Author Topic: Global Warming / Climate Change scam  (Read 227789 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Brocke

  • Eleutherophiliac & Drapetomaniac
  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,790
  • I am not a number, I am a free man!
    • Vimeo page
Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
« Reply #240 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

 

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.


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

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

Offline Brocke

  • Eleