most controversial. The very future of planet earth. For almost 20 years, we've heard the warnings about climate change, yet so many of us know so little about it. We're told we should prepare for the worst, more floods, more storms, more droughts. And of course, it's all our fault. If we don't act now, if we don't change our way of life, the world as we know it is finished.

But is it really that bad, are we really doomed? The skeptics say no, not necessarily.

But with so much at stake can we risk it? Can we afford to sit back, do nothing and hope for the best?



Chat: Dr David Evans
Monday, August 18, 2008

60 Minutes presents a live interview with mathematician and scientist, Dr David Evans. David is here to talk to us tonight about global warming.


Interviewer: Dr Evans, thank you for joining us tonight.

Dr David Evans: Thanks for listening to me, the sceptical case has been ignored by the press till now and I think you'll find it very strong. People are finally coming to terms with it now.

BruceV asks: David, we are about to have a terrible new tax imposed on us, surely if this government is interested in the truth they will listen to you? Thank you for speaking out and for having the courage to speak the truth.

Dr David Evans: Thank you, the reason I spoke out now is because it seemed the situation got beyond stupid and our decision makers need to be reminded than the science has changed since the last 10 years. Unfortunately, the public are also unaware of the science in the last few years and I think if they were aware there would be a public outcry that these taxes do not go ahead.

finallysomesense asks: Is the IPCC still a relevant body, or have the political considerations become such that the science is lost in the fallout for these 'scientists'?

Dr David Evans: The IPCC is a UN bureaucracy. Less than half of the 2500 involved are scientists, most are bureaucrats. The IPCC is reluctant to consider causes of global warming other than human ones. The fact that temperatures haven't risen since 2001 means that their politics are becoming untenable.

Aussie asks: Shouldn't the government be paying incentives to companies who produce a cleaner environment rather than charging them and allowing them to keep polluting it, anyway you put it we the taxpayer still pay.

Dr David Evans: There are many forms of pollution, CO2 is not pollution. CO2 is beneficial to plants and doesn't seem to have a significant effect on the earth's temperature. I agree that the government should be regulating the earth's pollution but it's a different question that global warming.

Christopher asks: Dr Evens would you say that the amount of CO 2 released into our atmosphere every day has no effect on the world climate?

Dr David Evans: Almost no effect. There is no evidence that it has a significant effect. The case that most scientists consider is what happens if CO levels double from a pre industrial level of 280mmp to 580mmp, which we will get to in 2100AD. Theoretical estimates range from 1/4 degree to 6 degrees. The most creditable theoretical calculation was preformed by a Hungarian mathematician at NASA named Miskolczi. He took everything he could into account and updated the NASA calculation and his answer was 1/4 degree. NASA didn't like the answer and made him feel uncomfortable and he resigned shortly after. In any case, the best theory and the actual evidence suggest the influence of CO2 to the earth is small to negligible.

Buzzard asks: Based on your calculations, how much further will sea levels have risen, especially around Melbourne within the next 10 years?

Dr David Evans: I don't know, sorry, I'm not involved with sea level calculations.

BruceV asks: Is it true that if there were high levels of Co2 in there atmosphere the sky would be a red colour?

Dr David Evans: No, I don't think so. CO2 is colourless. In commercial greenhouses the CO2 level are pumped up quite high and it's still colourless.

Zeus asks: Has the decrease in temperature over the last 7 years or so corresponded with a decrease in sun spot activity?

Dr David Evans: The last 7 years has seen a period of flat temperatures with a small downward bias. It's too early to say temperatures are dropping even in the last year they have dropped a little. We're looking here for temperature trends which typically exhibit themselves over 5 years or so, so I think it's safer to say that temperatures have levelled out since 2001. The correlation with solar activities are very interesting, bare in mind that they are only correlation and nothing has been proven. However the late appearance solar cycle 24, suggest the next 24 years or so might be a little cooler.

Hochie asks: Dr Evans, do you know of any alternative theory for the changing global average temperatures over the past millennium, or over past ages? E.g. I heard something about solar output fluctuating over time and I wondered if there is any data on that.

Dr David Evans: The sun affects the earth's temperature in two ways. Firstly, there can be changes in solar eradiation, meaning the amount of heat pumped out by the sun. People have observed slight variation over the decades. Secondly and probably more significantly, the sun effects cloud formation on earth through solar magnetic effects. High energy cosmic rays strike the earth and help create clouds. And those clouds had a cooling effect on the earth. But the sun's magnetic shields us from some of those high energy cosmic rays. So when the sun is active, the earth gets less high energy cosmic rays so there are fewer clouds and it gets warmer. The sun has been pretty active in the last few decades. This theory still hasn't been proven and is just at the stage of correlations. There are probably half a dozen likely influences on the global temperature and at this stage I don't know of any good evidence to know, which are the important ones except to say that because the signature is missing, we can pretty much rule out carbon emissions.

listener asks: Here is a question that concerns me in relation to the doom and gloom prediction. Given there is evidence that our earth has gone through this cycle over trillions of years, is it possible the observation is just that, observation, and there are no solutions?

Dr David Evans: Yes, it's quite possible that we humans have no effect on temperature. And all we're seeing is natural variation. Bear in mind that it was warmer in the medieval times 800 years ago and it was a couple of degrees cooler in the 17 hundreds when they had a mini ice age. Humanity generally flourish when it is hotter, so personally I regard a little bit of heating as a good thing.

Susie asks: Dr Evans, could you please explain what you believe to be the cause of global warming if it is not carbon emissions.

Dr David Evans: I don't know. Possible causes are solar magnetic effects (which influence cloud level and therefore the earth's temperature), ozone depletion, industrial pollution such as aerosols, changes in greenhouse gases and anything that influence the ozone layer including electromagnetic radiation. And there are quite a few others. At this stage we don't have enough evidence to know what is really causing it. However correlation with solar activities is pretty strong, so the answer probably involved the sun and the clouds.

Cid asks: Dr Evans would not enhancing electricity production be a more innovative path to thus take?

Dr David Evans: As an electrical engineer I think that electricity production is an exciting topics and I wish we had more diversity in the means of production. I encourage people to do research on solar and other renewables.

mainst asks: David....... Thank you for speaking out. The voices of reason have been swamped by Hansen, Gore & the IPCC et al recently. What are your thoughts on the current solar minimum & have you heard of any research being done on intergravitational waves and their potential effects on the forces that drive the core of our planet?

Dr David Evans: No I haven't heard anything about intergravitational waves, thank you for your kind comments. It's encouraging to see that journalists are finally paying attention to this fine issue.

observer asks: Dr Evens what are your thoughts on sun spots being the primary cause of global warming?

Dr David Evans: It's a good possibility, not proven but correlations right up till today are good. It's important to see that solar activity does not correlate with NASA GISS temperatures, because they come from land based thermometers and are corrupted by the urban land heat effects. However solar activities correlate very well with satellite temperatures right up to 2008.

true asks: I to have been wondering the truths or smoke and mirrors that governments often use to create taxes, but being a layperson and taught that our planet has had ice ages and warmed up many times what makes so different this time?

Dr David Evans: We don't know that it is any different this time. The alarmist want us to believe that our emission of CO are warming the planet and while that seems a reasonable proposition two decades ago, the evidence has changed in the last decade to indicate that is certainly not the case. We don't know what caused the recent global warming, but chances are the causes are natural.

KevinM asks: DR Evans, Thank you for being up front with this CO2 thing, We grow plants in elevated co2 atmospheres and when co2 increases the plants grow quicker which balance the co2 back to 280 ppm, this is what should happen in nature?

Dr David Evans: CO2 is good for plants. We humans have been digging CO2 out from under the desert in Saudi Arabia and efficiently distributing it across the planet. Plants need carbon to grow, in fact they need it more than water. Satellite data shows that over the last 2 decades the amount of plant biomass on the planet has increased by 6 percent. So increasing the CO2 levels is helping feed the planet. Not only is CO2 not pollution, but it is beneficial to all plants and most animals on the planet.

Bo asks: Dr Evens I believe that the planet has been and is always evolving with massive changes to the environment over many thousands of years. Why do we think as humans living for only a short time on this planet, that we can change things?

Dr David Evans: That's a philosophical and political question and I'd rather just stick to the Science questions, sorry.

seeking asks: if all things are considered is it true that any measures that we take now will not be strong enough to combat global warming.

Dr David Evans: Probably very little. We couldn't find the greenhouse signature in the last 2 decades and that tells us that increasing the amount of greenhouse gases is having very little effect on the global temperature. Even a big sustained release of methane probably won't affect the global temperature very much.

nwo asks: Dr Evens. Can you please give your opinion on studies that may suggest that the sun is actually getting hotter and attributing not only to global warming on earth but on other planets as well ?

Dr David Evans: I haven't seen any good evidence on this, but otherwise I don't know much about it.

ord asks: if all things are considered is it true that any measures that we take now will not be strong enough to combat global warming.

Dr David Evans: We don't know what causes global warming, except that we now are pretty sure that carbon emissions do not cause it. Therefore taking measures to decrease our carbon emissions won't have any significant effect.

pete asks: Dr Evans, our Prime Minister, who states that he, is no scientist, stated in the report that humans were to blame for increases in global temperature, which is wrong; as if we follow his point of view; we are only adding to a natural cycle, therefore we are not solely to blame (way to go Kevin). Do you get disheartened with peoples natural tendencies to follow what is being stated in popular press? Rather than looking at data which shows that the Earth’s temperature has differentiated over its’ biographic life, at periods being above modern temperatures.

Dr David Evans: Many of the crucial issues in global warming are pretty simple. Well within the grasp of any educated citizen such as the Prime Minister. You only need a high school education to be able to read a temperature graph, and to see that the temperatures have been flat since 2001. You only have to be vaguely aware of the debate to notice that the alarmist are offering no actually evidence, only results from computer models. These are things that any political or journalist should feel confident in doing. I urge our Prime Minister to spend a little more time investigating the issue himself instead of just relying on the advice of people's whose jobs depend on the belief that carbon emission cause global warming.

DJ asks: Dr Evans, do you believe that animals such as Polar Bears etc will really become extinct as a result of the climatic changes being experienced? What do you believe will really happen with regard to future Australian weather patterns - are we in for more severe droughts/cyclones, etc?

Dr David Evans: Australian weather patterns are dominated by the pacific decadal osolation (PDO), there are periods of about 40-50 years when El-Nino dominate and there are period of about 40 years or so when lanigo dominate. The result is that Australian's weather systems goes for about 40 years or so of drought, and then 40 years of so of floods. As far as I am aware, this pattern hasn't changed and will probably continue into the future. Satellite data since 1979 indicate that the Southern hemisphere has no existed any global warming, as it happens, global warming is a pheromone that only effects the Northern hemisphere. Global warming and weather are influence by clouds, rain and water vapour all these issues are very closely tired together. I don't think any one fully understands them yet.

mattJ asks: You mentioned that "it was warmer in medieval times", but do you accept the possibility that the medieval Warm Period may have been partly a regional phenomenon, with the extremes reflecting a redistribution of heat around the planet rather than a big overall rise in the average global temperature?

Dr David Evans: Temperature records for that period are of course very sketchy. However what evidence we do have via proxy and historical records, suggest it wasn't just Greenland that was warm, that it was spread around the planet. Exactly how much warmer is certainly open to dispute. So in summary, it is possible though unlikely.

Hunter asks: I am concerned about the environment like most people, but I believe that we should react to accurate information. I am just as concerned that how the world is reacting about global warming scares now is similar to how we all were told that the millennium bug would stop society.

Dr David Evans: Yes, it's important to get our response right. If the alarmist are correct, then we should cut down our carbon emissions of the planet with overheat. If the alarmist are wrong, it's important not to cut back our carbon emissions or we'll create wide spread poverty unnecessary. There is no real substitute, except the get the real science right.

x asks: Weather models are notoriously unreliable due to the chaotic effects present in weather systems. What degree of confidence do the computer models on CO2 hotspots provide?

Dr David Evans: The hotspot due to enhance greenhouse is a central feature of all models. If the hotspot is not there, then either carbon emissions don't cause global warming or we completely misunderstand the climate system. The hot spot is something we except for theoretical reasons, but it's very central to our understanding.

8.technical asks: OK let's say that CO2 is not a problem. But is there added greenhouse effect due to airborne pollutants or would you say that has been overstated as well? It's hard to get the 'straight dope' on these issues.

Dr David Evans: On that issue, no one I know of has the 'straight dope'. The problem of industrial emission is normally called aerosols. It's not clear at this stage if aerosols increase the temperature of maybe lower the temperature. But we do know they are having some significant effect. At the moment the IPCC think they probably increase temperature, and I'm inclined to believe them.

Interviewer: Dr Evans unfortunately we are out of time tonight, do you have any final words for those who have come to the interview?

Dr David Evans: Thanks for your attention, this issue will get sorted out because it’s an issue of science. No amount of human arguing and can affect the actual effects of global warming and it will be another 2-3 decades of research before we will probably have a definitive answer as to what causes global warming. Stay Tuned ... Dr Evan's website: www.sciencespeak.com

Interviewer: This concludes our chat with Dr David Evans, Sunday August 17, 2008.
Title: Re: 60 Minutes - Crunch Time (Climate Change questioning)
Post by: KiwiClare on August 20, 2008, 07:35:41 pm
Thanks for posting this Matt.  David Evans is the chap who used to believe in global warming theory, but then came to his wits and realized it was a scam, didn't he.
 I'm going to download it now.
Title: Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
Post by: Brocke on August 27, 2008, 05:22:28 am
San Francisco Ponders: Could Bike Lanes Cause Pollution?

City Backpedals on a Cycling Plan After Mr. Anderson Goes to Court


By PHRED DVORAK
August 20, 2008; Page A1

SAN FRANCISCO -- New York is wooing cyclists with chartreuse bike lanes. Chicago is spending nearly $1 million for double-decker bicycle parking.

San Francisco can't even install new bike racks.

Blame Rob Anderson. At a time when most other cities are encouraging biking as green transport, the 65-year-old local gadfly has stymied cycling-support efforts here by arguing that urban bicycle boosting could actually be bad for the environment. That's put the brakes on everything from new bike lanes to bike racks while the city works on an environmental-impact report.

Cyclists say the irony is killing them -- literally. At least four bikers have died and hundreds more have been injured in San Francisco since mid-2006, when Mr. Anderson helped convince a judge to halt implementation of a massive pro-bike plan.(It's unclear whether the plan's execution could have prevented the accidents.) In the past year, bike advocates have demonstrated outside City Hall, pushed the city to challenge the plan's freeze in court and proposed putting the whole mess to local voters. Nothing worked.

"We're the ones keeping emissions from the air!" shouted Leah Shahum, executive director of the 10,000-strong San Francisco Bicycle Coalition, at a July 21 protest.
WSJ's Phred Dvorak reports from a Critical Mass event in San Francisco, a monthly bike ride that draws hundreds of cyclists. She talks with bikers as well as disgruntled drivers.

Mr. Anderson disagrees. Cars always will vastly outnumber bikes, he reasons, so allotting more street space to cyclists could cause more traffic jams, more idling and more pollution. Mr. Anderson says the city has been blinded by political correctness. It's an "attempt by the anti-car fanatics to screw up our traffic on behalf of the bicycle fantasy," he wrote in his blog this month.

Mr. Anderson's fight underscores the tensions that can circulate as urban cycling, bolstered by environmental awareness and high gasoline prices, takes off across the U.S. New York City, where the number of commuter cyclists is estimated to have jumped 77% between 2000 and 2007, is adding new bike lanes despite some motorist backlash. Chicago recently elected to kick cars off stretches of big roads on two Sundays this year.

Famously progressive, San Francisco is known for being one of the most pro-bike cities in the U.S., offering more than 200 miles of lanes and requiring that big garages offer bike parking. It is also known for characters like Mr. Anderson.

A tall, serious man with a grizzled gray beard, Mr. Anderson spent 13 months in a California federal prison for resisting the draft during the Vietnam War. He later penned pieces for the Anderson Valley Advertiser, a muckraking Northern California weekly owned by his brother that's known for its savage prose and pranks.

Running for Office

In 1995, Mr. Anderson moved to San Francisco. Working odd jobs, he twice ran for a seat on the city's Board of Supervisors, pledging to tackle homelessness and the city's "tacit PC ideology." He got 332 of 34,955 votes in 2004, his second and best try.

That year Mr. Anderson, who mostly lives off a small government stipend he receives for caring for his 92-year-old mother, also started a blog, digging into local politics with gusto. One of his first targets: the city's most ambitious bike plan to date.

Unveiled in 2004, the 527-page document was filled with maps, traffic analyses and a list of roughly 240 locations where the city hoped to make cycling easier. The plan called for more bike lanes, better bike parking and a boost in cycling to 10% of the city's total trips by 2010.

The plan irked Mr. Anderson. Having not owned a car in 20 years, he says he has had several near misses with bikers roaring through crosswalks and red lights, and sees bicycles as dangerous and impractical for car-centric American cities. Mr. Anderson was also bugged by what he describes as the holier-than-thou attitude typified by Critical Mass, a monthly gathering of bikers who coast through the city, snarling traffic for hours. "The behavior of the bike people on city streets is always annoying," he says. "This 'Get out of my way, I'm not burning fossil fuels.' "

Going to Court

In February 2005, Mr. Anderson showed up at a planning commission meeting. If San Francisco was going to take away parking spaces and car lanes, he argued, it had better do an environmental-impact review first. When the Board of Supervisors voted to skip the review, Mr. Anderson sued in state court, enlisting his friend Mary Miles, a former postal worker, cartoonist and Anderson Valley Advertiser colleague.

San Francisco cyclists protest bike-plan delays in front of City Hall.

Ms. Miles, who was admitted to the California bar in 2004 at age 57, proved a pugnacious litigator. She sought to kill the initial brief from San Francisco's lawyers after it exceeded the accepted length by a page. She objected when the city attorney described Mr. Anderson's advocacy group, the Coalition for Adequate Review, as CAR in their documents. (It's C-FAR.) She also convinced the court to review key planning documents over the city's objections.

Slow Pedaling

In November 2006, a California Superior Court judge rejected San Francisco's contention that it didn't need an environmental review and ordered San Francisco to stop all bike-plan activity until it completed the review.

Since then, San Francisco has pedaled very slowly. City planners say they're being extra careful with their environmental study, in hopes that Mr. Anderson and Ms. Miles won't challenge it. Planners don't expect the study will be done for another year.

Meanwhile, Mr. Anderson and Ms. Miles have teamed up to oppose a plan to put high-rises and additional housing in a nearby neighborhood. He continues to blog from his apartment in an old Victorian home. "Regardless of the obvious dangers, some people will ride bikes in San Francisco for the same reason Islamic fanatics will engage in suicide bombings -- because they are politically motivated to do so," he wrote in a May 21 post.

"In case anyone doubted that you were a wingnut, this statement pretty much sums things up!" one commenter retorted.

Mr. Anderson is running for supervisor again this November -- around the time the city will unveil the first draft of its bike-plan environmental review. He's already pondering a challenge of the review.

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB121919354756955249.html
Title: Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
Post by: Brocke on August 27, 2008, 06:48:54 pm

Pollution? Bah! It's "climate-warming greenhouse gases" that are making our oceans acidic. Who knew that carbon dioxide was so evil? I'll bet that in the next Bond film the villain threatens to release millions of tons of CO2 instead of the usual Nuclear threat.



Scientists Warn of Impending Doom for Coral Reefs

Posted on: Wednesday, 27 August 2008, 12:15 CDT

A panel of marine scientists said on Wednesday that in order to keep coral reefs from being eaten away by increasingly acidic oceans, humans need to limit the amount of climate-warming greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

The scientists authored a document called the Honolulu Declaration, for release at a U.S. conference on coral reefs in Hawaii.

"The most logical and critical action to address the impacts of ocean acidification on coral reefs is to stabilize atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration," the report warned.

The scientists said ocean acidification is another threat to corals caused by global warming, along with rising sea levels, higher sea surface temperatures and coral bleaching.

Billy Causey of the U.S. National Marine Sanctuary Program said coral reefs are a "sentinel ecosystem," a sign that the environment is changing.

"Although ocean acidification is affecting the health of our oceans, the same thing—increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere—is going to in fact be affecting terrestrial environments also," said Causey.

Marine scientists say coral reefs offer economic and environmental benefits to millions of people, including coastal protection from waves and storms and as sources of food, pharmaceuticals, jobs and revenue.

However, they are increasingly threatened by warming sea surface temperatures as well as ocean acidification.

The acidic levels of oceans are increasing because they have been absorbing some 525 billion tons of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide over the last two centuries, about one-third of all human-generated carbon dioxide for that period.

The sea water combined with carbon dioxide forms carbonic acid.

Acidification in deep ocean water far from land has been well documented in the past, but a study published this year in the journal Science found this same damaging phenomenon on the Pacific North American continental shelf from Mexico to Canada, and quite likely elsewhere around the globe.

The water became so corrosive that it started dissolving the shells and skeletons of starfish, clams and corals.

The Honolulu Declaration's top long-term recommendation is to stabilize carbon dioxide emissions. The key short-term recommendation was to nurture coral reefs that seem to have natural resilience against acidification.

Causey believes managers of protected marine areas can adopt it immediately.

The Honolulu Declaration will be presented to the United Nations and to other global, regional and national forums.

http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1535191/scientists_warn_of_impending_doom_for_coral_reefs/index.html
Title: Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
Post by: Brocke on August 29, 2008, 01:42:07 am
Weather risk hedging seen boosting global economy
Tue Aug 26, 2008 5:03pm EDT

By Gary Crosse

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Insuring against weather-related calamity in this era of global warming might seem the work of bean counters and actuaries.

But a study by WeatherBill, an Internet firm offering weather-related risk cover for individuals, as well as companies and governments, says the global economy could expand by up to $258 billion if such contracts were more widely purchased.

It calculated country rankings using three types of weighted data, including weather observations by country, national GDP by sector and weather elasticity, or sector-specific sensitivity to weather.

Among the 68 countries in the study, the U.S. economy ranks nearly last overall using those three measures, but was listed with the highest weather sensitivity in dollar terms.

"The United States' economy has a total weather sensitivity of roughly $2.5 trillion, 23 percent of the national economy," WeatherBill CEO and founder David Friedberg said. "In contrast, Bolivia has a total weather sensitivity of just over $2 billion. That's 31 percent of the Bolivian economy."

Customers large or small can create a contract and determine under what weather conditions they would like to be compensated. The contracts are purchased online to protect against weather events such as heavy rains, frost or drought.

In the United States, customers range from professional golf tour organizers to travel operators to small farmers.

Friedberg, who was formerly with Google, told Reuters the company was selling contracts to corn farmers in the Midwest, who suffered heavy flooding earlier this year.

With federal crop insurance coverage set to expire at the end of this month, "these farmers have corn on the ground and are not covered for a frost event for the rest of the season and some might have corn through late October," he said.

"We're seeing a lot of corn farmers buying coverage from us for frost from Illinois, Iowa and Minnesota."

MAKING MILLIONS

As a privately held company, WeatherBill does not issue financial statements, but the CEO said it had "made millions of dollars hedging hundreds of millions of dollars in risk."

In the report, WeatherBill says countries with more extreme variations in temperatures as well as higher extractive activity, such as farming and mining, are the most sensitive.

Brazil, the world's largest coffee and sugar producer, ranked top among the 68 economies assessed for weather-related risks while Pakistan's economy ranks the least sensitive.

The study said Brazil was 30 times more vulnerable to weather risks than Pakistan, which "means that a dollar in Brazil will be thirty times more weather-sensitive than a dollar in Pakistan," WeatherBill said.

The market for weather derivatives, as such contracts are also called, was started by now collapsed energy giant Enron about 10 years ago, Friedberg said, but never broadened much outside of the energy utility sector.

As a result, he said that WeatherBill has so far not seen any direct competition online.

"We're primarily a technology company and we've built a platform that allows us to write any sort of weather contract for any sort of business to protect against their specific risks," he said. "We're really trying to bring these products to the masses."

Hedging usually involves taking a position in a futures market that offsets a similar position in the equivalent cash market so that a loss in one is offset by a gain in the other.

http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-GreenBusiness/idUSN2637369820080826
Title: Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
Post by: Biggs on August 30, 2008, 12:58:01 pm
sounds like another way for the rich and powerful to hide and launder money out of sight of proper oversight whilst not one penny gets to the ordinary folk unless they act as direct servants to the elites. Just another merrygoround for all the hidden funds.
Title: Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
Post by: Brocke on September 02, 2008, 07:38:00 pm

Aid agencies plan CO2 offsets that also help poor

02 Sep 2008 12:04:17 GMT
Source: Reuters
By Megan Rowling

LONDON, Sept 2 (Reuters) - From fuel-efficient stoves for displaced Congolese families to drought-resistant cashew trees in Brazil, some aid agencies offering carbon offset schemes want to marry emissions savings with help for people living with climate change.

A London-based coalition is launching a new funding scheme to address concerns about existing trade in carbon credits -- primarily that this excludes the world's poorest communities, which are most at risk from the impact of global warming.

"This is very much not a minor absolution for your carbon sins, but is honestly a compensation payment for the impact you know your personal carbon emissions will have," said Andrew Simms, policy director at the New Economics Foundation (NEF), coordinating the initiative with the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED).

The consortium says its scheme differs from conventional carbon offsetting -- which has focused mostly on promoting renewable energy -- because it will also help vulnerable people cope with phenomena such as more severe droughts and floods.

In the jargon, it will fuse mitigation -- measures to curb carbon dioxide emissions -- with adaptation -- activities enabling people to deal with climate-related problems they are already experiencing.

Over the coming year, the approach will be tested in regions expected to be worst and soonest hit by climate change in Africa, Asia and Latin America.

Pilot projects will prioritise adaptation: for example teaching Indian children to swim so they can survive floods, and planting the drought-resistant cashew trees whose fruit pulp families plan to sell to schools for income.

But they will also include mitigation steps such as providing solar-powered lighting for girls in Mauritania to do their homework after dark, and solar-powered freezers to store the Brazilian cashew apple pulp which makes juice.

The partners -- including the U.N. Children's Fund (UNICEF), Greenpeace, CARE International and Trocaire -- describe the scheme as a way for charities, business and individuals to take responsibility for the damage caused by their carbon emissions in the short term.

They call people who help fund the scheme investors, rather than donors: the capital involved is human as well as financial.

"It connects me with a human being at the other end of the world who's being affected by my pollution, and I then invest in that person and relate to that person, and feel there is solidarity between us," said Saleemul Huq, head of the climate change group at IIED.

"It's not buying and selling -- it is much more investing in people."

WHERE THE MONEY GOES

Some existing projects backed with money from unregulated or so-called voluntary carbon emissions trading have been accused of not delivering promised environmental and social benefits. Critics also say carbon credits offer polluters a guilt-free way to carry on emitting damaging greenhouse gases.

"Offsetting is something that people have little faith in because they don't know where the money goes," said Betsy Joseph of aid agency Mercy Corps, which has launched a separate initiative aimed at strengthening the relationship between carbon offsetting and poverty reduction.

Its "Cool Carbon" Web site invites individuals and businesses to calculate the cost of their carbon usage and donate that amount to carbon-neutral projects that also create jobs.

In Bosnia, for example, it is partnering with a pastry manufacturer to convert used cooking oil into biodiesel that could power city buses in Tuzla.

"People can look at the progress of the projects online, and this should give them more faith that their money is going somewhere tangible, with more of a connection to those they are helping," said Joseph.

The United Nations has called for around $86 billion in new financing by 2015 to help the world's poor cope with climate change. But so far funds from governments and a levy on U.N.-regulated carbon trading amount to a fraction of what aid agencies say is needed. A growing number regard the sale of voluntary carbon offsets as one way to fill the gap.

The market for voluntary carbon trades is growing rapidly, more than tripling between 2006 and 2007 to reach a value of $331 million, according to a report from environmental information providers New Carbon Finance and Ecosystem Marketplace.

But charities have found it difficult to access buyers in the voluntary market, partly because offset companies, which act as brokers, prefer large projects that deliver high volumes of emissions savings.

"The transaction costs are quite high for small projects," said Andrew Scott, policy director at Practical Action, which is planning to raise around 400,000 pounds ($782,000) over five years by selling carbon credits from four energy projects in Sudan, Peru, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh.

"It is a very slow, time-intensive process for the initial assessment and verification, and you do begin to wonder whether it is worth the effort."

Michael Schlup, director of the Gold Standard Foundation, which administers a widely used quality label for clean energy projects that also support sustainable development, questioned whether the carbon market was the best place to raise money for climate change adaptation work.

"People see it as a miracle cure, but it could be a diversion from other policy measures," he said, adding his organisation had not yet tried to convert climate change adaptation into a service people could pay for.

For potential investors, one of the key obstacles is that while tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions now have a price, it is difficult to put a value on measures to help people survive weather disasters and adapt to long-term climate stresses.

"I think this is a very valuable exercise but the hard thing is to see how to link it to the carbon market," said Schlup. "With mitigation, you have tonnes of carbon, but with adaptation, are you saving lives or dollars?"

There are also tensions between market demands and the needs of poor communities. For instance in a Practical Action project in Bangladesh, an offset company chose a stove design that produced the lowest emissions but was not favoured by local women.

"Human development and emissions savings objectives are not always win-win," Scott said. (Editing by Catherine Evans and Sara Ledwith)

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/LM656506.htm
Title: Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
Post by: HEX on September 02, 2008, 07:51:51 pm
I think we should make wole section for this information. Anybody second that motion?  ;D
Title: Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
Post by: Brocke on September 02, 2008, 08:58:12 pm
I think we should make wole section for this information. Anybody second that motion?  ;D

Good Idea. There are quite a few threads that address this subject.

Here is the other main one.

Globalization/NAU/Global Warming Hoax/Unfair Trade/Illegal Immigration/WMDs
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?board=12.0

Title: Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
Post by: Brocke on September 02, 2008, 11:33:28 pm

Solar panels 'take 100 years to pay back installation costs'

By Martin Hickman, Consumer Affairs Correspondent
Wednesday, 3 September 2008

Solar panels are one of the least cost-effective ways of combating climate change and will take 100 years to pay back their installation costs, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (Rics) warned yesterday.

In a new guide on energy efficiency, Rics said that roof panels for heating water and generating power are unlikely to save enough from bills to make them financially viable in a householder's lifetime. In the case of solar panels to heat water for baths and showers, the institution estimates the payback time from money saved from electricity and gas bills will take more than 100 years – and up to 166 years in the worst case.

Photovoltaic (PV) panels for power – and domestic, mast-mounted wind turbines – will take between 50 and 100 years to pay back.

Given that the devices have a maximum lifetime of 30 years, they are never likely to recoup the £3,000 to £20,000 cost of their installation, according to Rics' building cost information service. Instead, it suggested people wanting to cut fuel bills should insulate lofts and cavity walls, install efficient light bulbs and seal windows.

Joe Martin, author of Rics' Greener Homes Prices Guide, said there was an argument for installing solar panels but it was not an economic one. "We wanted to bring some reality to this because there are a lot of missionaries out there. The whole push for household renewable power is that you can do these things and make back money but that's not true on existing property," he said.

The solar power industry accused Rics of failing to take account of the rising cost of energy and other financial benefits of renewable power in its figures. Jeremy Leggett, of Solar Century, said: "They are grossly irresponsible."

Rics assessed the cost, annual savings, disruption and payback time of various energy-saving methods and gave each an overall rating of one to five stars.

Solar panels for heating and power and wind turbines generating between 3kW and 5kW merited two stars. Smaller 1.5kW turbines of the type installed on roofs paid back in 25 years, received a three-star rating.

By contrast, cavity wall insulation had a five-star rating: spending £440 would save £145 a year in fuel bills, paying back in three years, while an investment of £325 in extra loft insulation would save £60 annually, paying back in five years.

The figures were compiled before energy companies put up bills by up to 30 per cent last month and ignore state subsidies.

Last year, the Department for Trade and Industry slashed grants for the installation of household renewable power by 83 per cent, infuriating the fledgling micro-generation industry which complained the move rendered solar panels unaffordable to all but the wealthy.

Jeremy Leggett, executive chairman of Solar Century, complained that Rics' figures failed to assume any rise in energy prices, when a conservative estimate of 10 per cent a year would transform the calculations.

In addition, Rics had failed to take account of a number of other benefits – renewable obligations certificates worth £160 a year to householders from next year; reductions in energy consumption of up to 40 per cent for schemes with a meter; the rising payments from energy companies for spare electricity put back into the national grid; and the increased value of an energy-efficient home.

He estimated the current payback of power-generating PV panels was 13 years.

Rics countered by saying it had not taken account of maintenance costs and that it deliberately chose not to include "ifs" in its figures. "I doubt however you do the sums, they [solar panels] make sense," a spokesman said.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/solar-panels-take-100-years-to-pay-back-installation-costs-917202.html
Title: CLIMATE OF FEAR - Tim Blair
Post by: mr anderson on September 03, 2008, 11:42:58 pm
Vote Green in Western Australia this Saturday – or face the pants-wetting consequences:

http://www.greens-wa.net/east-metro
http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/the-contest-returns-to-kalamunda-20080903-48ja.html


(http://blogs.news.com.au/images/uploads/drownywa.jpg)

Via reader Tam, who notes that Perth’s two tallest buildings peak at beyond 200 metres. Remember, as Al Gore says: “You’re tired—we’re all tired—of appeals based on fear.”

http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/living_the_dream/
Title: Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
Post by: Brocke on September 05, 2008, 12:56:29 am

Australia 'a special case' on climate

By Cathy Alexander

September 05, 2008 12:39pm
Article from: AAP

CLIMATE adviser Ross Garnaut says Australia should aim for a 10 per cent cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 because immigration rules out any greater reduction.

In a major report released today, Professor Garnaut says Australia is a special case and should reduce its emissions by less than every other developed country.

The reason is a high level of immigration, which he says means Australia cannot realistically cut emissions as much as other wealthy nations.

And Professor Garnaut thinks Australia should soften its target to a 5 per cent cut, based on 2000 levels, if an international climate pact is not forged.

The 10 per cent target will be a disappointment to the environmental lobby, which has called for a cut of up to 40 per cent.

But it will allay the concerns of business that emissions trading, which is due to start in 2010, will cost profits and jobs.

The 2020 target will be a crucial factor in determining how much households and businesses will pay under emissions trading.

The Federal Government has yet to set a 2020 target.

Professor Garnaut also recommended emissions trading start in 2010 with a fixed carbon price of $20 a tonne, indexed for inflation plus 4 per cent each year.

The latest instalment of his advice to federal and state Governments on what should be done about climate change doesn't make for happy reading.

He is pessimistic about the ability of the world to tackle climate change, and says there is "just a chance" that dangerous global warming can be avoided.

The problem of climate change is "diabolical", "intractable" and "daunting", and the world is rapidly running out of time, he says.

Other developed nations should do more than Australia to cut emissions, Professor Garnaut says.
Canada should slash its emissions by a third, Japan by 27 per cent, the European Union by 14 per cent, and the US by 12 per cent.

Australia had the "least stringent 2020 reductions targets of any of the developed countries/regions modelled".

"Australia's population, because of the country's long-standing and large immigration program, has been and will be growing much faster than populations in other countries," Professor Garnaut says.

"The allocation formula ... accommodates Australia's rapid population growth."

Professor Garnaut has recommended Australia adopt a more ambitious 80 per cent emissions reduction target by 2050. The Government has committed to a 60 per cent target by then.

He also thinks the world should move towards a per-capita system of emissions reductions, which would have a major impact on Australia because it has one of the world's highest rates of per-capita emissions.

But the "per-capita" system would not kick in until 2050 under the Garnaut plan.

The report also includes some modelling on the costs of climate change.

Professor Garnaut found not acting on climate change would cost Australia dearly, slashing 8 per cent from gross national product by the end of this century. Wages would drop by 12 per cent.

But taking action on climate change would have a "manageable" cost.

Growth would be cut initially by 0.8 per cent, settling to 0.1 per cent in subsequent years.

By 2060, taking action on climate change would have a net positive affect on the economy.

Professor Garnaut's final report is due at the end of this month.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,24298506-29277,00.html
Title: Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
Post by: Brocke on September 08, 2008, 04:28:21 pm

Cloud-seeding ships could combat climate change

It should be possible to counteract the global warming associated with a doubling of carbon dioxide levels by enhancing the reflectivity of low-lying clouds above the oceans, according to researchers in the US and UK. John Latham of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, US, and colleagues say that this can be done using a worldwide fleet of autonomous ships spraying salt water i More..nto the air.

Clouds are a key component of the Earth’s climate system. They can both heat the planet by trapping the longer-wavelength radiation given off from the Earth’s surface and cool it by reflecting incoming shorter wavelength radiation back into space. The greater weight of the second mechanism means that, on balance, clouds have a cooling effect.
’Twomey effect’ boosts reflectivity

Latham’s proposal, previously put forward by himself and a number of other scientists, involves increasing the reflectivity, or “albedo”, of clouds lying about 1 km above the ocean’s surface. The idea relies on the “Twomey effect”, which says that increasing the concentration of water droplets within a cloud raises the overall surface area of the droplets and thereby enhances the cloud’s albedo. By spraying fine droplets of sea water into the air, the small particles of salt within each droplet act as new centres of condensation when they reach the clouds above, leading to a greater concentration of water droplets within each cloud.

Latham and co-workers, including wave-energy researcher Stephen Salter of Edinburgh University, claim that such spraying could increase the rate at which clouds reflect solar energy back into space by as much as 3.7 Wm-2. This is the extra power per unit area that scientists say will arrive at the Earth’s surface following a doubling of the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide compared to pre-industrial levels — 550 ppm vs 275 ppm (Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A DOI:10.1098/rsta.2008.0137).
New spin on sailing

The 300-tonne unmanned ships used to seed the clouds would be powered by the wind, but would not use conventional sails. Instead they would be fitted with a number of 20 m-high, 2.5 m-diameter cylinders known as “Flettner rotors” that would be made to spin continuously. This spinning would generate a force perpendicular to the wind direction, propelling the ship forward if it is oriented at right angles to the wind (Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A DOI: 10.1098/rsta.2008.0136).

These rotors would be easier to operate remotely than sails and would also serve as the conduits for the upward spray, with the spray consisting of droplets 0.8 µm in diameter generated by passing sea water through micro nozzles. The power for the spray and the cylinder rotation would be provided by oversized propellers operating as turbines.

The immediate effect of seeding clouds in this way would be a local cooling of the sea surface, and as such the technique could be targeted at coral reefs, diminishing polar ice sheets or other vulnerable regions. However, the great thermal heat capacity of the ocean and the currents within it mean that these initial effects would eventually spread across the globe.
Fleet of 1500

Latham and colleagues calculate that, depending on exactly what fraction of low-level maritime clouds are targeted (with some regions, notably the sea off the west coasts of Africa and North and South America, more susceptible to this technique than others), around 1500 ships would be needed altogether to counteract a carbon doubling, at a cost of some £1m to £2m each. This would involve an initial fleet expanding by some 50 ships a year if the scheme is to keep in step with the current rate of increase in atmospheric carbon-dioxide levels.

This cloud-seeding proposal is one of a number of ideas put forward by scientists in recent years to “geoengineer” the Earth in response to climate change rather than, or as well as, deal with the causes of the change. A series of papers on several proposals, including Latham's, have been published in a recent issue of the journal Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A entitled Geoscale engineering to avert dangerous climate change.

Latham maintains that his group’s idea is not pie in the sky and that its feasibility is supported by two of the world’s leading computer climate models, as well as recently obtained experimental cloud data. He points out that, unlike rival techniques, the system could be used to vary the degree of cooling as required and could be switched off instantaneously if needed. However, he adds more research must be done to find out a number of unknowns — such as exactly what fraction of spray droplets will reach the clouds — and to establish that the technique would not create any harmful climatic side effects. More work must also be done on the spray technology, he says.
About the author

Edwin Cartlidge is a science journalist based in Italy

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/35693
Title: Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
Post by: Brocke on September 17, 2008, 05:11:04 am
Majority of Australians support carbon trading: Poll

9/09/2008 6:37:00 AM.  | Gillian Cannon

Climate change remains a top priority for Australian's, with an overwhelming number pushing for carbon trading to be introduced.

Almost 90 percent of Australians want the Rudd government to bring in an Emissions Trading Scheme, with a majority of voters also prepared to pay more for energy.

The latest Newspoll shows voters are keen for Australia to push forward regardless of other nations, with 61 percent in favour of action.

Meantime, Kevin Rudd's approval rating has dropped to its second lowest since the election.

Opposition Leader Brendan Nelson is up two points to 16 percent as preferred Prime Minister - the poll taken before swings against the Liberals in two by-elections over the weekend.


Opposition Transport Spokesperson, Gladys Berijiklian says the real question is does the risk still exist.

http://www.livenews.com.au/Articles/2008/09/09/Clear_majority_support_carbon_trading_Poll
Title: Britons face carbon spotchecks and monitoring of diet in new eco towns
Post by: Biggs on September 26, 2008, 01:30:59 pm
found on prisonplanet


Britons face carbon spotchecks
It's the price of 'one planet living'

By Andrew Orlowski • Get more from this author

Posted in Environment, 26th September 2008 04:49 GMT

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/09/26/carbon_spotchecks/

Britons should be subjected to random carbon spotchecks and intensive surveillance of their diets, transport and waste disposal habits, says the Government's architecture and design quango in a new report today.

The word "monitoring" occurs 19 times in the 32-page publication by the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE). If the proposals in the report What Makes An Eco Town?are implemented few aspects of life will go unrecorded.

CABE says the strict monitoring is needed to ensure the carbon footprint of the eco-town dwellers remains at one-third of the British average, which is the requirement for what's called "one-planet living", the quango says.

Examples of monitoring include "the ecological footprint of the diet of 100 randomly selected residents", and the number of shops selling local produce. Waste disposal and transportion habits will also be scrutinized.

The Carbon Cult also wants to choose what you food you eat, and will carefully pre-select only the most righteous retailers. Veggies will be pleased to read that the report recommends "actively seeking retailers on site who will commit to supporting residents in reducing the ecological footprint of their food consumption, in particular providing a wide variety of healthy, low meat and dairy options."

One statistic that won't be recorded is the mortality rate from suicide caused by living in such a grimly regimented and obsessively monitored environment. Or maybe that's the plan. The Government proposes 15 such towns to be built for over 100,000 citizens.


An eco-town resident fails to reach the perimeter

As we have already reported, other eco-town restrictions include a 15mph speed limit for vehicles , and toilets that don't flush. Residents would also be "fined" for leaving the eco-town.

You can download the report from here - and it's well worth a read. It has the zeal of a Maoist revolutionary order, as written by the most anally-retentive bureaucrat who ever lived. ®
Title: Re: Britons face carbon spotchecks and monitoring of diet in new eco towns
Post by: David Rothscum on September 26, 2008, 02:05:43 pm
Realize that this is what they want for us in the future. Put us together in high population density cities you can't leave. The Soviet Union was exactly like this. You couldn't leave your communal farm without the correct papers, and if you really had to go you had to sign papers as soon as you arrived on your destination and when you returned, they checked whether you arrived in time to make sure you didn't do anything else. We won't be able to travel because of our "carbon footprint". We'll live in tightly controlled cities with camera's everywhere, making sure we don't commit any "eco-crimes". Everything we're seeing now will just continue. Massive increases in autism, other mental illnesses, like depression, dementia, infertility, obesity, diabetes, cancer, but they'll blame it on us. People will try to escape their day to day lives in virtual reality simulations.
Title: Re: Britons face carbon spotchecks and monitoring of diet in new eco towns
Post by: Biggs on September 26, 2008, 03:46:43 pm
yep that sounds pretty much what the plan is
Title: Rudd's expert wants tougher carbon goals
Post by: mr anderson on September 29, 2008, 11:18:04 pm
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,24424571-2,00.html

    * Ross Garnaut delivers final climate change report
    * Has toughened his position on emissions targets
    * However he is pessimistic about a world deal


Top climate change adviser Ross Garnaut has warmed to the idea of a deep cut to greenhouse emissions - but he thinks it probably won't happen. After infuriating green groups earlier this month by recommending a 10 per cent greenhouse target by 2020, he's now more open to a 25 per cent cut in emissions.

He also aspires to a 90 per cent target by 2050, compared with the Federal Government's 60 per cent goal.

Professor Garnaut today released his long-awaited 620-page final report on what the nation should do about climate change.

"Strong mitigation, with Australia playing its proportionate part, is in Australia's interests,'' the report says.

''(Australia) should express its willingness to reduce its own entitlements to emissions from 2000 levels by 25 per cent by 2020, and by 90 per cent by 2050 in the context of an international agreement.''

This ambitious target would be in the context of a global deal to keep atmospheric carbon concentration to 450 parts per million (ppm), which Prof Garnaut says Australia should aim for. However, he thinks the world will not reach this "strong mitigation'' deal.

If his scepticism proves correct, Prof Garnaut wants the nation to push for a global atmospheric carbon concentration of 550 ppm, which means Australia cutting emissions by 10 per cent by 2020.

And if no global climate deal is forged out of the UN process, Australia should aim to cut emissions by five per cent by 2020 as an "unconditional offer'', Prof Garnaut says.

Both these targets, which Prof Garnaut previously referred to as draft targets, have been criticised by green groups as being too weak.

In his landmark report, the economist has stuck with his message that climate change is real and serious, and that Australia has a lot to lose in not tackling it. Prof Garnaut wants Australia to spend $2.7bn a year on research and commercialisation of low-emissions technologies.

In line with government policy, he wants emissions trading to start in 2010, with a fixed, rising carbon permit price until 2012.

Less than 30 per cent of the value of the permits should be given to trade-exposed, emissions-intensive companies which could lose out to competitor nations that don't have emissions trading. Prof Garnaut has stuck with his draft recommendation on how the revenue from emissions trading should be spent.

Households would get half, 30 per cent would go to businesses, and 20 per cent to research.

Householders would be able to access a "green credit'' arrangement to install energy-smart appliances.

Coal-based electricity generators would not get compensation, although coal regions could get adjustment payments.
Title: Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
Post by: Brocke on September 30, 2008, 10:44:55 pm

France proposes phasing in CO2 curbs for cars
30 Sep 2008 15:21:29 GMT
Source: Reuters
(Adds reaction, background)

By Pete Harrison

BRUSSELS, Sept 30 (Reuters) - European Union President France proposed on Tuesday watering down plans to curb greenhouse gas emissions from cars by phasing in limits up to 2015, with lower fines for narrowly missing the target.

The EU's Commission has called for CO2 cuts from cars of 18 percent to 130 grams per km by 2012, as part of an ambitious plan to lead the world in fighting climate change, with stiff fines for non-compliance.

The EU executive hopes a further 10 grams will be removed through better tyres, fuels and air-conditioning.

But France, which holds the presidency until the end of this year, proposed that just 60 percent of each manufacturer's fleet should have to meet the standard in 2012, rising to full compliance in 2015, according to a document seen by Reuters.

Greenpeace campaigner Franziska Achterberg said that rather than limiting emissions, the French plan would give auto makers room to increase average CO2 emissions across their fleet.

"Under this proposal...manufacturers could continue business as usual and keep churning out their gas-guzzlers until 2012," she added. "Such a move would be bad news for European consumers and the environment."

The French document also suggested a longer-term target of cutting car emissions to 95-110 grams per km by 2020. Up to 7 grams of the cuts could be achieved through new technologies other than engine improvements, such as solar panels on roofs.

The French proposal foresees a complex, graduated system of fines that would ease the penalty on manufacturers that narrowly miss their targets.

POLITICAL PRESSURE

Auto making nations led by Germany, which specialises in powerful, heavy luxury vehicles such as Mercedes <DAIGn.DE> and BMW <BMWG.DE>, which emit the most greenhouse gases, have pressed for a softening of the Commission's original plan.

The big carmakers have argued that a rush to legislate puts jobs and export earnings at risk, because there is no guarantee consumers will buy greener cars when they are put on the market.

They also say new designs need about five years to roll off the production line, making 2012 goals difficult to achieve.

Italy, which specialises in lighter, less polluting cars such as Fiat <FIA.MI>, has been angered by France and Germany dominating the political process and says the draft rules now favour heavy cars by linking emissions caps to weight.

"(It) is the result of political pressure aimed at protecting particular interests of a few market participants in the car sector," Fiat Chief Executive Sergio Marchionne told reporters on the sidelines of a conference in Rome.

The environment committee of the European Parliament, which shares the duty of drafting legislation with EU member states, last week rejected a similar swathe of changes to those proposed by France, saying they were too soft on the auto industry.

Member states and parliament have to agree on the same rules for the legislation to be adopted. (Additional reporting by Alberto Sisto in Rome, editing by Paul Taylor and Anthony Barker)

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/LU299807.htm
Title: Re: Agenda 21
Post by: liko on October 01, 2008, 03:22:40 am
Local Agenda 21 in the United Kingdom - a review of progress and issues in New Zealand   February 2000
http://www.pce.govt.nz/reports/allreports/local_agenda_02_00.shtml
  link dead.
Title: Council set to back Biggest Carbon Loser TV program
Post by: mr anderson on October 07, 2008, 08:30:13 am
http://redland.yourguide.com.au/news/local/news/general/council-set-to-back-biggest-carbon-loser/1326347.aspx

BY DANIEL HURST
5/10/2008 11:51:00 PM


REDLAND City Council is willing to spend up to $19,000 sponsoring a proposed Network Ten program called The Biggest Carbon Loser.

The eight-part series would raise community awareness of climate change by showing how families could reduce their energy use and carbon emissions, according to a mayoral briefing note presented at last week's general meeting.

Mayor Melva Hobson said the television show would be a joint iniative between Network Ten and the South East Queensland Council of Mayors and would be broadcast across the region.

Cr Hobson told councillors the $413,000 total sponsorship cost would be divided among the region's councils in line with population levels, with Redland City Council's contribution likely to fall between $9743 and $18,891.

Her mayoral briefing note said the show would be promoted through interviews with mayors and/or councillors during live weather crosses on the nightly news, and would fit in with the council's climate change goals.

But Division 9 Councillor Karen Williams said the council would be better off spending the money on thousands of energy-efficient lightbulbs.

Councillors voted to give Cr Hobson authority to approve a sponsorship deal if the Council of Mayors decides to proceed with the proposal. The group is due to meet on Friday.
Title: Re: Council set to back Biggest Carbon Loser TV program
Post by: Virgil_Hilts on October 07, 2008, 08:40:46 am
Forget solar, tidal, wave, wind and geothermal power, oh no, just use less oil.
Title: Dateline - The cost of carbon
Post by: mr anderson on October 09, 2008, 05:17:01 am
http://www.veoh.com/videos/v16196450dsbf55sK

This week Video Journalist Nick Lazaredes travels to Europe, to examine the highly contentious issue of carbon trading. Kevin Rudd wants a similar system here - so how are the Europeans faring in this attempt to reduce carbon emissions?

YOUR SAY: Will carbon trading really work?
http://news.sbs.com.au/dateline/the_cost_of_carbon__559309

In Belgium, politicians are debating changes to their Carbon Emissions Scheme, but environmentalists warn that Europe's solution to global warming is turning into a farce.

Carbon trading is a process where companies can trade their unused carbon credits for a tidy profit. However this process allows heavy polluters to continue to damage the environment, as they buy up carbon credits from other companies.

Climate change activists say EU's climate scheme isn't credible and are worried it could have disastrous impacts around the world if other countries choose to implement it.
Title: Kyoto 'a waste of time' say half of Australians
Post by: mr anderson on October 13, 2008, 11:46:38 pm
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,24491822-5009760,00.html

By staff writers
October 14, 2008 12:01am


    * Aussies voice opinion on Kyoto Protocol signing
    * news.com.au survey reveals Kyoto scepticism
    * "Too late" to save polar bears - survey

ALMOST half of Australians believe the signing of the Kyoto Protocol - a cornerstone of Kevin Rudd’s election campaign - was a waste of time.

A whopping 73 per cent of respondents to a news.com.au survey, conducted by CoreData, also said the Rudd Government was not doing enough or could be doing more to combat climate change.

Mr Rudd’s much-lauded ratification of the Kyoto Protocol has had no beneficial effect on climate change, said 44 per cent of 1122 news.com.au readers.

Just 14 per cent of people said Kyoto had helped curb the effects of climate change.

Another 41 per cent believed more time was needed before any result was apparent.

The Government is acting on the concerns Australians have about the issue, a spokeswoman for climate change minister Penny Wong says.

 "The Rudd Government understands that Australians want to tackle climate change and we have set out a plan to do so,” the spokeswoman said.

"Our plan to tackle climate change has three pillars: reducing carbon pollution, helping to shape a global solution, and adapting to the climate change we can't avoid.”

A proposed carbon reduction scheme is one of the ways to help fight climate change, she says.

The way we live:

Men are far more likely to be climate change sceptics than women, according to the survey.

While 85 per cent of women said there was enough evidence to link human activity to climate change, only 54 per of men agreed.

Men were also twice as likely as women to believe Australia’s signing of the Kyoto Protocol was of no benefit.

About 55 per cent of Australians believed climate change would alter day-to-day life over the next decade, and about half said it was “truly possible” to resolve the issue.

Two-thirds of Australians said they took environmental factors into consideration when buying goods.
Title: Energy rating plan to cut tech carbon emissions
Post by: mr anderson on October 13, 2008, 11:49:22 pm
http://www.australianit.news.com.au/story/0,24897,24490955-15306,00.html

Fran Foo | October 14, 2008


THE federal Government is about to crack down on technology carbon emissions after testing found some brand new computers failed to meet turn-of-the-century emissions standards.

The Government will regulate the tech sector so it abides by a planned national energy efficiency strategy in line with Kyoto Protocol commitments while delivering about $100 million in energy cost savings.

Energy Star labelling for PCs and electronic equipment has been ruled out as a mechanism for consumers to assess an item's energy consumption.

White goods carry such labels.

Federal government testing of new desktops and laptops found some could not even meet Energy Star version 3 specification, which became effective in 2000.

The Government will legislate on computer room air-conditioning power usage, which will affect server rooms, and computer peripherals in sleep mode will be capped at 1 Watt.

Most cordless telephones, for example, have standby power modes that range between 1.1W and 2W, according to the US federal energy-management program.

The local regulatory regime for technology follows an agreement to pursue national appliance energy performance standards at the October 2 Council of Australian Governments meeting in Perth.

The meeting agreed to develop a national strategy for energy efficiency to help households and businesses prepare for the government's Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, set to kick off in 2010, although business groups and some politicians have been pushing for a delay.

Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts appliance energy efficiency director Shane Holt, said the technology sector would play a crucial role in the government's national sustainability plans.

The technology sector has been growing at about 20 per cent annually, but the department used a conservative 8 per cent growth rate to calculate the industry's green impact over the next six years from desktops, laptops and monitors, Mr Holt said.

By 2014, energy consumption in a business-as-usual environment would hit 10,019 gigawatt hours a year, but with the Government's green program, it would be 6367GWh a year.

This would deliver an energy cost savings of $147 million and eventually a net benefit of $98 million after taking into account the program cost of $49 million.

"Those are very large numbers and they are very large reasons why government wants to come to play," he said.

More than 12 months ago the department began a confidential dialogue with major suppliers to establish building blocks for a regulatory framework.

The areas of interest were personal computers, laptops and monitors, which use about a third of the power consumed by technology products.

According to a rough analysis by the department, there are about 24 million technology products in use.

"There are 8 million in homes, 8 million in offices and the rest spread across everything else," Mr Holt told the Australian Information Industry Association Sustainable Futures Forum last week in Melbourne.

Details are scant but discussions with businesses have been based on international standards, and proposals will be based on US Energy Star test methods.

"The US Environment Protection Agency has for many years been talking to the computer industry'

"The Energy Star program that it has had for many years is certainly embedded in the US culture, so you can't procure a computer for government unless it meets the Energy Star levels.

"We're talking about a regulatory regime but we're also talking about a complimentary process to help suppliers sell more efficient products," he said. An outcome was likely in a month, Mr Holt said. It would be announced by federal Environment Minister Peter Garrett.

On the issue of labelling computers with an Energy Star rating, Mr Holt confirmed there would not be a mandatory label on laptops, PCs and monitors. The Government had decided against the labels as they could mislead and confuse people.

"Less than half of computers are sold in the traditional showroom, so when people see a label it won't be at the point of sale.

"Also people auction their computer and the internal parts of the computer can change dramatically, so labelling is a pretty blunt instrument," Mr Holt said.

Major suppliers such as Hewlett-Packard pointed out that the Energy Star 4 rating covered sleep modes and didn't truly represent the energy efficiency of a machine in operation. The answer could be a website.

Website tools would allow those who were interested to check out energy performance and manufacturers could use them to promote sustainable issues, Mr Holt said.

It is unclear if this refers to a FuelWatch or GroceryWatch-like website for green IT.

On data centres, Mr Holt said, the Government would adopt a program being finalised by the US Environment Protection Agency.

"The US EPA has been working on its data centre proposal for quite some time and it should all be coming together next year.

"We'd like to copy that program into Australia as quickly as possible."

Australia would use that as a regulatory base as soon as practical, possibly within three years, he said.

Another area that national legislation will cover from mid-2009 is computer room air-conditioning.

"About a third of all power drawn is the air-conditioning unit to cool the servers. It has been agreed by all the jurisdictions that computer room air-conditioners will be regulated.

"We're waiting for the ministers to sign off for mid next year."

The department has also started a product testing program to aid government procurement.

In a series of tests with newly purchased desktops and laptops, Mr Holt found some startling results: five desktops and four notebooks out 19 and 10, respectively, didn't meet the Energy Star version 3 specification, which became effective in 2000.

Regulating the industry would help ensure that such gaps did not exist, he said.

"When I first started talking to the industry we heard so much about Moore's Law and in 18 months everything is refreshed.

"It seems to me that's the reason why regulation is positive for industry.

"Aspirationally, the top end is charging ahead, but the bottom end is not moving, and that is why setting a benchmark makes economic sense, and makes good environmental and political sense."
Title: Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
Post by: Brocke on October 15, 2008, 08:39:13 pm
From The Times
October 16, 2008

Love in a cold climate
Damian Whitworth continues his series charting how long he and his family can survive without central heating

Well, this is easy. There I was, surrounded by naysayers - the snorters, the eye-rollers and those who predicted that I wouldn't survive more than a few days before turning on the heating - and now here we are in the middle of October and the Whitworth household is standing firm in its resolve to put a dent in the profits of the gasillionaires. Central heating is for wimps.

Of course, a couple of factors have helped my little experiment to see how long I could go without artificial home heating: 1) it has been mild in the past few days. 2) Er, I haven't actually been here.

Yes, for the second week of the great central heating shutdown, I was in Iran. That's a long story for another time, but for our current purposes I can report that the weather was very pleasant, thank you very much. Temperature mostly in the 70s. Up in the 80s and really rather hot one day. I needed a hat and caught the sun a bit; a jacket required for al fresco dining under the stars some evenings. One night I felt the need for air-conditioning in my hotel room. Thought about it for a minute. Should this slot be anti air-conditioning as well? Decided not to confuse the issue and switched it on.

I told my wife all this when I returned. She explained how she had hosted her book group at our house. “I e-mailed everyone telling them that you were conducting a bizarre experiment that involved your family living in a house without heating while you went away somewhere nice and warm and then came back and wrote about the results.” They all sat there in fleeces. One woman wore two pairs of tights.

“They'll all think I've gone mad,” I said.

“They knew that long ago.” For the record, my concern that I might come back and find my family locked in a frozen embrace on the sofa had led me to tell her, before I left, that it was better to jeopardise the integrity of the experiment than the wellbeing of the children, and that she should not worry about switching on the heating if there was a cold snap.

“Yes, that was very big of you,” she said.

The venture has struck a chord in all the leading central-heating debate forums. A radio station in Vancouver wants to interview me.

Gerry, from London, wrote on Times Online that he spent the past two winters without heating. “It is quite tolerable in the English climate. Of course, wearing a hat and gloves indoors is necessary on the coldest days, but what's wrong with that?” Comments like that aren't entirely helpful. I was planning to write one or two pieces about this before I switched on the heating. Now my editor seems to think that I will be spending the whole winter without heat. I can sense the grandparents positioning themselves for a battle for custody of the kids.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article4950987.ece
Title: Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
Post by: Brocke on October 18, 2008, 11:08:38 pm
The Farmers' Almanac buys into the Global Warming Scam

I would never have thought that the Farmers' Almanac would buy into the Global Warming scam concidering that CO2 is what crops actually breathe. But they have as you can see below.

Farmers' Almanac is an annual North American periodical that has been in continuous publication since 1818. Published by the Almanac Publishing Company, of Lewiston, Maine, it is famous for its long-range weather predictions and astronomical data, as well as its trademark blend of humor, trivia, and advice on gardening, cooking, fishing, and human-interest crusades. Conservation, sustainable living, and simplicity are core values of the publication and its editors, and these themes are heavily promoted in every edition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farmers_almanac

Here is an article

(http://i128.photobucket.com/albums/p182/Brocke1964/Cover-1.jpg)  (http://i128.photobucket.com/albums/p182/Brocke1964/Text.jpg)

Text from the article

The Warming Warning
For the first time, man is contributing to global climate change.

by Edward W. Pearl

THE EARIER WARMING PERIODS on our planet were triggered by changes in the earth's orbit, variations of the sun's intensity and volcanic eruptions. In the past, humans were not one of the causes. Now, the consensus of 2000 scientists is that, since 1950, most of the earth's warning has been due to man-made emissions that are continuously being trapped in the atmosphere.

Recent ice cores indicate that we currently have the highest carbon dioxide levels of the past 650 years. Carbon dioxide is known to trap heat in the atmosphere. Over the past 11 years, seven have been the warmest on record. How fast we are creating a problem for the planet is uncertain, but we know that we are. One way or the other, we will have to deal with the consequences of the warming. It is even a possibility that the result could be worse than scientists expect. We can only hope that it won't be as bad or progress so quickly that we can't build up some defences.

First, let's lighten things up a bit by saying that there is a "good" side to global warming. Northern Europe, Siberia, Alaska and Canada stand to benefit the most. In those areas, the growing season will be longer and, as a result, more crops will be harvested. Likewise, those areas should have plenty of rainfall for hydroelectric power and forests will flourish. Fewer deaths due to cold weather will occur. Some negative results will mar those benefits; for example, more insects, wildfires and weeds.
Scientists are quite concerned about the "bad" side of global warming and its effect on the earth and the world's population. Glaciers and ice sheets are already melting at an alarming rate. The habitat for polar bears is disappearing and Native Alaskans can no longer hunt seals where they used to. Water supplies and hydroelectric power that rely on ice, snow and rainfall will become less reliable in the future.

Reduced rainfall is already showing up over parts of the tropics. Drought conditions and water shortages are expected to spread gradually from the tropics, as the warming continues, and move into Asia and the temperate latitudes. The areas affected will likely include southern Europe and the south western U.S. Food and water, as we know it today, will become scarce. The heat and dryness will enhance the potential for fires. Where storms occur, they should be more intense. Floods, such as those in Bangladesh, are expected to get worse. The effect for hurricanes is less certain, however. The latest models show that winds will become less favourable for their development.

Ocean levels are rising and by 2050 encroaching water could displace tens of millions of people. A large part of Florida, river deltas, low islands and coastal lowlands everywhere will experience the rising sea level. Waves will drive further inland. Large numbers of plant, animal and fish will become extinct. Corals, a great fish breeding ground, are already dying. People who live off of seafood will struggle to survive. Pollens and allergies will increase. Deaths related to heat and ozone should increase. Recreation will be affected, too. Sld areas will have shorter and shorter seasons, if any, and river rafters will find runoff barely adequate.

Steps To Take

What can we do? We should cut our emissions now, especially those producing carbon dioxide. Only then can we possibly slow the warming. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere lingers for a long time and we have to reduce the negative effects for future generations. The global community needs to work together. Large parts of the earth will be seriously affected by the warming, especially the poorer regions. Building a defence against the inevitable consequences will take a long time. The wealthier countries will have to support the areas of the planet where people do not have the means to adapt.

Hunger and thirst will likely be the first serious problems noticed. There are a few solutions that we can develop further. First, there are genetic strains of grains and soybeans that grow well in dry conditions. Germany has been a leader in perfecting solar energy as a partial power source and France uses nuclear power for much of its energy needs. We need to utilize these non-carbon dioxide emitting power sources and others, such as wind.

Building desalinization plants will be essential to maintain an ample and healthy water supply. Increasing heat will diminish the potable water supply in many areas, as contamination and evaporation increase. Mangrove trees need to be planted along the water's edge, where possible, to reduce storm surge. There is a likelihood that towns will need to relocate to higher ground. Floating structures may be practical in a few spots. Seawalls can be built to moderate the destructive force of higher seas. Trees planted on slopes can slow down or stop landslides, where heavy rainfall occurs. Finally, better reservoirs should be built to be more efficient at catching rain and melting snow.

We must educate people about the effects of global warming. The problem exists for today's and future generations. A few researchers have tried to show that global warming is not a problem, or have simplified it. Some naysayers have been supported by energy-related corporations that have much to lose financially on this issue. Even more frustrating, though, is that a senator recently noted that the dire global warming predictions are the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people. We know this person is in the minority.

In contrast, retired military officials seem to be approaching global warming as a serious problem on a whole new level. They believe there is a potential security risk that will develop due to the consequences of warming. They foresee a sizeable uprooting of people from their communities. Furthermore, they anticipate that spreading diseases and disputes over food and water will lead to border and resource tensions. As people then move to a basic survival mode, violent conflicts would likely ensue. Once again, the solution is for all nations to work together, so conflict and suffering are not the inevitable result. On the bright side, we have shown that there are potentially workable solutions, as long as we all begin to work on them now.
Title: Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
Post by: Brocke on October 22, 2008, 11:09:22 pm

Please don't call it a drought, it's just 'dry'

By Cathy Alexander

October 23, 2008 01:17pm
Article from: AAP

    * The word "drought" making farmers feel bad
    * Want people to use "dryness" instead

GOVERNMENT experts say the word "drought" is making farmers feel bad and want people to use the word "dryness" instead to describe Australia's worst "lack of rain" in a century.

Farmers also needed to accept that drier weather was here to stay, said a report by the Government's hand-picked Drought Policy Review Expert Social Panel.

"Words like drought ... have negative connotations for farm families," the report said.

"There needs to be a new national approach to living with dryness, as we prefer to call it, rather than dealing with drought."

The report criticised the Government's $1 billion annual drought program, under which drought-stricken farmers are paid Exceptional Circumstances (EC) funding.

"For all the assistance provided, farm families, rural businesses and communities currently living with dryness in rural Australia do not feel or perceive they are measurably better off," the report said.

Farming families in drought-declared areas can get an EC payment of up to $21,000 a year.

The report quoted some farmers as saying EC payments rewarded unproductive and irresponsible farmers and were of no help to good operators.

Panel chairman Peter Kenny said dryness was tough for farmers.

"We wonder why people have got so much pressure on them out there and they are blowing their brains out and there is a lot of them doing that," he said.

"It is clear that drought is having an impact on the wellbeing of farming families and rural communities."

Agriculture Minister Tony Burke said the report showed rural families were not communicating with each other about their hardships.

The Government had not got the policy right on tackling drought, he said.

"Significant funds have gone to try and help rural communities, but you can't have these sorts of social outcomes and say that we've got it right," he said.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,24540442-5009760,00.html
Title: Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
Post by: Kilika on October 23, 2008, 08:18:39 am
Quote
"Words like drought ... have negative connotations for farm families," the report said.

Yeah, just like in politics, it isn't "lying", it's "spinning". ::)
Title: Penny Wong defends $14m cost of climate change ads
Post by: mr anderson on October 23, 2008, 09:30:24 am
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,24530847-953,00.html

Renee Viellaris
October 21, 2008 11:00pm


TAXPAYERS are footing an advertising bill of more than $146,000 a day so the Rudd Government can peddle its warnings about climate change. The Government has set aside almost $14 million for a four-month climate change campaign, which started in July and ends next month.

The details, revealed in a Budget estimates committee hearing, sparked deputy leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Eric Abetz, to attack Climate Change Minister Penny Wong for being irresponsible and hypocritical. The hearing was told almost $10 million had been poured into publicity, which includes television advertisements, leaving almost $4 million to be spent within the next few weeks.

"No wonder Climate Change Minister Wong refused to reveal the cost of this advertising when the campaign was launched in July," Senator Abetz said.

"This is an astonishing amount of money to be spent given that the Government legislation has not yet been drafted, let alone gone anywhere near enactment.

"When in opposition, Senator Wong, as Labor's spokesperson on public accountability, repeatedly attacked the then Howard government for running government advertising before legislation has passed the parliament."

He called on the Government to immediately cancel the remaining weeks of the campaign, saying the money could pay for 14,234 dental consultations, 4000 hospital bed nights and 284 hip replacements. In a statement to The Courier-Mail yesterday, a spokeswoman for Senator Wong attacked Senator Abetz for being a climate change sceptic.

"In Senate Estimates (this week) Senator Abetz was continuing to question whether climate change was real, so no wonder he is against us taking action to tackle it," she said.

In a press release in opposition, Senator Wong criticised the Howard government for spending millions of dollars on advertising "to drown voters in self-promotion".

Dennis Atkins: Treasury's top man the go-to guy
Title: Emissions trade price tag: $7 a week
Post by: mr anderson on October 29, 2008, 10:07:36 pm
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/10/30/2405623.htm?section=australia

By Online parliamentary correspondent Emma Rodgers


Extra costs: Treasury modelling says emissions trading will add about $2 a week to gas bills (AFP: Shaun Curry, file photo)

Treasury modelling released by the Federal Government today shows there would be a minimal reduction of growth under an emissions trading scheme.

But it also shows that households will spend around $5 a week extra on electricity and $2 a week on gas, and lower-income households will be more affected.

The modelling says annual growth would slow by 0.1 per cent and early action is key to keeping costs low.

It also says the introduction of a scheme would be likely to produce a one-off spike in inflation of around 1 to 1.5 per cent, but there would be minimal impacts on future levels of inflation.

It is expected that rural and metropolitan households will incur roughly the same rise in costs.

Releasing the modelling today, Treasurer Wayne Swan said real household incomes would stay strong but will be around 0.2 per cent less under a scheme.

"The Government is of course committed to helping households adjust to the scheme by compensating them for the impact," he said.

The Government has already promised to offset fuel price rises under the scheme for the first three years.

The modelling also says that, based on international action to cap greenhouse gas concentrations at 550 parts per million (ppm), an initial carbon price could be set at $23 per tonne in 2010.

But if Australia were to adopt a more ambitious target of 450 ppm, the cost of carbon per tonne would more than double.

It also says that the costs to trade-exposed industries would not be substantial enough to cause them to move offshore, and industries such as coal, iron and still will continue to grow but at a slower rate than they would without a carbon scheme.

Mr Swan says the trade-exposed industries will be able to sustain demand because they will be polluting less than their global competitors.

But the modelling does says that the introduction of a scheme could lead to the closure of some coal-fired electricity generators.

However Mr Swan says by 2050 the alternative energy sector will grow by around 3,000 per cent due to the introduction of a carbon price.

"Low emissions technologies and production processes will become more competitive and low emission goods will become more attractive to consumers," he said.

Mr Swan says the figures also show that it will be cheaper to act now to reduce carbon emissions.

The modelling suggests that costs to economies that act now would be 15 per cent less by 2050 than those who wait to act.

The report says early global reduction of carbon pollution will bring down long-term costs.

However, the modelling works on the assumption that the drought will be over and dams full in two years' time, and that carbon capture storage technology will be available in 10 years.

It also does not include the impact of the global economic crisis.

The Government will release a white paper with the final details of the scheme by the end of the year and wants to introduce the scheme in 2010.

The Opposition has labelled the start-up date of 2010 as "grossly irresponsible" and has demanded the effects of the global financial crisis be factored into the white paper.
Title: Families face $364 carbon slug
Post by: mr anderson on October 29, 2008, 10:10:07 pm
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,24575890-5001021,00.html

By Alison Rehn and Brad Watts
October 30, 2008 01:25pm


HOUSEHOLDS are expected to pay on average $7 a week extra in electricity and gas bills once the Federal Government adopts an emissions trading scheme Treasury modelling released at 12.30pm today shows that based on a carbon price of between $23 and $32 per tonne, there will be a one-off rise in the consumer price index of between one and 1.5 per cent.

Households will spend an average of $4-$5 extra per week - around $260 a year - on electricity, and an extra $2 extra per week - $104 a year - on gas and other household fuels. Lower-income households are likely to be "slightly more affected'' by the introduction of an emission price, according to the modelling, "as they generally spend a higher proportion of their disposable income on emission-intensive goods''.

While wealthy households face an average price rise of 0.9 per cent, a single pensioner household with little disposable income faces an average price rise of 1.3 per cent. The modelling calls on an emissions trading scheme to be introduced from 2010 - which is in sync with the government's timeline.

The scheme will place a limit on the amount of emissions which can be pumped into the atmosphere. Placing a price on carbon will provide incentives for big polluters to go green. The government has pledged to give increased financial assistance to low income households to offset these costs.

There will only be a marginal difference in the extra costs faced by city and country households with both areas facing an average of a one per cent price increase.

"Despite the price rise, (electricity and gas prices) will only have a small effect on overall household consumption, the modelling says.

Price impacts for petrol and meat will be deferred until later years under the scheme.

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has rejected claims that the Treasury modelling on the impact of the scheme was already out of date due to the impact of the global financial crisis.

"Those who do economic modelling factor in as many variables as possible,'' he said.

"The key thing is when you introduce a carbon pollution reduction scheme, which is what we are doing, it's necessary long-term for the environment.

"Otherwise the economic impact through rising sea levels, coastal inundation, further and more intense drought, as well as the impact on tourism in the wetlands and elsewhere is huge and that all costs jobs.''

Mr Rudd said it remained the government's ambition to introduce the program in 2010.

A spokesman for Opposition leader Malcolm Turnbull said he was expected to comment on the report this afternoon and call for a slower introduction of the scheme.
Title: Emissions scheme Rudd's chance to prove economic credentials
Post by: mr anderson on November 02, 2008, 05:59:17 am
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/business/story/0,28124,24582882-643,00.html

Scott Murdoch | November 01, 2008


THE Labor Government now has a prime opportunity to display its political fortitude.

Against the backdrop of a world economy heading into recession and Australian economy like to follow very closely, the Government needs to press ahead with the implementation of its emissions trading system (ETS).

The Treasury modelling published this week is sure to give corporate Australia some more certainty as to the exact impact the ETS will have once it comes online. The Treasury recommends a carbon price starting at $23 a tonne, which sits in the middle of the range of the expectations that were held by industry between the reports by Ross Garnaut, and then the departmental Green Paper.

At $23 a tonne, industry is effectively prepared for the fallout that may ensue. The first Green Paper set a pricing point at $20 a tonne, which at the time Treasury estimated would have a one-off inflationary impact of 0.9 per cent.

At just above that price, the inflationary shot should not prove too damaging. Plus, it needs to be remembered, when the Treasury Green Paper was published in July, the economy -- and the predictions of its performance for the future -- were starkly different to the outlook now.

At the time, the Reserve Bank was maintaining a tightening bias and there was a clear risk that interest rates could be increased above the then 7.25 per cent that was in place. The expectations for inflation were still high.

Now it is true that headline and core inflation is still high now, sitting near 5 per cent. But the Australian economy is tempering at a faster rate than anyone had predicted. There are fears an Australian recession will occur before the end of this calendar year and roll over into the first quarter of next year.

Therefore, while the economy cools at a rate of knots, inflation will also retreat from the super highs where it sits currently.

This gives the Government extra capacity to push forward with the ETS, because the inflationary shock will not be as sharp as it was predicted in July.

Also in the Government's favour is the fact the Reserve Bank is at the start of what should be an aggressive cash-rate cutting cycle.

So far, 125 basis points has been slashed from interest rates, and the RBA effectively has another 600 basis points with which to work.

It seems likely that on Tuesday, just before the Melbourne Cup is about to jump, that another 50 basis points is cut, taking the official rate down to 5.5 per cent.

The majority of economists expect that by June next year, there will be a cash rate near 4.5 per cent.

While this is good news for homeowners, it is also positive for the corporates. Their debt repayments will be reduced and they will have extra wiggle room to cope with the ETS.

The implementation of the ETS is due to take place within a tight timeframe. The Treasury modelling published on Thursday recommended a soft launch, which is in line with the Garnaut recommendations.

Labor is still sticking with a June 2010 starting date that is tight.

But given the Government has muddled its way through the current financial crisis with such confusion so far, now is the time that it can make headway and show it is committed to implementing and managing key pieces of vital economic reform.

The performance of any government should be judged in some cases, not only on the merits of managing an upswing, but the action taken during a time of downturn. It is easy to criticise in hindsight but perhaps the structural reform agenda of the previous government was not as robust as it could have been, which has possibly worsened the financial crisis's fallout for the Australian economy.

The Treasury numbers on the ETS showed that electricity prices would rise by about $7 a week as a result of the scheme. That is not a material amount but enough to prompt concern from those battling the current financial clampdown.

In its initial Green Paper, the Government canvassed the option of providing direct income tax cuts to offset the utility price rise and it has already committed to delivering a cent-for-cent decrease in the fuel excise to soften the impact of petrol prices.

There is a risk that this Government, in its first year of fiscal management, is stimulating the economy too much.

The $10.4 billion worth of cash will be arriving in the letterboxes early next month for those who qualify. On top of that, the Government will no doubt press ahead with its ETS tax cuts, because the system comes online in an election year.

Imagine that, a big-bang election year tax bonus from a Government attempting to secure a second term.
Title: Re: Emissions scheme Rudd's chance to prove economic credentials
Post by: liko on November 02, 2008, 04:11:21 pm


mmm yes,now that Mr Murdoch(minion) has given his orders via the "boyer Lecture".scum.

First Cut: Murdoch warns against Aust bludger mentality

http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2008/11/03/2408138.htm

Listen  with care,he's a slippery barstard.
Title: 'Impose carbon levy on farms'
Post by: mr anderson on November 03, 2008, 01:03:41 am
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24590915-5013871,00.html

Lenore Taylor, National correspondent | November 03, 2008


THE Rudd Government should abandon plans to include agriculture in its emissions trading scheme in 2015 and instead consider immediately implementing a carbon levy to reduce emissions from the farm sector.

The Government has said it intends to include agriculture - the nation's second-biggest source of greenhouse emissions - from 2015, after a review in 2013, but a discussion paper prepared for the Australia Institute, to be released today, says practical difficulties will make this impossible. The paper - prepared by Hugh Saddler, managing director of the Energy Strategies consultancy, and the Australian National University's Helen King - argues that the three main sources of greenhouse gases from farming - carbon dioxide and methane from the digestive systems of livestock, and nitrous oxide from agricultural soil - can only be measured at levels of uncertainty too great for their inclusion in a market.

The Government has restricted the rest of the ETS to operations producing more than 25 kilotonnes of CO2 a year - about 1000 companies - but the 16 per cent of emissions produced by the agricultural sector are spread over 130,000 farms, a fact the paper says makes the administrative burden of including agriculture in the market impossible.

But the authors say the practical difficulties of including farming should not mean the sector gets off scot-free, and the Government should push for other policies to be introduced immediately to start bringing agricultural emissions down.

"We suggest policy-makers would be well advised to give up the quest for the unattainable andturn their attention to developing alternative approaches to reducing agricultural emissions," they say.

"Delaying the decision to include agriculture in the (ETS) will only serve to shield it from the implementation of alternative abatement policies, for it will be equivalent to providing the industry with 100 per cent free and uncapped permits until at least 2013, a disincentive for early emissions abatement."

The paper comes as former Telstra chief Ziggy Switkowski has expressed "reservations" about the accuracy of Treasury's modelling. In a letter to the editor published in The Australian today, he writes: "Inevitably politicians communicate model outcomes via a shorthand ($1 per day) and with captions (pro jobs, pro growth) that cannot allow for the ambiguous assumptions and considerable uncertainties within these complex calculations.

"I have reservations about the validity of the Treasury model forecasts but I may be wrong."

The Australia Institute paper suggests the Government could impose a carbon levy, possibly based on livestock numbers, with payments reducing if farmers implement measures to cut emissions from livestock.

"This is a carrot-and-stick approach. The process does not require a high level of accuracy in emissions estimates and it both rewards good and penalises poor practice," the paper says.

Farmers can selectively breed stock that produces fewer emissions and can reduce emissions by the way stock is fed. Emissions from soil can be reduced by the timing of the application of fertiliser and the way it is applied.

Treasury modelling of the ETS, released last week, assumed agricultural emissions were included from 2015. The modelling assumes a modest cut in national emissions of between 5 and 15 per cent by 2020, and that next year's UN summit in Copenhagen succeeds in reaching a climate change agreement under which developed countries immediately begin to reduce their emissions, and developing countries join in the global effort over time.
Title: Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
Post by: Brocke on November 03, 2008, 03:20:42 pm
Beach 'jelly balls' no threat to swimmers

AAP

November 03, 2008 11:35am

SCIENTISTS say that strange "jelly balls'' washing up on New South Wales beaches pose no threat to swimmers, and may actually play a role in fighting climate change.

Populations of the 10cm long gelatinous creature, known as a salp, have increased tenfold over the past 70 years, according to a marine survey conducted by the University of New South Wales (UNSW) and CSIRO.

The barrel-shaped salps, which resemble jellyfish, have been washing up in increasing numbers on NSW beaches, UNSW professor Iain Suthers said today.

"The appearance of these animals is seasonal, but this spring their abundance seems to be enhanced by a strong Eastern Australian Current, which brings more nutrients to the surface waters for the algae that the salps like to eat,'' Prof Suthers said.

Those algae absorb carbon, which is then taken out of the environment by the salps.

Similar population booms have been recorded worldwide, according to CSIRO, and are a symptom of a warming ocean.

The salps, which prefer shallow waters, are being washed ashore by wind and currents.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,24593228-421,00.html
Title: Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
Post by: Brocke on November 03, 2008, 05:19:19 pm
Call to delay start of emissions scheme

AAP

November 04, 2008 05:46am

A RESERVE Bank board member has called for the federal government to delay the proposed 2010 start to it emissions trading scheme.

Warwick McKibbin, who sits on the RBA board and is a climate change economist, said Prime Minister Kevin Rudd should not act before Australia knows what commitments other countries will make to reducing carbon output.

That will be discussed at the world climate change conference in Copenhagen in December next year.

"There is no way that at Copenhagen there can be a firm commitment on abatement because the US administration, whoever it is, won't have the people in place to negotiate a rules-based system," Professor McKibbin told the West Australian newspaper.

"What they will negotiate in Copenhagen is a set of principles - if you're lucky - and hopefully they'll separate mitigation or cutting emissions from investment in new technologies and forestry and land use actions.

"We've got the Kyoto period to run until 2012 and whatever new system begins would begin in 2013. Now we should have something in place (by then), we need a couple of years to get it going and I think 2011 is feasible, depending on the nature of the system."
Related Coverage

The Government, in a green paper published in July, outlined plans for a carbon pollution reduction scheme from 2010, covering 75 per cent of national greenhouse gas emissions.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,24599354-421,00.html
Title: Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
Post by: Brocke on November 06, 2008, 03:27:05 pm

US must lead in climate fight - Wong

AAP
November 06, 2008 02:01pm

CLIMATE Change Minister Penny Wong says Australia will look to the new US Administration for leadership in tackling global warming.

"We have always said that for an effective global agreement to be in place we will need leadership from the United States and we will need the engagement particularly with China and also with India,'' she said.

"We know that the United States is key to an effective global agreement.

"So we will continue to work with the United States through the international negotiating process.''

Ms Wong was speaking in Melbourne today at the launch of a report on the Assessment of Impacts of Climate Change on Australia's Physical Infrastructure.

Democrat Barack Obama yesterday won the US presidential election and will take office on January 20 next year.

His victory has raised hopes that the US will change the approach to climate change of the Bush Administration which refused to sign the Kyoto agreement on carbon pollution.

A major conference is set to be held in the Danish capital Copenhagen in 2009 to decide what will replace the Kyoto framework, which expires in 2012.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,24611447-29277,00.html
Title: Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
Post by: Brocke on November 07, 2008, 02:49:50 pm

Scientists say a rock can soak up carbon dioxide
Thu Nov 6, 2008 6:28pm EST

By Timothy Gardner

NEW YORK (Reuters) - A rock found mostly in Oman can be harnessed to soak up the main greenhouse gas carbon dioxide at a rate that could help slow global warming, scientists say.

When carbon dioxide comes in contact with the rock, peridotite, the gas is converted into solid minerals such as calcite.

Geologist Peter Kelemen and geochemist Juerg Matter said the naturally occurring process can be supercharged 1 million times to grow underground minerals that can permanently store 2 billion or more of the 30 billion tons of carbon dioxide emitted by human activity every year.

Their study will appear in the November 11 edition of the Proceedings of the Natural Academy of Sciences.

Peridotite is the most common rock found in the Earth's mantle, or the layer directly below the crust. It also appears on the surface, particularly in Oman, which is conveniently close to a region that produces substantial amounts of carbon dioxide in the production of fossil fuels.

"To be near all that oil and gas infrastructure is not a bad thing," Matter said in an interview.

They also calculated the costs of mining the rock and bringing it directly to greenhouse gas emitting power plants, but determined it was too expensive.

The scientists, who are both at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in New York, say they have kick-started peridotite's carbon storage process by boring down and injecting it with heated water containing pressurized carbon dioxide. They have a preliminary patent filing for the technique.

They say 4 billion to 5 billion tons a year of the gas could be stored near Oman by using peridotite in parallel with another emerging technique developed by Columbia's Klaus Lackner that uses synthetic "trees" which suck carbon dioxide out of the air.

More research needs to be done before either technology could be used on a commercial scale.

Peridotite also occurs in the Pacific islands of Papua New Guinea and Caledonia, and along the coast of the Adriatic Sea and in smaller amounts in California.

Big greenhouse gas emitters like the United States, China and India, where abundant surface supplies of the rock are not found, would have to come up with other ways of storing or cutting emissions.

Rock storage would be safer and cheaper than other schemes, Matter said.

Many companies are hoping to cut their greenhouse gas emissions by siphoning off large amounts of carbon dioxide from coal-fired power plants and storing it underground.

That method could require thousands of miles of pipelines and nobody is sure whether the potentially dangerous gas would leak back out into the atmosphere in the future.

(Reporting by Timothy Gardner, editing by Eric Beech)

http://www.reuters.com/article/wtMostRead/idUSTRE4A59IB20081106
Title: Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
Post by: Brocke on November 22, 2008, 12:24:23 am

I thought all that ice was melting?



200 whales trapped in Canada's Arctic 'must be killed'

From correspondents in Ottawa
Agence France-Presse
November 22, 2008 08:12am

AT least 200 narwhal whales in Canada's Arctic, trapped by winter ice and facing starvation or suffocation, must be culled, officials say.

Hunters from the village of Pond Inlet on Baffin Island discovered the animals trapped near Bylot Island, about 17 kilometres from Pond Inlet, on November 15.

The local hunters are allowed to harvest only 130 whales each year for food, according to standards set by the federal department of Fisheries and Oceans.

But department spokesman Keith Pelley said: "It's unlikely the animals are going to survive the winter, so the hunters have been given authorisation to cull them."

The hunters have been on the ice slaughtering the whales since Thursday and are likely to accomplish their task over the coming days, he said.

Narwhal are found mostly in the Arctic circle, and are renowned for their extraordinarily long tusk, which is actually a twisted incisor tooth that projects from the left side of its upper jaw and can be up to three metres long.

"A couple of weeks ago, when the ice was still moving, there were quite a few narwhal seen out there in the open water," Jayko Allooloo, chairman of the Pond Inlet hunters and trappers organisation, told public broadcaster CBC.

"About a week later, they're stuck."

Community elders and officials feared the whales would die from a lack of oxygen as the ice grew thicker around them, Keith Pelley explained. There are about a dozen areas of open waters where they could come up for air, but it is a tight squeeze for them.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,24688959-23109,00.html
Title: Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
Post by: Biggs on November 22, 2008, 07:45:25 am
poor whales, obviously been reading some global warming propaganda and stayed around too long.

more likely to be certain variations in climate on a localised basis that have caused them to misjudge when to leave, or sonar from nuclear subs or something.
Title: Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
Post by: Brocke on November 22, 2008, 12:32:33 pm
poor whales, obviously been reading some global warming propaganda and stayed around too long.

more likely to be certain variations in climate on a localised basis that have caused them to misjudge when to leave, or sonar from nuclear subs or something.

I have noticed that there is a lot of talk lately of mercy killing animals, especially whales, because they are "going to die anyway". We had a case here in Australia where a baby whale was lost and starving and they "euthanized" it. This is a disturbing trend.
Title: Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
Post by: Brocke on November 25, 2008, 09:49:12 pm

*cough* *cough* "Bullsh*t" *cough* *cough*



Greenhouse gases in record rise

From correspondents in Geneva
Agence France-Presse
November 26, 2008 05:16am

LEVELS of climate-warming greenhouses gases rose to record highs in 2007, leading to a one per cent increase in the overall warming effect, the World Meteorological Organisation said.

Carbon dioxide rose 0.5 per cent from 2006 to reach 383.1 parts per million, while nitrous oxide levels were up 0.25 per cent, according to latest WMO statistics today.

Methane meanwhile increased 0.34 per cent, surpassing the highest level recorded in 2003.

"Using the NOAA Annual greenhouse gas index, the total warming effect of all long-lived greenhouse gases was calculated to have increased by 1.06 per cent from the previous year and by 24.2 per cent since 1990," said the WMO.

Carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere have risen 37 per cent since the 18th century, said the WMO.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,24709081-23109,00.html
Title: Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
Post by: Brocke on December 01, 2008, 08:33:52 pm
(http://img.iht.com/images/2008/12/01/01venice550.jpg)

Historic center of Venice flooded
The Associated Press
Published: December 1, 2008

VENICE, Italy: Venice could use a bailout. The city built on water has too much of it.

Residents and tourists waded through knee-deep water Monday as they navigated the city's narrow streets and alleys, and its historic St. Mark's Square was inundated. Boxes of tourist merchandise floated inside the flooded shops around the square and even the city's famed pigeons sought refuge on rooftops and windowsills.

One of the highest tides in its history brought Venice to a virtual halt, rekindling a debate over a plan to build moveable flood barriers in an effort to save the lagoon city from high tides.

City officials said the tide peaked at 61 inches (156 centimeters), well past the 40-inch (110-centimeter) flood mark, as strong winds pushed the sea into the city.

Alarms went off at 6:37 a.m. to alert citizens, but many residents were taken by surprise because authorities had initially not forecast such a high water level.

In St. Mark's Square, one of the city's lowest points, tourists tried to stay dry by hopping on cafe tables and chairs sticking out of the water. The water was so high that someone rowed a small speedboat across the wide square.

"It was quite an extraordinary experience," said Michel Gorski, visiting from Brussels with his wife. "We got stuck in the hotel for half a day but we didn't suffer. We were sorry for the restaurants and stores around, but there was no panic and everyone worked really hard to clean up quickly."

Workers were unable to install the traditional raised wooden walkways used during flooding because the water rose so high the platforms would have floated away too.

"There are very few streets that are water-free," admitted city spokesman Enzo Bon.

In an ironic twist, the flooding also idled the city's water buses because their boarding platforms were underwater.

Bon had no reports of damage to the city's architectural jewels, and the Culture Ministry was monitoring the situation.

It was the fourth highest tide since 1872, when the city started keeping records. The last time Venice saw such high waters was in 1986, while the all-time record was 76 inches (194 centimeters) in 1966.

That flood forced 3,000 people to evacuate and damaged many historic buildings, but largely spared the city's art — which had long ago been removed to upper floors because of frequent flooding by tides.

"In Venice, we know how to live with high water," said Bon. "Of course there are some problems, because today's was an exceptional event."

Giancarlo Galan, the conservative governor of the surrounding Veneto region, criticized Venice's center-left administration for failing to prepare for the flood and for allegedly stonewalling a long-planned system of barriers that would rise from the seabed to ease the effect of high tides.

The $5.5 billion project, called "Moses" after the Biblical figure who parted the Red Sea, has been under construction for years and is expected to be completed by 2011. The company building the barriers said, had the system been in place, the city would not have been flooded Monday.

Venice Mayor Massimo Cacciari insisted the city's experts had done a good job and had revised their forecasts well before the water came in. Cacciari, who has criticized the barriers, said the government-backed project would be completed.

With low tide setting in and waters receding Monday afternoon, some tourists were charmed by the water wonderland.

"The hotel had to turn off the gas and the electricity, but they made us a nice candlelit cold lunch," said Yacob Laurent, a visitor from Paris. "They gave us boots and my wife and I went for a walk. It was a lot of fun."

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/12/01/europe/EU-Italy-Venice-High-Water.php
Title: Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
Post by: Brocke on December 02, 2008, 11:30:10 pm

I don't have the words to describe who criminal this is!!!




Raise climate adaptation cash by selling global emissions rights - Oxfam

02 Dec 2008 20:19:00 GMT
Written by: Megan Rowling

Developed countries could raise more than $50 billion each year to help poor countries adapt to climate change if they auctioned off emissions rights that will be allocated under a new global climate pact after 2012, aid agency Oxfam said in a report issued on Tuesday.

Rich nations would need to sell only 7.5 percent of their greenhouse gas emissions allowances to meet this target, according to Oxfam. An additional $29 billion could be generated by establishing emission limits for their aviation and shipping sectors and auctioning off 100 percent of these rights, Oxfam said.

The report, "Turning Carbon into Gold (http://www.oxfam.org/files/bp123_turning_carbon_into_gold_english_final.pdf)", was launched at U.N. climate change talks in Poznan, Poland, bringing together around 187 countries over the next two weeks. The meeting marks the half-way point in negotiations to agree by the end of 2009 a successor pact to the Kyoto Protocol on global warming.

"With a global financial crisis unfolding, these mechanisms could raise enough money from polluters without governments having to dip into national treasuries," said Heather Coleman, senior climate change policy advisor for Oxfam and author of the report.

"Many negotiators agree this is one of the more practical approaches. Billions of dollars can be raised and invested to prevent future climate change and to help poor people adapt to the negative impacts of global warming."

Estimates of how much it will cost for developing countries to deal with the impacts of climate change are on the scale of tens of billions of dollars.

Oxfam says at least $50 billion per year is needed, but that would rise if a new climate change deal does not succeed in keeping global warming to below 2 degrees centigrade.

According to the report, contributions to U.N.-backed funds to finance adaptation total just $152 million so far, arguing that developed countries are not living up to their responsibilities under the U.N. convention on climate change.

The aid agency says poor countries need urgent cash to pay for measures that will build their resilience to increasing floods and droughts, more intense storms and rising seas, as climate change becomes a reality.

"Helping vulnerable people cope with the effects of climate change is desperately needed today because they already face increasingly severe and ever-worsening climate change impacts," Coleman said.

Ziaul Hoque Mukta, a programme coordinator for Oxfam in Bangladesh, told AlertNet that this year high tides have regularly flooded coastal zones in the southwest and centre of the country for the first time. And a large number of storm warnings in 2007 prevented fishermen from going to sea, leaving them short of money to pay back lenders, he said.

"Infrastructure development since the 1980s has caused displacement in Bangladesh, and climate change is now making that worse," Mukta said.

Important adaptation measures in Bangladesh include rebuilding clay embankments using concrete, developing and disseminating new rice and vegetable crop varieties and strengthening public health systems, Mukta explained.

The Bangladeshi government is seeking around $5 billion from the international community for its climate change adaptation plans over the next five years, and has set up a national trust fund to encourage rich countries to make individual donations. So far Britain is the only donor nation to have promised money, announcing a package of £75 million in September to help Bangladesh fund its response to climate change.

Oxfam said the fairest and most effective way of raising the money needed is to link into the emissions-reduction system that will form a core part of a post-2012 agreement. Under the deal, "international emissions units" will be allocated to control the overall level of greenhouse gases.

The agency estimates that around $52 billion could be raised each year by 2015 by auctioning 7.5 percent of rich countries' allocations at a carbon price of $45 per tonne. Norway and the Netherlands support the idea, it told Reuters at Poznan.

The aid agency believes this is a fair system because it would ensure that those countries most responsible for emissions - and that can afford to pay - would shoulder most of the obligations.

On Tuesday, the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), the Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme and the University of the South Pacific, published a report in Rome saying that climate change-related disasters are already imposing serious constraints on development in Pacific island countries, which appear to be in a "constant mode of recovery".

"Climate projections for the Pacific island countries are bleak and indicate reduced food security, especially for households," said Alexander Muller, FAO assistant director-general, in a statement.

The report says predicted rises in sea-levels and changes in sea surface temperatures are likely to cause a decline in fishery production. As fish consumption in Pacific island countries is very high this could make it harder for families to feed themselves.

"Countries will have to assess how vulnerable their food systems are and how they can adapt agriculture, forestry and fisheries to future climate-related disasters. There is a need to act urgently," Muller added.

While the Poland meeting will not end in concrete decisions about how to raise money for adaptation and clean technology, campaigners and developing countries hope consensus will start to emerge around a set of options that could generate billions of dollars from 2013, if not earlier.

"It is extremely important for negotiators in Poznan to reach a broad understanding about how best to raise adaptation money because they have paid lip-service to the issue for too long," Oxfam's Colman said. "It is a vital part of the overall deal - a litmus test of how serious rich countries are in tackling the problem."

http://www.alertnet.org/db/an_art/20316/2008/11/2-201927-1.htm
Title: Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
Post by: Brocke on December 03, 2008, 12:03:50 am

CARBON CUTS TARGETS WILL RULE OUT NEW COAL FIRED POWER PLANTS

01 Dec 2008 15:48:00 GMT
Source: Christian Aid - UK
Andrew Hogg

Website: http://www.christianaid.org.uk
Reuters and AlertNet are not responsible for the content of this article or for any external internet sites. The views expressed are the author's alone.

Christian Aid welcomes the first report from the new Committee on Climate Change, which proposes bringing UK carbon emissions down by as much as 42 per cent on 1990 levels by 2020, and says the government should move swiftly to adopt and implement the recommendation.

The 42 per cent target is dependent on a global deal on emissions cuts being reached in a year's time, when governments have to agree the next phase of the Kyoto Protocol. Negotiators are currently meeting in Poznan, Poland for talks about what a future deal should look like.

But the committee has said that even without a global deal, the UK government should still introduce carbon emissions cuts of 34 per cent over 1990 levels by 2020.

Even the lower target would effectively rule out the building of any more coal-fired power stations such as the one proposed for Kingsnorth in Kent, unless fitted with carbon capture and storage technology.

Christian Aid has actively campaigned for at least a 40 per cent cut in UK carbon emissions by 2020, and against the building of any new coal fired power stations until carbon capture and storage mechanisms have been developed.

Paul Brannen, head of campaigns at Christian Aid said: 'The committee's report sounds the death knell for current coal power plans. The government has received a clear message about what needs to happen. The time for dithering has passed. Ed Milliband now needs to go away and work out how the UK will meet the climate challenge head on.

'The committee warns that reaching the target will mean higher fuel bills as companies have to invest in renewable energy sources and meet higher carbon prices. But the costs of failing to reach the target will be far greater as the impacts of climate change worsen.'

Christian Aid urges the committee - a group of scientists, economists and businessmen set up under the new Climate Change Act to advise the government on tackling global warning - to think again about its support for carbon trading.

The committee currently envisages that as much a fifth of the 42 per cent cuts could be met by buying 'offset credits' from less developed countries overseas. Christian Aid believes that such a process does not take sufficient account of the responsibility rich countries bear for causing global warming in the first place.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/fromthefield/218275/122814674542.htm
Title: Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
Post by: Brocke on December 03, 2008, 12:07:43 am

Open U.N. climate talks to indigenous groups - report

20 Nov 2008 09:27:00 GMT
Written by: Megan Rowling

Indigenous peoples have been shut out of international negotiations on climate change solutions and a mechanism should be set up enabling them to influence a new U.N. climate pact, an advocacy group said on Thursday.

In a report, Minority Rights Group International (MRG) urged governments participating in a U.N. climate change conference in Poland next month to agree to steps that would give indigenous and minority communities - who are already being hit by global warming - a stronger voice in the discussions.

"They have been effectively excluded from every major debate on the issue of controlling (greenhouse gas) emissions and mitigation strategies and that is simply not acceptable," Mark Lattimer, MRG's executive director, told AlertNet.

Many indigenous activists could not get into important sessions at the annual conference of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Bali last year, leading them to demonstrate outside, the report says.

This year's gathering is expected to help craft a global agreement by December 2009 on carbon-capping mechanisms to succeed the Kyoto Protocol on climate change after 2012.

"Indigenous people must have a place at the table where decisions are being taken, where policies that severely and critically impact our people, are being made," says Alaska-born Patricia Cochran, chair of the Inuit Circumpolar Council, in testimony in the report.

Cochran notes that the most devastating effects of climate change are being witnessed in the Arctic - from melting ice and coastal erosion to storms.

"There is not one of us who does not know someone who has perished. We have many people in our communities who are experienced hunters/gatherers, who go out on the land and simply fall through the ice and are never seen again," she says, adding that many villages are seeking to move because their homes and schools are falling into the sea.

Melting ice caps, desertification and extreme or unpredictable weather are destroying indigenous communities' crops and livestock around the world, which will lead to food shortages, poverty, migration and even death, the report says.

Indigenous and minority communities are particularly harmed by climate change because of their close relationship with the environment, from which they often make their living, according to the report. They also tend to live in poor, marginalised areas and in some cases are already victims of state discrimination, it says.

Examples include Uganda's Karamoja pastoralists who live in the arid northeast, Vietnam's Khmer Krom people from the flood-prone southern Mekong delta, and Taiwan's mountain-dwelling Paiwan people.

"Because of climate change, mountains are crumbling, the river has changed the way it is going, the village could disappear and be destroyed," Tung Chun-fa of the Paiwan says in the report. "Without the right relationship with nature we can't maintain our traditional culture."

"There are entire communities that could be lost," warned MRG's Farah Mihlar, who wrote the report. "Cultures, traditions and languages could be wiped off the earth."

Lattimer told AlertNet that talking to indigenous people with valuable knowledge of fragile ecosystems could prevent the international community from implementing climate change policies that have negative consequences.

In the case of biofuels, better consultation would have revealed much earlier the dangers of rushing into mass production, including environmental degradation and displacement, he said.

Lattimer added that similar mistakes must be avoided with plans to use carbon credit trading to stop deforestation, which will be discussed at December's U.N. conference.

"It is amazing how often (indigenous) communities are regarded as the problem...when in fact they should be seen as a good part of the solution," he said.

http://www.alertnet.org/db/an_art/20316/2008/10/20-092703-1.htm
Title: More than 84 per cent of South-East QLD is off limits for urban development
Post by: mr anderson on December 08, 2008, 01:37:23 am
Deputy Premier and Minister for Infrastructure and Planning
The Honourable Paul Lucas


Sunday, December 07, 2008
MORE OF SEQ PROTECTED FROM DEVELOPMENT


More of South East Queensland will be off limits to developers than ever before under the Bligh Government’s long term plan to protect the region’s lifestyle.

Premier Anna Bligh said the revised Draft South East Queensland Regional Plan 2009-2031 has been delivered a year early with a greater focus on protecting open spaces, halting urban sprawl and easing congestion.

“This is a plan to protect the things that make South East Queensland such a great place to live, here for future generations, like our wonderful outdoors environment,” said Ms Bligh.

“It’s a plan for smart growth, to manage our expanding population and tackle the issues of today like housing affordability, congestion and climate change.

“More than 84 per cent of the region is off limits for urban development, protecting an extra 47,000 hectares of land or an area 42 times the size of Carindale.

“In the 2005 plan 1.88 million hectares or 84.14% of South East Queensland was protected greenspace but under the new plan we’ve locked away 1.93 million hectares or 84.25% of the region.

“Every extra piece of South East Queensland keep off-limits to developers is a win for the environment and a win for liveability.

“Several important conservation areas in Brisbane, Springfield and the southern Moreton Bay islands that could previously have ended up in the urban footprint have now been locked away for protection.

“We’ve also ruled out using Bridges on the Sunshine Coast and halted any development, in the life of the plan, at Warrill View in the Scenic Rim Regional Council.

“I’m proud to say we’ve managed to avoid any significant changes to our existing urban footprint, which provides a clear boundary to stop sprawl and protect our natural environment, whilst providing enough land for predicted population growth.

“This plan identifies enough land to provide the 735,500 new houses and units we will need to house our expected population through to 2031.

“And building more homes means jobs, jobs, jobs for South East Queenslanders.

“The focus of the growth will remain the Western Corridor, where the population will expand twice as fast as Brisbane and the coastal areas each year on average.”

Deputy Premier and Minister for Planning and Infrastructure Paul Lucas said carefully planned areas of higher density will protect existing character homes and suburban green spaces.

“Almost half of our growth will be housed through better use of our existing urban areas, especially around public transport hubs,” said Mr Lucas.

“But this plan saves our backyards by increasing the average housing density in new areas and by offering a greater variety of lot sizes in those new communities,” Mr Lucas said.

“The type of density we’re talking about is similar to what we already see in Coorparoo, Springfield and New Farm today.

“For example, in Springfield we find lot sizes ranging from greater than 600m2 to lots as small as 180m2, which means more choice of housing types as people’s needs change throughout their lives.

“This isn’t a push towards high-rise living instead we’re mixing things up to respond to public demand for different home types.

“Young people are attracted by new, low maintenance apartments in central locations while families and other buyers often prefer a house in the suburbs.

“A great example is the recently approved Ripley Valley in the Western Corridor, where a majority of homes will be conventional unattached dwellings on lots ranging from 750m2 to 360m2. However, it will also include apartment living and mixed use developments centred around public transport and activity areas.

“People who want a proper backyard will still be able to have one while other home owners will prefer apartments or units.

“This is about smart growth, not a one-size fits all approach and we will see something for everyone in tomorrow’s Queensland.”

Premier Anna Bligh said smarter urban developments mixing offices, shops, open space and housing will encourage people to drive less by walking, cycling and using public transport more.

“Embracing new urban designs will not only ensure our lifestyle stays great but, if people don’t have to drive everywhere greenhouse gas emissions will also drop,” said Ms Bligh.

“Tomorrow’s south-east will also be affected by climate change so we’re rethinking the location of new communities, how we build them and the way residents live in them.

“This plan demonstrates my commitment to looking over the horizon and planning for the future, and shows how we can sustainably manage growth to benefit all of the community.”

Mr Lucas said this was a plan not just for new residents but the jobs that support them.

“The hallmark of these new areas will be local jobs in commerce and industry, which is not only great for the workers but will reduce the congestion on our roads for others.

“It means making sure infrastructure such as roads, public transport and services plus energy, water and sewerage supplies are in place before any new communities can be built,” said Mr Lucas.

“And smart growth means getting jobs closer to homes.

“People shouldn’t have to travel for hours to work – consolidation of growth will cut congestion, help the environment and make sure families have more time together.

“Again if you look to Ripley Valley it sets the standard by aiming to have 40 percent of the resident workforce employed within its boundaries.”

The draft regulatory provisions released with the plan feature detailed new maps and its statutory powers take effect immediately.

Public consultation closes on April 3 and a final plan will be released in mid-2009.

To view the draft plan visit the Department of Infrastructure and Planning, 63 George St, Brisbane or most council chambers.

For more information call 1800 070 609 (freecall) or visit www.dip.qld.gov.au

Media contact: Robert Hoge 0419757868; Premiers office 32244500

KEY FACTS

    * safeguards more than 84 per cent of the region’s 22, 890 sq km from urban development
    * strict controls remain in place for housing outside urban footprint
    * undeveloped areas, infill areas and rural residential lots can cater for 735,500 more houses and units
    * protects natural landscape and rural production areas from housing and rural subdivision
    * promotes more growth in the Western Corridor to take pressure off coastal communities
    * halts urban sprawl by locating new communities and jobs along public transport corridors to limit car use
    * consolidates rural growth to keep green breaks between cities and communities
    * ecofriendly tourism development allowed outside the urban footprint increased to include “medium-scale” projects, but not on ecologically significant or good quality agricultural lands
    * new sustainable housing designs and new building standards
Title: Kevin Rudd faces Al Gore's heat on climate
Post by: mr anderson on December 10, 2008, 07:36:05 pm
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24783756-5013871,00.html

Lenore Taylor and Peter Wilson | December 11, 2008
The Australian


BRITISH Prime Minister Gordon Brown and former US vice-president Al Gore are urging Kevin Rudd to publicly back a tough global climate change agreement as the Government faces growing domestic pressure not to lead the world on cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

The weekend phone calls from Mr Brown and Mr Gore, the self-proclaimed climate guru, came as a leading unionist and the head of the nation's peak mining industry body attacked big banks, such as NAB and Westpac, for suggesting Australia should promise deep and unilateral greenhouse emission reductions, insisting the Government should tie any commitment to international agreements.

Australian Workers Union leader Paul Howes accused the banks of being hypocritical and dishonest on the issue, because they stood to reap all the benefits of a new carbon market but suffer none of the pain.

And the Australian Industry Group, which represents the manufacturing sector, is urging the Rudd Government to rethink even modest plans because of the global financial crisis - either starting its scheme as a "dry run" until the economic situation improves, or delaying the proposed 2010 start date.

The conflicting pressures centre on the size of the emission cuts to be announced when the Government unveils its scheme on Monday, and the extent to which they are contingent on the success of an international deal at next year's crucial UN summit meeting in Copenhagen.

The Government is understood to have decided to leave open the possibility of cutting domestic emissions by 25 per cent by 2020, but only as part of an ambitious and comprehensive international agreement including commitments from India and China, with domestic cuts of between 5 and 15 per cent by 2020 in the event of less successful international deals.

Mr Brown, Mr Gore, conservationists and sections of the business community have been lobbying the Government to leave the 25 per cent target on the table, and to announce it at the preparatory UN talks now under way in Poznan, Poland, to help give the negotiations momentum. The Government has so far declined to make a public announcement at Poznan.

Adding to the pressure, European NGOs last night ranked Australia below almost all developed countries and even below Russia in terms of its climate-protection performance. On a table of the 57 largest CO2 emitting nations, Australia was ranked sixth worst, ahead of only Kazakhstan, Luxembourg, the US, Canada and Saudi Arabia.

The Climate Action Network said on Tuesday that Australia was "trying to wriggle their way out of putting their number on the table", and that it was "Groundhog Day in Australia" because the Rudd Government was behaving like the Howard government.

NAB and Westpac were among 140 international companies, including The Australian's parent company, News Corporation, that signed a "Poznan communique" released on Monday urging developed countries such as Australia to go even further and "take on immediate and deep economy-wide emissions reduction commitments" ahead of the international deal.

The communique prompted the extraordinary attack from Mr Howes, who writes in The Australian today: "The hypocrisy of big banks like Westpac and NAB, who signed up to a corporate communique on climate change, calling for aggressive unilateral targets, needs to be exposed.

"Having participated in what can only be described as a global stuff-up of our financial system, they are now trying to tell Australian corporations who operate in the real economy, and generate real wealth and real jobs, how to behave on climate change.

"It's time their dishonest motivation was exposed - the banks are looking to create a new source of revenue from carbon trading markets."

The comments from Mr Howes - whose members work in heavily affected industries including oil and gas, cement, steel and aluminium - were backed by the chief executive of the Minerals Council, Mitch Hooke.

"These guys seem to be saying we should set a target ahead of a global agreement, but this cheer squad has all care and no responsibility - we are the ones who have to make this scheme work. It's a bit hard to get excited right now about the financial sector's enthusiasm for new forms of financial derivatives."

And Heather Ridout, chief executive of AI Group, has urged the Government to be even more cautious with its plans.

She said the Government's commitments on climate change were shaped by "the politics of prosperity", and that the global financial crisis presented a "strong case" for the Government to rethink how it managed the scheme's early years.

"One option is to adopt a start that is akin to a pilot scheme or a dry run. This could involve, for example, minimum cost burdens and placing emphasis on education about how to comply with reporting obligations rather than imposing heavy penalties on errors and misunderstandings.

"Another option is to reconsider whether 2010 is an appropriate time to implement the scheme in Australia," she writes in The Australian today.

In Poznan last night, Climate Change Minister Penny Wong was adamant the Government would stick to the 2010 start-up date for carbon trading.

"It would be wrong to introduce any uncertainty about the Government's intentions," she said. "One of the key considerations is to give business the certainty they need. We are talking, particularly in the energy sector, about long-run decisions that are going to be critical in Australia reducing its emissions over the next 10 or 20 years."
Title: Another Tax and More Politics: The ETS Proposed for Australia
Post by: mr anderson on December 13, 2008, 07:10:48 am
(http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/katoomba-002-blog-300x194.jpg)

http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/

I am the Chair of The Australian Environment Foundation and we are planning an Internet campaign to oppose the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) proposed for Australia on the basis:

1.  An ETS will not change the global temperature;

2.  Will force many clean and green Australian industries overseas; and

3.  Will make Australians poorer; while it is generally richer, not poorer nations that are better able to protect their natural environment.

We have a fundraising target of A$30,000 and already we have already raised just over $11,000 from donations.  So we need another A$19,000.

The campaign website will be designed to help build a large online community; providing a place for action as well as information.  Those who log on will be able to source information quickly as well as find their local MP so they can send him/her a message. 

The website will be designed so that more than one campaign can be running at a time – and old campaigns can be archived.  The campaign opposing the ETS will be just the first.  The Australian Environment Foundation wants to be able to take a stand, and importantly help its members and supporters be heard, when decisions are being made against the weight of evidence.

So far donations have ranged from $25 to $2,000.   Please make a contribution.

If you can make a financial contribution, please go to our website and donate through the PayPal facility using your credit card. http://www.aefweb.info/ .

If you prefer to use Internet banking: Australian Environment Foundation, BSB No:  013 308 Account No: 4978 00416.

Alternatively, send a cheque to the Australian Environment Foundation, PO Box 274, Deakin West, ACT 2600.   

There is nothing honest or clever about the proposed Emissions Trading Scheme.  It is just another tax and more politics.
Title: Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme: Australia's Low Pollution Future - Whitepaper
Post by: mr anderson on December 14, 2008, 11:00:56 pm
http://www.climatechange.gov.au/whitepaper/index.html

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=DSar4fi6Q7M - Ch 7 Report

15 December 2008

    * Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme: Australia's Low Pollution Future: Foreword
    * Summary
    * Fact sheets
    * Full report
    * Public information sessions
    * Supporting documentation
    * Media release - (to be posted shortly)
    * Press Club Address - (to be posted shortly)
    * More publications

The Australian Government released the White Paper on Monday 15 December 2008. The paper outlines the final design of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme and the medium-term, target range for reducing carbon pollution.

This paper follows from the Green Paper, released in July 2008, which canvassed options on the design on the scheme. It takes into account the outcomes of a broad consultation and input from more than one thousand submissions.
Useful links

    * Australia's Low Pollution Future - the Economics of Climate Change Mitigation (Treasury Modeling)
Title: Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
Post by: Brocke on December 15, 2008, 02:57:48 pm
Scientists urge larger emissions cuts

AAP
December 16, 2008 07:35am

AUSTRALIAN scientists from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said they wish the Rudd Government had announced bigger emissions cuts.

The Federal government yesterday announced it had set a target of reducing emissions by five per cent by 2020, if the world could not strike a deal on climate change.

The target will be beefed up to a 15 per cent cut if the world does come to an agreement.

"I personally would have preferred somewhat bigger cuts," Monash University Professorial fellow Neville Nicholls told ABC radio.

"It'll protect it more than doing nothing, which is what the situation will be if we don't get some sort of agreement with Australia fairly quickly."

But co-director of the climate change research centre at the University of NSW, Andy Pittman, has criticised the cut.

"The science is uncertain, but it's uncertain in the 25 to 50 per cent, not five per cent or ten per cent or 15 per cent," Professor Pittman, also an IPCC lead author, told ABC radio.

"It needs to be much deeper than that if we want to avoid dangerous anthropogenic climate change."

The Federal Government had missed the opportunity to show leadership on climate change in the short term, but Mr Rudd had the opportunity to show leadership in Copenhagen next year, he said.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,24806983-29277,00.html
Title: Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
Post by: Brocke on December 16, 2008, 04:27:01 pm

Land ice melting fast, NASA satellite data show

The Associated Press
Tuesday, December 16, 2008

WASHINGTON: More than two trillion tons of land ice in Greenland, Antarctica and Alaska have melted since 2003, according to new NASA satellite data that show the latest signs of what scientists say is global warming.

More than half of the loss of landlocked ice in the past five years has occurred in Greenland, based on measurements of ice weight by the Grace satellite, said a NASA geophysicist, Scott Luthcke. The Greenland melt seems to be accelerating, he said.

NASA scientists planned to present their findings Thursday at the American Geophysical Union conference in San Francisco. Luthcke said Greenland figures for the summer of 2008 were not yet complete, but the ice loss this year, while still significant, would not be as severe as in 2007.

The news was better for Alaska. After a precipitous drop in 2005, land ice increased slightly in 2008 because of large snowfalls, Luthcke said. Since 2003, when the NASA satellite started taking measurements, Alaska has lost 400 billion tons of land ice.

In assessing climate change, scientists generally look at several years to determine the overall trend. Melting of land ice, unlike sea ice, increases sea levels very slightly. In the 1990s, melting Greenland ice did not make world sea levels rise; now that island is adding about half a millimeter to the sea level a year, a NASA ice scientist, Jay Zwally said.

Melting land ice in Greenland, Antarctica and Alaska has raised global sea levels about one-fifth of an inch in the past five years, Luthcke said. Sea levels also rise from water expanding as it warms.

Other research being presented this week at the geophysical meeting points to more concerns about ice melting because of global warming, especially sea ice.

"It's not getting better; it's continuing to show strong signs of warming and amplification," Zwally said. "There's no reversal taking place."

Scientists studying sea ice will announce that parts of the Arctic north of Alaska were 9 degrees Fahrenheit to 10 degrees, or about 5 degrees Celsius to 6 degrees, warmer this past autumn, a strong early indication of what researchers call the Arctic amplification effect. That is when the Arctic warms faster than predicted, and warming there is accelerating faster than elsewhere on the globe.

As sea ice melts, the Arctic waters absorb more heat in the summer, having lost the reflective powers of vast packs of ice. That absorbed heat is released into the air in the autumn. That has led to autumn temperatures in the last several years that are 6 degrees Fahrenheit to 10 degrees (3.5 degrees to 6 degrees) warmer than they were in the 1980s, said Julienne Stroeve, a research scientist at the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colorado.

That is a strong and early impact of global warming, she said.

"The pace of change is starting to outstrip our ability to keep up with it, in terms of our understanding of it," said Mark Serreze, senior scientist at the snow and ice data center, a co-author of the Arctic amplification study.

Two other studies presented at the conference assess how Arctic thawing is releasing methane - a potent greenhouse gas. One study shows that the loss of sea ice warms the water, which warms the permafrost on nearby land in Alaska, thus producing methane, Stroeve said.

A second study suggests even larger amounts of frozen methane are trapped in lake beds and sea bottoms around Siberia and they are starting to bubble to the surface in some spots in alarming amounts, said Igor Semiletov, a professor at the University of Alaska in Fairbanks. Late last summer, Semiletov found methane bubbling up from parts of the East Siberian Sea and the Laptev Sea at levels 10 times higher than those of the mid-1990s, he said.

The amounts of methane in the region could dramatically increase global warming if they get released, he said. That, Semiletov said, "should alarm people."

http://www.iht.com/bin/printfriendly.php?id=18734388
Title: New Zealand scraps 'thermal ban'
Post by: mr anderson on December 17, 2008, 06:26:19 am
http://www.upstreamonline.com/live/article168335.ece

By Russell Searancke


New Zealand's oil and gas association has welcomed the new government's move today to overturn the 10-year "thermal ban" on building new gas-fired power plants introduced by the previous administration.

Energy Minister Gerry Brownlee said the Electricity (Renewable Preferences) Repeal Bill reversed what was widely known as the "thermal ban", which made it a criminal offence to construct new thermal power stations, including gas-fired plants.

"The government strongly supports renewable energy but a thermal ban now puts our security of supply at risk," said Brownlee. "Thermal generation, particularly from gas-fired generation, is the insurance card underpinning the security of our electricity system."

"The ban would only put additional strain on the sector, and last winter demonstrated the critical importance of gas-fired generation. At the time electricity from thermal sources was generating over 50% of our electricity needs, " he said.

Pepanz, the oil and gas association, said lifting of the ban would encourage exploration and help to stabilise electricity prices.

Pepanz executive officer John Pfahlert said the National Party-led government’s quick action to remove the ban should be welcomed by both the energy industry and electricity consumers.

“The issue with this ban was always the negative impact on oil and gas exploration and the downstream effects on security of supply and the affordability of electricity,” he said.
Title: 5% cut in emissions not good enough for "Greenies".
Post by: mr anderson on December 17, 2008, 08:20:05 am
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/miranda-devine/greenies-go-gaga/2008/12/17/1229189705771.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

Miranda Devine
December 18, 2008


APOPLECTIC apocalyptic greenies threw shoes at an effigy of Kevin Rudd, broke into a woodchip mill in Tasmania and threatened to move to Europe as part of an orchestrated dummy spit against the Prime Minister's emissions scheme announced this week.

The tantrums from Australia's screeching environmental banshees have barely abated since the Government revealed its plan to cut Australia's greenhouse gas emissions from between 5 and 15 per cent by 2020, an amount deemed too small by green groups.

"It's a decision to see the Great Barrier Reef die before our very eyes," said Greens Senator Christine Milne.

Rudd must be rubbing his hands with glee as the more crazed greenies give him the appearance of being a safe pair of hands on climate change - doing just enough to placate green-aware citizens but not enough to wreck the economy.

But his scheme is a more radical proposal than any other country has adopted.

Professor Bob Carter, a James Cook University geologist, described it yesterday as "the worst single piece of legislation to be tabled in the Parliament since Federation".

"It is a non-solution to a non-problem," he said. "If ever there were a bill that justifies a conscience vote, then this must be it, for it wittingly intends to reduce the living standards of all Australians."

The Czech President, Vaclav Klaus, who is about to take up the EU presidency, described the European climate deal as "a silly luxury" this week, so what does that make Australia's deal?

The fact sheets attached to the Government's emissions white paper reveal that, per capita, Australia's emissions reduction will be 34-41 per cent below 1990 levels. That is far greater than the comparable EU cuts of 24-34 per cent, or the United States, 25 per cent.

Des Moore, director of the Institute for Private Enterprise and a former deputy Treasury secretary, said yesterday it is "ridiculous" for Australia to take the lead by starting its own scheme before all major emitters agree on a "global" one.

He said a cap and trade style system proposed by Rudd is a "bad idea even if you believe in the need to reduce emissions. It requires an enormous bureaucratic interference in the economy and provides potential for structural adjustments that will harm the economy unnecessarily."

Professor Aynsley Kellow, the head of the school of government at the University of Tasmania, and an expert on climate change treaties, acknowledged yesterday that Rudd's scheme was clever politics. But he said there are "substantial dangers" for Australia.

"Ironically, at the very point in history when the EU has abandoned unilateral gestures, Rudd has made one - one that will not make a discernible difference to global greenhouse gas levels, and that has annoyed the Green movement and business simultaneously."

The fact is temperatures have not risen in a decade, and have actually been falling in recent years, despite increasing carbon emissions.

The tide has turned for the fundamentalist zealots of the climate change movement as more scientists declare their doubts that the science on climate change is "settled", and opinion polls show the public growing ever more reluctant to make personal sacrifices to reduce carbon emissions.

As the economy sinks, more people who blithely believed in the "precautionary principle" are realising the potential costs to their hip pockets and have started to apply a little clear-eyed vision themselves.

"What was it you were saying?" they ask the vilified sceptics.

As it turns out, plenty. Try the latest US Senate minority report from its environment and public works committee that quotes 650 dissenting scientists questioning the doomsday scenario. The minority report, which comes from the office of Republican Senator James Inhofe, gathers quotes from sceptical scientists this year.

They include Japanese scientist Dr Kiminori Itoh, who was an expert reviewer for last year's United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, who declared global warming the "worst scientific scandal in [history]". Former NASA atmospheric scientist Dr Joanne Simpson is quoted: "Since I am no longer affiliated with any organisation nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly … As a scientist I remain sceptical."

Opinion polling reflects the mood. Last month, on the eve of the Poznan climate conference, a poll of 12,000 people in 11 countries, including Australia, showed the growing public reluctance to make sacrifices to reduce emissions. Conducted by HSBC and green groups, it found just one in five respondents willing to spend money to reduce climate change.

Almost 20 per cent fewer people than last year were willing to make changes to their lifestyle - 47 per cent, compared to 58 per cent last year. A Lowy Institute poll in July found climate change went from being the most important issue of public concern last year to equal fifth this year.

According to the Garnaut Report, Australia was responsible for 1.5 per cent of global emissions in 2005, dropping to 1.1 per cent by 2030. So a 5 per cent reduction of 1.1 per cent is hardly going to set the world on fire - it's a 0.055 per cent reduction in global emissions. Whoopee.

Meanwhile the world's largest emitter, China, will almost double its emissions by 2030, from 18.3 per cent of global emissions in 2005 to 33 per cent in 2030 - a whopping one-third.

Even if we reduced our emissions by 100 per cent, as the crazies want us to, our sacrifice would be meaningless.
Title: Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
Post by: Brocke on December 17, 2008, 06:12:47 pm

Australians condemn climate plan


Dam dried up following prolonged drought in Parkes, New South Wales
Australia has been hit by the worst drought in a century

Environmental activists have staged protests in several Australian cities against a plan to combat climate change announced by Prime Minister Kevin Rudd.

Some campaigners held up white flags to signify Australia's "surrender" to climate change, while others reportedly threw shoes at a puppet of Mr Rudd.

Under the plan greenhouse gas emissions will be cut by at least 5% by 2020 and a carbon trading scheme will be set up.

But critics say it is inadequate, with some calling it a "joke".

'Disgusting failure'

In Sydney, protesters rallied around federal government offices, some stacking sandbags against the buildings to highlight the threat of rising sea levels caused by a warming climate.

In the capital Canberra, dozens of protesters booed outside parliament, while in Melbourne protesters carried white flags of surrender.

"I think it is an appalling and disgusting failure by the Rudd government in their duty to this nation's future," Australian Greens party leader Bob Brown told reporters, according to Reuters news agency.

In Adelaide, activists reportedly threw shoes at a puppet of Mr Rudd, in apparent imitation of a recent Iraqi journalist's act of protest against US President George W Bush in Baghdad last Sunday.

Mr Rudd had promised huge cuts in greenhouse gas emissions in Australia - one of the world's biggest emitters - when he came to office over a year ago.

Scheme defended

The new measures, announced on Monday, include cutting emissions by between between 5% and 15% by 2020, from 2000 levels, and introducing a carbon trading scheme in 2010.

Mr Rudd's climate change minister, Penny Wong, has defended the scheme, saying it seeks to "strike the right balance" between the needs of the environment and Australia's economy.

But activists say the changes will not go far enough to prevent catastrophic change. Many have called for emissions to be cut by at least 25% by 2020 - as recommended by the UN's specialist Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

"Five per cent is a joke," student Rachael Chick, attending the Sydney protests, told the Sydney Morning Herald newspaper.

"I voted for Kevin Rudd in the last election pretty much because of his stance on climate change. Now I think he's just being a fence-sitter."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7785229.stm
Title: Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
Post by: Orgetorix on December 18, 2008, 10:28:55 am
Yeah, just like in politics, it isn't "lying", it's "spinning". ::)


eu·phe·mism
Pronunciation:\ˈyü-fə-ˌmi-zəm\
Function:noun

A euphemism is a substitution of an agreeable or less offensive expression in place of one that may offend or suggest something unpleasant to the listener, or in the case of doublespeak, to make it less troublesome for the speaker. It also may be a substitution of a description of something or someone rather than the name, to avoid revealing secret, holy, or sacred names to the uninitiated, or to obscure the identity of the subject of a conversation from potential eavesdroppers. Some euphemisms are intended to be funny.

The word euphemism comes from the Greek word euphemo, meaning "auspicious/good/fortunate speech/kind" which in turn is derived from the Greek root-words eu (ευ), "good/well" + pheme (φήμη) "speech/speaking". The eupheme was originally a word or phrase used in place of a religious word or phrase that should not be spoken aloud; etymologically, the eupheme is the opposite of the blaspheme (evil-speaking). The primary example of taboo words requiring the use of a euphemism are the unspeakable names for a deity, such as Persephone, Hecate, or Nemesis.

Remember the best way to lie is to tell the truth in a manner that it will not be believed.
Title: Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
Post by: mr anderson on December 18, 2008, 10:03:29 pm
Switch to solar undermined by Rudd climate plan

http://www.theage.com.au/environment/switch-to-solar-undermined-by-rudd-climate-plan-20081218-71n4.html

Tim Colebatch
December 19, 2008


A FLAW in the design of the Federal Government's emissions trading scheme means households buying solar power systems in future might not be helping to reduce Australia's greenhouse gas emissions.

A day after Environment Minister Peter Garrett flagged controversial changes in subsidies for solar energy, critics have leapt on what appears to be another Government-created disincentive for Australian households to go solar.

Under the Government climate strategy announced this week, Australia will cut emissions by 5 per cent from 2000 levels by 2020, with the option of a higher target if other countries take strong action.

But under the proposed emissions trading scheme, any carbon dioxide reductions achieved by future solar households could simply allow polluting industries to increase emissions by a corresponding amount - without jeopardising Australia's overall target.

"When emissions trading comes in, every tonne of carbon dioxide saved by households will simply free up a tonne that can be used by industry," said Richard Denniss, director of the Australia Institute.

"Installing solar hot water heaters, driving smaller cars and turning off the lights will not help the environment one bit," Mr Denniss said. "The only effective way for households to reduce Australia's carbon emissions will be to buy emissions permits and rip them up."

Another critic, Voluntary Carbon Markets Association president Ric Brazzale, said voluntary actions by companies and individuals to reduce emissions - including Green Power schemes and buying offsets for emissions on plane flights - now save 6 million tonnes of emissions a year, and involve one in six Australian families. "Inadequate targets will lead to inadequate emission reductions," Mr Brazzale said. "It is imperative to encourage voluntary action by individuals and business to achieve emissions reductions beyond relatively minor levels."

The association is urging the Government to allow carbon savings through "measurable and verified voluntary action" by households or business to extinguish emissions trading permits - as under a scheme now operating in the north-east of the United States.

Without this, it warned, emissions trading "will effectively decimate the voluntary market in Australia".

Meanwhile, it has emerged that few, if any, of Australia's 30 coal-fired power generators will be shut down by 2020 under the Rudd Government scheme.

About $3.9 billion will be handed out to the most-polluting generators in the form of free permits to emit greenhouse gases under the scheme.

But modelling in the Government's white paper on the scheme shows there will be no significant reductions in carbon pollution from coal-fired power stations by 2020 if the target of cutting emissions to 5 per cent below 2000 levels is stuck to.

Using three different models, the white paper finds that under the Rudd plan, "emissions do not reduce significantly below the current levels over the first decade of the scheme". The main benefit of the scheme, it says, is to stop the growth of emissions from power generators in the future, rather than cutting emissions or shutting down any of the generators.

In other developments:

- Mr Garrett has proposed that owners of office space of more than 2000 square metres commission a report giving an energy efficiency rating.

- Accountants KPMG, the Brotherhood of St Laurence and the Ecos Corporation called for a national energy efficiency program to refit homes of low-income earners.

With MARIAN WILKINSON
Title: Emissions Trading Scheme a big pain for little gain - Professor Bob Carter
Post by: mr anderson on December 19, 2008, 01:58:21 am
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24820742-7583,00.html

Bob Carter | December 19, 2008
The Australian


THE Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change model of dangerous, human-caused climate change has failed. Independent science relevant to supposed human-caused global warming is clear, and can be summarised in four briefpoints.

First, global temperature warmed slightly in the late 20th century and has been cooling since 2002. Neither the warming nor the cooling were of unusual rate ormagnitude.

Second, humans have an effect on local climate but, despite the expenditure of more than $US50 billion ($70 billion) looking for it since 1990, no globally summed human effect has ever been measured. Therefore, any human signal must lie buried in the variability of the natural climate system.

Third, we live on a dynamic planet; change occurs in Earth's geosphere, biosphere, atmosphere and oceans all the time and all over the world. No substantive evidence exists that modern rates of global environmental change (ice volume; sea level) lie outside historic natural bounds.

Last, cutting carbon dioxide emissions, be it in Australia or worldwide, will likely result in no measurable change in future climate, because extra increments of atmospheric CO2 cause diminishing warming for each unit of increase; at most, a few tenths of a degree of extra warming would result from a completion of doubling of CO2 since pre-industrial times.

These facts notwithstanding, the Rudd Government is poised to introduce a CO2 taxation bill on doubly spurious grounds. It presumes, first, that dangerous warming caused by human emissions is occurring, or will shortly occur. And, second, that cuts to emissions will prevent significant amounts of future warming.

There is, therefore, now a dramatic disjunction between scientific reality and the stranglehold that global warming alarmism has on planned Australian climate policy.

Today's public views about climate change are based upon 20 years of promulgation of dangerous global warming by what has become a hugely powerful coalition of self-interested groups and agencies.

Beneficiaries of warming alarmism include individual scientists, managers of research centres, morally pretentious environmental non-government organisations, prestigious science academies and societies, bureaucrats from government greenhouse and climate agencies, big businesses poised for carbon trading (think Enron and Lehman Brothers), alternative energy providers, those in the media who remorselessly promulgate environmental alarm stories, and, last but not least, those uninformed politicians who seek political advantage from cynical exploitation of the public's fear of global warming.

The Australian Government does not possess a national climate policy; instead, it has an imaginary global warming policy, based on sub-prime science, sub-prime economics and sub-prime politics.

In dealing with the certainties and uncertainties of real climate change, the key issues are prudent risk assessment and adaptive response. As is the case for other unpredictable and unpreventable natural planetary hazards, policy to deal with climate change should be based on adaptation to change as it happens, including the appropriate mitigation of undesirable socioeconomic and environmental effects.

We therefore need, first, to monitor climate change accurately in an ongoing way; and, second, to respond and adapt to any changes -- including long-term warmings, the likely more damaging coolings, and severe weather or climatic events such as cyclones -- in the same way that government and voluntary disaster services now deal with hazardous natural events such as bushfires, droughts and floods.

The main certainty is that natural climate change and variation are going to continue, and that some manifestations -- droughts, storms and sea-level change, for example -- will be expensive to adapt to.

Adaptation will not be aided by imprudent restructuring of Australia's energy economy in pursuit of the chimera of "stopping" an alleged dangerous human-caused global warming that can neither be demonstrated nor measured. In reality, too, our lack of understanding of all the climatic feedback loops is such that cutting CO2 emissions is as likely to "harm" as to "help" future climate.

New Zealand already has a national monitoring and response system in place for earthquake, volcanic and flood disasters (GeoNet). This is linked, appropriately, to a parallel compensation and insurance system that recompenses victims of natural disaster (the Earthquake Commission).

Even if generous funding were to be provided in Australia towards a similar preparation for climatic disasters (of which drought and flood relief are part), the net cost would still be orders of magnitude less than will be engendered by a fundamentally misconceived emissions trading scheme. To boot, contingent damage to the economy, the standard of living and the world food supply would be avoided.

Attempting to "stop global warming" by limiting CO2 emissions is simply an arcadian fantasy, since making deep cuts to Australia's emissions would at best help to avert or delay warming by about a miniscule one-thousandth of a degree.

Australia needs a national climate policy that is rooted in sound science, sensible precaution, prudent risk assessment, and efficient and effective disaster relief. Lacking all such elements, the Australian Government's global warming policy fails the basic test of duty to care for the citizenry.

Bob Carter is an adjunct research fellow at James Cook University, Townsville, and studies ancient climate change.

http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/new_page_1.htm
Title: Emissions Trading Scheme: Completely unnecessary - Dr. David Evans
Post by: mr anderson on December 19, 2008, 07:48:02 am
(http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/images/David_Evans_131.jpg)
Dr. David Evans

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2451051.htm

Rudd has failed to see through the vested interests that promote anthropogenic global warming (AGW), the theory that human emissions of carbon cause global warming. Though masquerading as "science based", the promoters of AGW have a medieval outlook and are in fact anti-science. Meanwhile carbon is innocent, and the political class is plunging ahead with making us poorer because they do not understand what science really is or what the real science is.

The Renaissance began when the absolute authority of the church and ancient texts was overthrown. Science then evolved as our most reliable method for acquiring knowledge, free of superstition and political authority. Suppose you wanted to know whether big cannonballs or small cannonballs fell faster. In medieval times you argued theoretically with what could be gleaned from the Bible, the works of Aristotle, or maybe a Papal announcement. In the Renaissance you ignored the authorities and simply dropped cannon balls from a tower and observed what happened - this was science, where empirical evidence trumps theory.

From 1975 to 2001 the global temperature trended up. How do you empirically determine the cause of this global warming? It turns out we can learn a lot simply by observing where the warming occurred: each possible cause of global warming heats the atmosphere differently, heating some parts before others. The pattern of warming is the cause's "signature".

The signature of an increased greenhouse effect consists of two features: a hotspot about 10 km up in the atmosphere over the tropics, and a combination of broad stratospheric cooling and broad tropospheric warming. The signature of ozone depletion consists just of the second feature. These signatures are theoretically derived by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and are integral to our understanding of how the atmosphere works. [1]

We have been observing temperatures in the atmosphere for decades using radiosondes - weather balloons with thermometers that radio back the temperature as the balloon ascends through the atmosphere. The radiosonde measurements for 1979-1999 show broad stratospheric cooling and broad tropospheric warming, but they show no tropical hotspot. Not even a small one. [2]

Empirically, we therefore know that an increased greenhouse effect was not a significant cause of the recent global warming. (Either that or the signatures from the IPCC are wrong, so its climate models and predictions are rubbish anyway.)

Human carbon emissions were occurring at the time but the greenhouse effect did not increase. Therefore human carbon emissions did not increase the greenhouse effect, and did not cause global warming. So AGW is wrong, and carbon is innocent. Suspect exonerated - wrong signature.

Alarmist scientists (supporters of AGW) objected that the radiosonde thermometers were not accurate and maybe the hotspot was there but went undetected. But there were hundreds of radiosondes, so statistically this is unlikely. They have also suggested we ignore the radiosonde thermometers, and use the radiosonde wind measurements instead. When combined with a theory about wind shear they estimated the temperatures on their computers - and say that the results show that we cannot rule out the presence of a hotspot. But thermometers are designed to measure temperature, so it's a bit of a stretch to claim that wind gauges are accidentally better at it. Serious alarmist scientists do not claim that the hotspot was found, only that we might have missed it. The obvious conclusion is that the hotspot was too weak to be easily detected. We cannot collect any more data from the past warming, and there is no sign of the hotspot in the data that was collected - so the occasional claims that appear on the Internet that the hotspot has been found are simply wrong. [3]

So can we tell from the observed warming pattern what did cause the global warming? Unfortunately we have little idea of the signatures of some of the suspects, such as cosmic rays or the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, so we cannot say except to note that ozone depletion was one of the causes.

Is there any observational evidence in favor of AGW? As of 2003, none at all.

The only supporting evidence for AGW was the old ice core data. The old ice core data, gathered from 1985, showed that in the past half million years, through several global warmings and coolings, the earth's temperature and atmospheric carbon levels rose and fell in lockstep. AGW was coming into vogue in the 1980s, so it was widely assumed that it was the carbon changes causing the temperature changes.

By the late 1990s ice core techniques had improved. In the old ice cores the data points were a few thousand years apart, but in the new ice core data they were only a few hundred years apart. In the early 1990s, New Scientist magazine anticipated that the higher-resolution data would seal the case for AGW.

But the opposite occurred. By 2003 it had been established to everyone's satisfaction that temperature changes preceded corresponding carbon changes by an average of 800 years: so temperature changes caused carbon changes - a warmer ocean supports more carbon in the atmosphere, after delays due to mixing. [4] So the ice core data no longer supported AGW. The alarmists failed to effectively notify the public.

After several prominent public claims by skeptics in 2008 that there is no evidence left for AGW, alarmist scientists offered only two points.

First, laboratory tests prove that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. But that observation tells us nothing about how much the global temperature changes if extra carbon enters the real, complicated atmosphere. Every emitted carbon atom raises the global temperature, but the missing hotspot shows that the effect is negligible.

Second, computer models. Computer models are just huge concatenations of calculations that, individually, could have been performed on a handheld calculator. They are theory, not evidence.

Governments have spent over $50 billion on climate research since 1990, and we have not found any actual evidence for AGW. [5]

So if there is no evidence to support AGW, and the missing hotspot shows that AGW is wrong, why does most of the world still believe in AGW?

Part of the answer is that science changed direction after a large constituency of vested interests had invested in AGW. The old ice core data provided support from 1985, the IPCC was established by the UN in 1988 to look into human changes to climate, and the Kyoto Protocol was negotiated in 1997 to limit carbon emissions. By 1999 the western political class were doing something, the western media were rallying behind "saving the planet", and scientists were being paid by governments to research the effects of human-caused global warming.

But then the evidence took science off in a different direction: the new ice core data in 2003, the missing hotspot in 2007, and the global temperature has stopped trending up since 2001 [6]. Governments, the media, and many scientists did not notice.

The remainder of the answer for the current belief in AGW is darker and more political. An offbeat theory in the 1970s, AGW was adopted by a group of about 45 atmospheric modelers and physicists. That group dominated climate science journals, peer reviewed each others papers, and hindered competing ideas by underhand methods [7]. AGW gained political support from proponents of nuclear power, and vice-president Gore appointed AGW supporters to science positions in the USA.

AGW grabbed control of climate funding in key western countries. Lack of diversity in science funding has been a major problem since government took over funding science in WWII. Science is like a courtroom - protagonists put forward their best cases, and out of the argument some truth emerges. But if only one side is funded and heard, then truth tends not to emerge. This happened in climate science, which is almost completely government funded and has been dominated by AGW for two decades. Skeptics are mainly scientists who are retired or who have moved on to other areas - their funding no longer depends on allegiance to AGW. The alarmists are full time, well funded, and hog the megaphone.

AGW was always promoted as being supported by nearly all scientists (though polls and history do not support this). Counting numbers of supporters and creating a bandwagon effect by announcing you are in the majority is a political tactic.

AGW always advanced principally by political means; as a scientific theory it was always weak, and now the evidence contradicts it. It's like a return to medieval times, where authority rules and evidence is ignored. Notice how the proponents of AGW don't want to talk about evidence of the causes? Anything but evidence of cause - attack people's motives, someone else "has the evidence", theoretical models, evidence that global warming is occurring, how important they are, what credentials they have, how worthy they are, the dog ate my evidence, "the science is settled", polar bears, anything. Talking about the evidence of the cause of global warming does not advance their cause. Politics says AGW is correct; science says it is wrong.

Science demands evidence. Evidence trumps theory, no matter what the political authority of those promoting the theory, even if they dress up in lab coats and have job titles that say "scientist". The hotspot is missing and there is no evidence for AGW. The alarmists cannot ignore this and continue to play political games forever. They are entitled to argue the case for AGW, but they should also acknowledge the evidence and inform the political class that AGW appears to be wrong - even if it means risking their status and their jobs (and yes, we scientists are also people who have kids and mortgages).

There are two central lies in the political promotion of AGW.

The first appears in Gore's movie. He gave the old ice core data as the sole reason for believing AGW (the rest of the movie presents evidence that global warming occurred, a separate issue). He said that increases in carbon caused increases in temperature in the past warming events. But Gore made his movie in 2005, two years after the new ice core data had established the opposite! Gore's weasel words when he introduced that segment show he knew what he was about to say was false. Who would have believed his pitch if he added "and each temperature rise occurred 800 years before the corresponding rise in carbon that caused it"? [8]

The second lie is the hockey stick graph, which presented the last thousand years of global temperature as the flat handle of a hockey stick and the next hundred as the sharply rising blade [9]. The hockey stick graph was heavily promoted by the IPCC in 2001, and the IPCC even adopted it as its logo before it got discredited. It is significant because most non-scientist AGW supporters seem to believe some version of the hockey stick. When the IPCC "scientists" who produced the graph were asked to show their data for past temperatures, they refused (true scientists share data). But one of those scientists was a British academic and subject to the British Freedom of Information Act, and after two years of stonewalling all was revealed. It showed they had grossly skewed the data (even omitting inconvenient data to a folder labeled "Censored"), and that the computer program used to process the data had the hockey stick shape built into it - you could feed it stock market data instead of tree ring data and you would still get a hockey stick! In reality it was warmer in the Middle Ages than today, and there was a mini ice age around 1700 from which we have since been warming ever since. [10] Finally, the sharply rising blade of the hockey stick is contradicted so far by actual temperatures, which from 2001 to 2008 have been flat - something all of the climate models got wrong.

Among non-scientists, AGW appeals strongly to two groups. Those who support big government love the idea of carbon regulations - if you control carbon emissions then you control most human activity. And those who like to feel morally superior to the bulk of their fellow citizens by virtue of a belief (the "warm inner glow" and moral vanity of the politically correct) are firmly attached to AGW. These groups are politically adept, are planning to spend your money and tell you how to eat, travel and how to live, and they are strenuously avoiding the evidence.

The media has avoided presenting information that undermines AGW, until recently. Instead they promoted alarmism, and discredited skeptics as being in the pay of big oil - while giving a free pass to Gore, who made a movie based on an obvious lie then made millions selling carbon offsets. The media is very keen to present evidence that global warming is occurring, but have you noticed how quiet it is on evidence that carbon emissions caused it?

In 2007 almost no one in the west knew that the hotspot was missing, that there was no evidence for AGW, that temperatures had been flat for six years, that the hockey stick was a fraud, or that Al Gore lied when he gave the old ice core data as a reason for blaming carbon. But due to the Internet the public is gradually finding out anyway, which risks further discrediting many media outlets. Why buy a newspaper if it's not going to tell you the actual news?

And as the public become generally aware, what politician is going to risk being so ideologically stupid as to unnecessarily wreck the economy by slashing carbon emissions? Hmmm, Kevin Rudd?

Endnotes

[1] The IPCC published several signatures in IPCC Assessment Report 4, 2007, Chapter 9, Figure 9.1, page 675: http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch09.pdf

[2] The US CCSP published the observed changes in atmospheric temperatures for 1979, 1999 in part E of Figure 5.7 on page 116 in 2006: http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/sap1-1-final-chap5.pdf

[3] See http://sciencespeak.com/MissingSignature.pdf for links to debates, further commentary, and arguments from alarmist scientists.

[4] Callion's 2003 paper is at http://icebubbles.ucsd.edu/Publications/CaillonTermIII.pdf, and a colorful but informative and link-filled presentation is at http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/07/carbon-dioxide-and-temperatures-ice.html.

[5] The US has spent about $30b (http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/file-uploads/USGCRP-CCSP_Budget_History_Table_2.pdf) and other western countries combined have presumably spent about as much again. The UK will not release its sending figures. See also http://joannenova.com.au/2008/12/02/big-government-outspends-big-oil-1000-to-1.

[6] Look at the data from the four bodies that produce global temperature records. Satellite data is the only temperature data we can trust, but only goes back to 1979; satellites operate 24/7, measuring everywhere except the poles. Land based thermometer readings are corrupted by the urban heat island effect-and they show temperatures rising faster in areas with higher populations (see http://www.surfacestations.org/odd_sites.htm and http://wattsupwiththat.com/test/).
1. Remote Sensing Systems in California. Uses only satellite data: www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/RSSglobe.html.
2. University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH). Uses only satellite data: www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/UAHMSUglobe.html.
3. The Hadley Centre in the UK uses a mix of satellite data and land-based thermometers: www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/HadCRUG.html.
4. The Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) at NASA uses land-based thermometers (plus a few ocean thermometers), but no satellite data: www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/GISSglobal.html.

[7] For many examples from an impeccable scientist in the trenches, see http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.3762.pdf.

[8] A British judge ruled that when Gore presented the ice core graphs of temperature and carbon in his movie, "the two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore asserts". The nine errors found by the judge in Gore's movie are summarized in the graphic at http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23416151-details/Judge+attacks+nine+errors+in+Al+Gore%27s+%27alarmist%27+climate+change+film/article.do.

[9] The Australian Department of Climate Change still sports the hockey stick on its website in 2008: http://www.climatechange.gov.au/science/faq/question2.html. Hear from the scientist who uncovered the fraud: http://www.climatechangeissues.com/files/PDF/conf05mckitrick.pdf.

[10] What the combined mass of independent researchers say about the historical past in 2007 is in Figure 3 at http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm (the last blue downtick seems to be due to using 30 year averages with the last period ending in about 1975, the end of the last cooling).
Title: Electronics to get "Green" rating system
Post by: mr anderson on December 21, 2008, 10:04:26 pm
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,27574,24831872-2862,00.html

Peter Familari
December 22, 2008 12:00am


VICTORIANS will get leaner, greener TVs next year.

A new star rating system similar to the one used on dryers and washing machines means some LCD and plasma TVs will be withdrawn from sale.

With concerns about the rising threat of global warming, Australia's TV manufacturers have been put on notice by the Federal Government with this message: produce less power-hungry TVs or withdraw them from sale.

In a recent announcement, Peter Garrett, Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, said all TVs sold in Australia were expected to display energy star rating labels.

The more stars, the less power a TV will consume.

So a three-star TV will use 30 per cent less energy that two star models.

The star rating system, which now rates TV power consumption using a six-star system, could evolve to a sophisticated 10-star system by late next year.

The energy rating system is voluntary for manufacturers - for now.

But those within the electronics industry widely expect it to become mandatory when the Federal Government finishes several environmental studies by late next year.

"Victorians shopping for a new TV this Christmas should factor energy consumption into their buying decision," a spokesman for Mr Garrett said.

"In this global economic downturn it makes sense for consumers to save cash by making smart and simple buying decisions."

Panasonic and Sharp are already rolling out TVs displaying a set's energy ratings. Sony says it will follow soon.

The present 66cm (26-inch) Panasonic Viera LCD TV is now selling in stores and displays a three-star rating.

The company says all new Viera plasma and LCD TVs will be labelled as they are released on to the market.

Samsung and Sony are building LCD TVs with energy efficient LED back lights instead of traditional power hungry globe technology without affecting the picture quality.

Surprisingly, LCDs and plasma TVs are not the hungriest energy appliances in Australian households.

A survey by Choice consumer group gave that dubious honour to computer games consoles. It found the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 consumed the most power.

The consoles had an energy consumption four times higher than an analogue TV set.

Airconditioners, clothes dryers and washing machines also consume a lot of electrical power.

But the Government has acted because its research shows household TV energy use has rocketed fourfold from 1986 to 2006.

TVs are also used for long periods each day. A 127cm (50-inch) LCD or plasma on for several hours daily can eat up as much electricity as a medium-sized fridge, which is more than a dishwasher, washing machine and dryer combined.
Title: Re: Electronics to get "Green" rating system
Post by: wvoutlaw2002 on December 21, 2008, 10:28:15 pm
Personally, I think recycling older electronics is more environemntally-friendly than forced obsolescence. The Green Nazis are the ones f*cking up the environment, not us.
Title: Re: Electronics to get "Green" rating system
Post by: Wood0173 on December 22, 2008, 05:10:09 pm
A green television is the epitome of an oxymoron.  The term "green" is being over played and really needs to disappear.  Many hospitals are going "green" by drying their bed sheets outside.  Kids are going "green" by reusing their sandwich bags and packing their lunches in tupperware.  Others go "green" by turning their lights off when they leave the house.  How are we supposed to define going "green?"  I always thought that going "green" was painting yourself green, eating only salad and hanging out with frogs and turtles.  Now it has become using a cellphone that only needs to be charged once a week, driving a hybrid and getting your Starbucks coffee with a papercup as well as watching the Sundance Channel.
Title: Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
Post by: Wood0173 on December 22, 2008, 05:38:45 pm
Oddly enough, average temperatures this year were lower than in previous years.  That's just part of the process of the world gradually cooling, says the pretentious "hippies" that infest your towns and swear allegiance to Big Brother Obama. 
Title: Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
Post by: Brocke on December 24, 2008, 06:28:59 pm
The AUSTRALIAN CARBON REDUCTION & TRADING EXPO, sponsored by Sustainability Victoria, Coffey Environments and Origin, will be held Tuesday 31 March - Thursday 2 April 2009 at the Melbourne Exhibition Centre.

This Expo and Conference is recognised by all industry sectors as the most important market place for the 'new carbon economy'.  The Expo is the only event in Australia where business can meet with business and discover strategies, products and solutions that are hands-on and designed to prepare industry for the 2010 Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS).

http://www.actexpo.com.au/
https://secure.mcec.com.au/iEBMS/coe/coe_p2_details.aspx?eventid=42745&sessionid=fapfgnfdkff0feneik
Title: Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
Post by: Brocke on December 26, 2008, 06:33:20 pm

Energy companies under fire over smart meters

Posted 24 minutes ago

An environment lobby group says electricity companies are failing to roll out technology that could help reduce household consumption and greenhouse emissions.

The New South Wales Government promised 'smart meter' installation a year ago, but the Total Environment Centre's Jane Castles says only bottom-of-the-line technology is on offer.

"[They are] smart meters without in-home displays and they certainly don't offer the right pricing incentives that reflect the benefits of energy efficiency," she said.

The Energy Retailers Association's chief executive, Cameron O'Reilly, says it is yet to be proved that smart meters do cut power usage.

"If you don't get that consumer response and therefore avoid investment in the generation sector then you haven't really achieved much by rolling out the smart meter," he said.

Energy Australia says initial trials suggest a 20-25 per cent reduction in usage but it is waiting for a national decision on which technology to roll out.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/12/27/2455488.htm
Title: Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
Post by: Brocke on December 31, 2008, 12:54:46 pm

Cool 2008 warms climate debate

John Stapleton | January 01, 2009
Article from:  The Australian

WHILE the official figures are not yet in, 2008 is widely tipped to be declared the coolest year of the century.

Whether this is a serious blow to global warming alarmists depends entirely on who you talk to.

Anyone looking for a knockout blow in the global warming debate in 2008 were sorely disappointed.

The weather refused to co-operate, offering mixed messages from record cold temperatures across North America to heatwaves across Europe and the Middle East earlier in the year.

Even in Australia yesterday there were flurries of snow on the highest peaks of a shivering Tasmania, while the north of the country sweltered in above-average temperatures.

A cool 2008 may not fit in with doomsday scenarios of some of the more extreme alarmists. But nor, meteorologists point out, does it prove the contrary, that global warming is a myth.

In Australia this year, on the most recent figures, the average temperature was 22.18C.

Last year it was 22.48C. In 2006 it was 22.28C, and in 2005 22.99C.

Senior meteorologist with the National Meteorological Centre Rod Dickson said that based on data from January to November, 2008 might be the coolest this century but it was still Australia's 15th warmest year in the past 100 years.

"Since 1990, the Australian annual mean temperature has been warmer than the 1961-1990 average for all but two years, 2008 being one of those years," he said.

In Australia overall, 2008 on the most recent date, was 0.37C higher than for the 30-year average to 1990 of 21.81C.

Worldwide, 2008 was expected to be about 0.31C higher than the 30-year average to 1990, of 14C.

One of Australia's best-known sceptics of man-made global warming, former head of the National Climate Centre William Kininmonth, said the cool year did not fit in with the greenhouse gas theory that suggests the globe should be continuing to warm.

"All the reports from the northern hemisphere of record snows and freezing temperatures would suggest that 2008 will follow the predictions and officially be declared the coolest of the century," he said. "But the only thing we can really deduce is that the warming trend from the mid-1970s to the late 1990s appears to have halted."

Another well-known sceptic, geologist Bob Carter, said critics were jumping on the cold northern hemisphere winter to dismiss global warming, but climate was a long-term phenomenon and there was nothing particularly unusual about present circumstances.

But Don White, of consultancy firm Weatherwatch, said while last year was likely to end up the coolest year this century, this needed to be put into perspective.

"If the same temperatures had occurred in the early 1990s it would have been the warmest ever," he said.

"The year 2008 may have been colder than the previous seven years, but it was still warmer than most years prior to 1993."

Mr White said Melbourne, Hobart and Adelaide had well below average rainfall for the calendar year 2008, with just 449mm in Melbourne, compared with an average annual rainfall of 652mm.

Hobart received 407mm in 2008 compared with an average of 618mm. Sydney was also slightly below average at 1083 mm, compared with an average of 1213mm.

Brisbane, Perth and Darwin were all wetter than normal.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24861265-601,00.html
Title: Cool 2008 warms climate debate
Post by: mr anderson on December 31, 2008, 10:40:55 pm
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24861265-601,00.html

John Stapleton | January 01, 2009
The Australian


WHILE the official figures are not yet in, 2008 is widely tipped to be declared the coolest year of the century.

Whether this is a serious blow to global warming alarmists depends entirely on who you talk to.

Anyone looking for a knockout blow in the global warming debate in 2008 were sorely disappointed.

The weather refused to co-operate, offering mixed messages from record cold temperatures across North America to heatwaves across Europe and the Middle East earlier in the year.

Even in Australia yesterday there were flurries of snow on the highest peaks of a shivering Tasmania, while the north of the country sweltered in above-average temperatures.

A cool 2008 may not fit in with doomsday scenarios of some of the more extreme alarmists. But nor, meteorologists point out, does it prove the contrary, that global warming is a myth.

In Australia this year, on the most recent figures, the average temperature was 22.18C.

Last year it was 22.48C. In 2006 it was 22.28C, and in 2005 22.99C.

Senior meteorologist with the National Meteorological Centre Rod Dickson said that based on data from January to November, 2008 might be the coolest this century but it was still Australia's 15th warmest year in the past 100 years.

"Since 1990, the Australian annual mean temperature has been warmer than the 1961-1990 average for all but two years, 2008 being one of those years," he said.

In Australia overall, 2008 on the most recent date, was 0.37C higher than for the 30-year average to 1990 of 21.81C.

Worldwide, 2008 was expected to be about 0.31C higher than the 30-year average to 1990, of 14C.

One of Australia's best-known sceptics of man-made global warming, former head of the National Climate Centre William Kininmonth, said the cool year did not fit in with the greenhouse gas theory that suggests the globe should be continuing to warm.

"All the reports from the northern hemisphere of record snows and freezing temperatures would suggest that 2008 will follow the predictions and officially be declared the coolest of the century," he said. "But the only thing we can really deduce is that the warming trend from the mid-1970s to the late 1990s appears to have halted."

Another well-known sceptic, geologist Bob Carter, said critics were jumping on the cold northern hemisphere winter to dismiss global warming, but climate was a long-term phenomenon and there was nothing particularly unusual about present circumstances.

But Don White, of consultancy firm Weatherwatch, said while last year was likely to end up the coolest year this century, this needed to be put into perspective.

"If the same temperatures had occurred in the early 1990s it would have been the warmest ever," he said.

"The year 2008 may have been colder than the previous seven years, but it was still warmer than most years prior to 1993."

Mr White said Melbourne, Hobart and Adelaide had well below average rainfall for the calendar year 2008, with just 449mm in Melbourne, compared with an average annual rainfall of 652mm.

Hobart received 407mm in 2008 compared with an average of 618mm. Sydney was also slightly below average at 1083 mm, compared with an average of 1213mm.

Brisbane, Perth and Darwin were all wetter than normal.
Title: Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
Post by: Brocke on January 03, 2009, 01:06:34 pm

Cold showers atone for my green sins

By Sue Dunlevy
The Daily Telegraph
January 02, 2009 03:22am

ENVIRONMENTAL puritanism almost killed Christmas in my suburb this year when green crusaders objected to neighbours who wanted to put up a Christmas light display.

Adding a little joy to the Christmas season was declared immoral because those frivolous lights would contribute to global warming.

No longer is a crisp and shrivelled lawn a good enough badge of your family's environmental credentials.

To really prove your loyalty to the planet you've now got to stop having fun.

The same wowserism was behind complaints about this year's $5 million New Year's Eve fireworks display centred on Sydney Harbour.

You can't bring a little bit of joy to 1.5million people any more without being roundly criticised.

To prove they still cared for the planet, organisers of this year's display went to the trouble of using green power electricity. They'd even promised to audit the display and buy carbon credits to offset any damage the fireworks might do to the globe's rising temperature.

I think they're on to something here.

Environmental correctness has become so strong, like the strict morality of a tough religion, it's threatening our capacity to enjoy life.

But the climate police have a lot to learn from religion.

Even the church with its strict moral code makes allowances for the human proclivity towards sinful enjoyment of life. The Catholic Church turned this into an art form in the middle ages when it sold off indulgences - remittances for your sins. The church allowed the rich to pay off their sins while on earth, avoiding time in purgatory after death.

Instead of trying to ban Christmas lights and fireworks in case they warm the planet, why don't environmental crusaders let us indulge in our sins but pay for them in cold showers.

It should be possible to have fun and spread joy as long as you pay for the damage you do to the planet.

There's great market potential out there that has not yet been properly exploited by those who want to protect the planet.

If you want to commit a sin like watching your big screen television, turning your lights on after dark or running your air conditioner on a hot day, why can't you buy an indulgence that allows you to be a little bit naughty.

Saying the rosary for half an hour, paying to have a church built or doing a few good deeds obviously won't rate in the environmental sphere.

But what about a ready reckoner that showed you how many cold showers you'd need to take to make up for each hour of watching your big screen TV.

Perhaps if we used candles instead of lights for a month we could make up for running the airconditioner on a hot day.

Eating vegetables and shunning dairy foods and red meat for a couple of months might compensate for turning on the electric blanket to warm up the beds in winter.

The Catholic Church got very entrepreneurial about its indulgence system and, instead of requiring the sinner to perform the acts of penance themselves, accepted money.

Committed environmentalists could accept money to take your cold showers for you, or to plant forests to compensate for your big screen TV use.

Kevin Rudd wants to put a price on carbon and introduce some highly complicated emissions trading scheme with a compensation system that's just going to cause him political headaches.

He'd do much better if he took his cue from the church and tried to keep it simple - declare energy use a sin and give us a list of environmental good works we can adopt to atone for our wilful ways.

My family defied the environmentalists this year and we put up our modest display of three strings of lights and a couple of light-up reindeers.

I've calculated the environmental cost of our sins as equivalent to running 20 light bulbs for 42 hours.

That's minor in the Christmas lights sin stakes.

One Sydney family calculated their impressively joyous light display added $150 to their electricity bill, that's 1 1/2 times the annual lighting bill of your average house.

But to those who object to our sinful ways I say stop your tut-tutting and tell me instead how you want me to atone for my transgressions.

I'm going camping next week and I want to know if a week's worth of meals cooked on a campfire eaten by torchlight and cold showers shared with spiders and frogs will help pay off my debt to the planet. The big screen TV, the airconditioner and the computer will be shut down for a week while I go native.

Will I still be facing an eternity in environmental purgatory when I return or will I have paid off my sins?

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,24863331-5007146,00.html
Title: Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
Post by: Brocke on January 05, 2009, 05:19:39 pm
2008 was 14th warmest year on record, says climate statement

By Sarah Wotherspoon

Herald Sun
January 05, 2009 05:06pm

    * 2008 warmer across most of country
    * Capital cities missed out on rain
    * In-depth: The environment

AUSTRALIA recorded its 14th warmest year on record in 2008, with low rainfall across the southeast failing to break a 12-year drought.

The average temperature across Australia was 0.41C above the long-term average, with a warm year recorded across most of the country except for Queensland, northeast New South Wales and the Kimberley region in Western Australia, the Herald Sun reports.

The hot weather also saw a record-breaking heatwave across western Victoria and South Australia during the first two weeks of March.

The annual climate statement, produced by the weather bureau's National Climate Centre (NCC), shows the average temperature for 2008 was slightly lower than the past six years, but failed to stop Australia from recording its seventh consecutive warmer than average year.

The slightly cooler temperatures were the result of a La Nina system that also brought above average rainfall to the Top End, eastern Queensland, northeast NSW and parts of Western Australia.

But the report said most of the southeast missed out stating: "low rainfall over the southern Murray Darling Basin during 2008 further exacerbated the long dry spell in this region".

NCC head of climate analysis David Jones said most of Australia's capital cities had recorded below average rainfall.

He said the results were clear evidence of climate change.

"It's a trend that's really dominated for a good decade now or longer and it's hard to see that changing," he said.

"We are looking at 12 years of continuously below average rainfall (in the southeast), something has clearly happened."

Dr Jones said despite a cool and wet end to the year, Victoria was mostly hot and dry in 2008.

The hottest day in 2008 in Victoria was 44.1C at Longerenong on January 1, with Mildura recording the warmest days on average of 24.2C.

The state's coldest day was August 10 when the mercury dropped to -5C at Mt Hotham. On average the coolest days were at Mt Baw Baw and Mt Buller at 9C.

Dr Jones said perceptions about the weather had changed in the past years, which led people to think 2008 was not as hot and dry as previous years and that winter in 2008 was a cold one.

"June was exceptionally warm in Victoria in 2008, July was right on the average and August was a little bit cooler," he said.

"People very quickly forget how cold and wet Victoria used to be in winter."

Victoria's alpine area was the wettest part of the state this year, with Falls Creek recording the highest rainfall of 1766.2mm.

But despite that most of the state remained parched and failed to record even average rainfall with Dr Jones predicting Victoria could expect much of the same in 2009.

He said Melbourne had not experienced above average rainfall since 1996.

"Victoria has had a drop of 20 per cent in rainfall in the past decade," he said.

"It would be a brave person to say that's all going to change in 2009 given the current conditions."

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,24875273-421,00.html
Title: Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
Post by: Brocke on January 06, 2009, 07:02:42 pm

Millions to get weather pay-outs

Millions of pensioners and vulnerable people around the UK have become eligible for cold weather payments. The £25-a-week assistance is triggered when an area's average temperature falls or is forecast to fall to 0C or below for seven consecutive days.

Forecasts for the London area mean 600,000 people are eligible for fuel help for the first time in a decade. As the Arctic snap continues to bite, the freeze has restricted water supplies in Rhondda Fach, South Wales.

Welsh Water apologised, saying the freezing conditions had "severely restricted" supplies feeding a local treatment works. There would be occasional loss of supply or discoloured water, but it was safe to drink, they said. Tankers were bringing water in to the area, bowsers would be put in "key locations" and bottled water distributed to customers with special needs and mothers with young babies, added the firm.

Pensioner warning

Forecasters say temperatures will stay below zero in many parts of the UK. Lows of -8C (17.6F) have been forecast for much of southern England and Wales, with temperatures dropping to -10C in rural Hampshire and Surrey overnight. The mercury dropped to -11C in Aboyne, Aberdeenshire, and in Shap, Cumbria, on Monday night.

The £15m for Londoners means weather payments have topped £100m this winter. Charities have warned that the elderly and sick urgently need financial help with heating bills to prevent avoidable deaths. Britain's biggest pensioner group - the National Pensioners Convention - said 12 pensioners could die every hour during the cold snap.

'Extra help'

On Tuesday, the Department for Work and Pensions said cold weather payments had now been triggered at 52 weather stations around the UK since the start of this winter. With freezing conditions sweeping across the UK, payments are being made from Aviemore in Scotland to Bedford in southern England.

The payment, which goes to people in receipt of certain benefits - mainly pensioners, severely disabled people and families with a young or severely disabled child - rose this year from £8.50 to £25-a-week for each spell of cold weather. It is paid automatically to those who qualify, including the estimated 2.7m households in receipt of pension credit.

Work and Pensions Secretary James Purnell said: "We don't want people to worry about turning up their heating when it's cold. "That is why we've trebled the cold weather payment to £25, to put money in the pockets of the people who need it most. "Millions of vulnerable people and pensioners are now in line for this extra help after the recent cold snap."

Winter deaths

The increased cold weather payments are one part of a package of measures announced by the government this winter. This year's Christmas bonus for pensioners and disabled people, which will be paid between January and March, has increased from £10 to £70. And an extra £575m has been spent on winter fuel payments, with £250 for those in households with someone aged 60 or over, and £400 for those with someone aged 80 plus.

Meanwhile, Help the Aged has warned that the death rate rises by 1% to 2% for every temperature drop of 1C. Older people and those weakened by illness are particularly susceptible to cold-related illness and death. The Office for National Statistics said that from December 2007 to March 2008 there were an extra 25,300 deaths in England and Wales compared with the average for non-winter months - a 7% increase on the previous year's figure. However, the figure was still some way short of the increase in deaths seen in the winters of the late 1990s when totals hit nearly 50,000 as flu swept Britain.

'Suffer needlessly'

The National Pensioners Convention has called on the government to double the winter fuel allowance. NPC general secretary Joe Harris said: "Up to three million pensioner households are currently spending more than 10% of their income on fuel bills and are living in fuel poverty. "Energy efficiency schemes won't help them pay their bills this month and neither will they prevent tens of thousands of pensioners dying from the cold this winter." Macmillan Cancer Support is also calling on the government to extend the payments to those with cancer. Chief executive Ciaran Devane said: "Cancer patients of all ages continue to suffer needlessly because of this dreadfully cold weather. "They tell us they feel the cold more because of treatment and have to spend more time at home. And throughout this, their fuel bills soar whilst their household income has dropped."

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/uk_news/7813987.stm

Published: 2009/01/06 20:47:32 GMT
Title: Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
Post by: Brocke on January 11, 2009, 02:13:08 pm
Google searches costly for the planet

January 11, 2009
Article from:  Times Online

PERFORMING two Google searches from a desktop computer can generate about the same amount of carbon dioxide as boiling a kettle for a cup of tea, according to new research.

While millions of people tap into Google without a thought for the environment, a typical search generates about 7g of CO2. Boiling a kettle generates about 15g. "Google operates huge data centres around the world that consume a great deal of power," said Alex Wissner-Gross, a Harvard University physicist whose research on the environmental impact of computing is due out soon.

 "A Google search has a definite environmental impact." Google is secretive about its energy consumption and carbon footprint. It also refuses to divulge the locations of its dozens of data centres.

 However, with more than 200m internet searches estimated globally every day, the level of electricity consumption and greenhouse gas emissions caused by computers and the internet is provoking concern. A recent report by Gartner, the industry analysts, said the global IT industry generated as much greenhouse gas as the world's airlines - about 2 per cent of global CO2 emissions. "Data centres are among the most energy-intensive facilities imaginable," said Evan Mills, a scientist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California.

Banks of servers storing billions of web pages require power both to run and cool them.

Though Google says it is in the forefront of green computing, its search engine generates high levels of CO2 because of the way it operates.

When you type in a Google search for, say, "energy saving tips", your request doesn't go to just one server. It goes to several competing against each other. It may even be sent to servers thousands of miles apart.

Google's infrastructure sends you data from whichever produces the answer fastest. The system minimises delays but raises energy consumption.

 Google has servers in the US, Europe, Japan and China. Wissner-Gross has submitted his research for publication by the US Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers and has also set up a website www.CO2stats.com.

"Google are very efficient but their primary concern is to make searches fast and that means they have a lot of extra capacity that burns energy," he said. Google said: "We are among the most efficient of all internet search providers."

Wissner-Gross has also calculated the CO2 emissions caused by individual use of the internet. His research indicates that viewing a simple website page generates about 0.02g of CO2 per second. This rises about tenfold to about 0.2g of CO2 a second when viewing a website with complex images, animations or videos.

A separate estimate from John Buckley, managing director of carbonfootprint.com, a British environmental consultancy, puts the CO2 emissions of a Google search at between 1g and 10g, depending on whether you have to start your PC or not. Simply running a PC generates between 40g and 80g of CO2 per hour, he says.

 Chris Goodall, author of Ten Technologies to Save the Planet, estimates the carbon emissions of a Google search at 7g to 10g (assuming 15 minutes' computer use). Nicholas Carr, author of The Big Switch, Rewiring the World, has calculated that maintaining a character (known as an avatar) in the Second Life virtual reality game, requires 1,752 kilowatt hours of electricity per year.

That is almost as much used by the average Brazilian. "It's not an unreasonable comparison," said Liam Newcombe, an expert on data centres at the British Computer Society. "It tells us how much energy we in the West are using on entertainment versus the energy poverty in some countries."

 Though energy consumption by computers is growing - and the rate of growth is increasing - Newcombe argues that what matters most is the type of usage. If your internet use is in place of more energy-intensive activities, such as driving your car to the shops, that's good. But if it is adding activities and energy consumption that would not otherwise happen, that may pose problems.

Newcombe cites the examples of Second Life and Twitter, a rapidly growing website that has more than 3m users posting tens of millions of messages either by computer or mobile phone.

 Last week Stephen Fry, the television presenter, was posting frequent "tweets" from New Zealand, imparting such vital information as "Arrived in Queenstown. Hurrah. Full of bungy jumping and 'activewear' shops", and "Honestly. NZ weather makes UK look stable and clement".

Jonathan Ross was Twittering even more, with posts such as "Am going to muck out the pigs. It will be cold, but I'm not the type to go on about it" and "Am now back indoors and have put on fleecy tracksuit and two pairs of socks". Ross also made various "tweets" trying to ascertain whether Jeremy Clarkson was a Twitter user or not.

Yesterday the Top Gear presenter cleared up the matter, saying: "I am not a twit. And Jonathan Ross is." Such internet phenomena are not simply fun and hot air, Newcombe warns: the boom in such services has a carbon cost.

Google Australia told The Australian the company had been carbon-neutral for the past two years.

"We've committed to being carbon-neutral worldwide - that is, zero net emissions - from 2007 and beyond, by creating what we believe to be the most energy efficient data centres in the world, using renewable energy sources and investing in high quality carbon offset projects, " the statement said.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,24898157-2703,00.html
Title: Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
Post by: wvoutlaw2002 on January 11, 2009, 02:30:17 pm
I knew it would be a matter of time before the Green Nazis claimed the internet causes global warming. Get ready for [probably per-hour] carbon taxes on internet access, carbon taxes on conventional desktop and laptop PCs, and carbon taxes on conventional software. They're trying to get their cloud computing agenda to go forward, so one of the next targets of the global warming scam will most likely be traditional software including software libre.
Title: Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
Post by: Brocke on January 12, 2009, 02:13:41 pm


Climate change may raise blood risk

AAP
August 19, 2008 12:52pm

CLIMATE change could threaten the safety of blood used for life-saving transfusions, Australian experts have warned.

A report by West Australian researchers has raised concern that rising temperatures will increase the prevalence of viruses, like dengue and Ross River, already circulating in the northern regions of the country.

The heat could potentially increase the range of organisms that can transmit the viruses and make them more infectious more quickly by accelerating life cycles, said Professor Robert Dunstan, a specialist in emerging infectious diseases at Curtin University in Perth.

"These condition are expected to lead to higher levels of virus activity and greater exposure of humans to the viruses,'' Prof Dunstan said.

He warned there was potential for blood transfusion to act as an "efficient vehicle'' for transmitting these viruses.

The review published in the latest Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health confirms Australia's blood supply is among the safest in the world for currently screened viral pathogens like HIV and hepatitis.

"However, Australia has a number of other viral pathogens with the potential to threaten the safety of the blood supply such as the Ross River, Barmah Forrest, Kunjin, Japanese Encephalitis, Murray Valley Encephalitis and dengue viruses,'' Prof Dunstan said.

He said dengue was currently of most concern to blood safety because it can cause fatalities and there were regular seasonal outbreaks in northern Australia.

Also, in contrast to other viruses, an overseas case of transfusion transmission has already been documented.

"The risk of emergence of transfusion-transmissible infectious diseases emphasises the need for countries to work together to help each other maintain their blood supplies during epidemics and pandemics,'' the researchers wrote in their report.

"This is particularly important should a major infectious disease pandemic occur in different countries at different times.''

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,,24206125-1702,00.html



Cold weather may raise blood pressure in elderly

Reuters
January 13, 2009 04:54am

COLD weather may raise old people's blood pressure and increase the risk that they will suffer stroke, heart attack or kidney failure, French researchers said.
Previous research has shown that blood pressure changes with the seasons, but few studies have looked specifically at old people, Annick Alperovitch of the National Institute of Health and Medical Research in Paris and colleagues said.

"Although our study does not demonstrate a causal link between blood pressure and external temperature, the observed relationship nevertheless has potentially important consequences for blood pressure management in the elderly," they wrote in the Archives of Internal Medicine.

High blood pressure, or hypertension, can lead to stroke, heart failure, heart attack and kidney failure. It affects more than a billion adults worldwide.

The French team looked at the relationship between blood pressure and temperature in more than 8800 men and women aged 65 or older. The volunteers were from three cities and had their blood pressure measured at regular intervals in 1999 and again two years later.

Both systolic and diastolic blood pressures differed across the four seasons and during varying outdoor temperatures. High blood pressure - defined as a systolic reading of 160 or higher or a diastolic reading above 95 - was detected in about a third of the volunteers during winter and a quarter in summer.

On average, each person's blood pressure fell between the initial and follow-up measurements, with the decrease strongly correlated with outdoor temperature, the researchers said.

Average systolic blood pressure was 5 millimeters of mercury higher in winter than in summer, they added.

"The higher the temperature at follow-up compared with baseline, the greater the decrease in blood pressure," the researchers wrote.

The researchers said they did not know the reason for this, but thought a hormone linked to stress that is released in cold weather might raise blood pressure by speeding the heart.

The findings suggest that doctors should consider closer monitoring of elderly patients on high blood pressure medicine when the temperature falls, they added.

"(The study) may explain well-established seasonal variations in illness and death from stroke, aneurysm ruptures and other vascular diseases," they wrote.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,24905217-23109,00.html
Title: Senator Barnaby Joyce - Warns of the rise of "eco-totalitarianism"
Post by: mr anderson on January 14, 2009, 07:47:16 am
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24912490-12377,00.html

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=8xTxnKrXTO0 - ABC News

NATIONALS Senator Barnaby Joyce should take back comments on emissions trading comparing environmentalists with Nazis, says the Federal Government. But the Nationals say the Government is trying to beat up Senator Joyce's words that help shed light on the real economic costs of Labor's scheme.

Senator Joyce said today the scheme, due to begin in 2010, will drive up unemployment, homelessness and do nothing to counter climate change. The outspoken senator warned of the rise of "eco-totalitarianism'' and said he would not be "goosestepping'' along with environmentalists.

"Climate change denier, like Holocaust denier, this is the sort of emotive language that has become stitched up in this (emissions trading) issue,'' he told ABC Radio.

The Federal Government says Senator Joyce has crossed the line and want the comments to be retracted.

"I would hope that even (Opposition Leader) Malcolm Turnbull would say that comparisons with Nazi Germany ... are out of line and should be publicly refuted,'' Agriculture Minister Tony Burke said.

Nationals Leader Warren Truss hit back, accusing the Government of ramping up the comments by inserting the word Nazi.

Mr Burke is bringing an unwarranted level of "emotion and extremism'' into the debate, Mr Truss said.

"Mr Burke should be trying to fix the emissions trading scheme rather than be critical of those who ask legitimate questions about the way in which the scheme will operate,'' he said.

"It is unfortunate that those who question the majority view should be treated as though they were somehow related to people who were deniers of the Holocaust.''

Queensland's Opposition Leader Lawrence Springborg said the comments helped highlight the faults in Labor's scheme.

"Nobody should be surprised with Barnaby's colourful language and original language, you always get that from Barnaby and that's fine,'' he said.

"One thing he's actually addressed...is the cost of this to Australian families, who are already struggling in very uncertain economic times.''

Senator Joyce's comments have also fuelled speculation of a coalition split on emissions trading.

Malcolm Turnbull, who is yet to announce a position on emissions trading, played down the differences between the Coalition.

He said the Coalition would speak with "one voice'' on emissions trading.

"We're very committed to action on climate change that is economically responsible and environmentally effective,'' he said.

"We work as a very close coalition and I've no doubt that we will be responding to this legislation with one voice.''

The Government needs the support of the Coalition to pass its scheme through the Senate or it will have to rely on the Greens and independents.
Title: Re: Warning of the rise of "eco-totalitarianism" - Senator Barnaby Joyce
Post by: mr anderson on January 14, 2009, 07:52:18 am
Nationals stick by green Nazi jibe

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/national/nats-stick-by-green-nazi-jibe/2009/01/14/1231608777504.html

Queensland's opposition leader says he doesn't object to the views of Nationals Senator Barnaby Joyce, who drew parallels between environmentalists and Nazis.

Lawrence Springborg said Senator Joyce was only shedding light on the possible economic impacts of an emissions trading scheme, which the government plans to start in 2010 to reduce carbon pollution.

Senator Joyce said on Wednesday emissions trading would put Australians out of their homes, out of their jobs and would do nothing to counter climate change.

He warned of the rise of "eco-totalitarianism" and said he would not be "goosestepping" along with environmentalists.

"Climate change denier, like Holocaust denier, this is the sort of emotive language that has become stitched up in this (emissions trading) issue," Senator Joyce told ABC Radio.

Federal Agriculture Minister Tony Burke has called for Senator Joyce to retract the comparison.

But Mr Springborg told reporters he didn't take issue with Senator Joyce's language or view.

"Nobody should be surprised with Barnaby's colourful language and original language, you always get that from Barnaby and that's fine," he said.

"One thing he's actually addressed and which I think is right, is the cost of this to Australian families, who are already struggling in very uncertain economic times with a government that's frittered away the positive legacy of the greatest resources boom we've ever had."

Mr Springborg said th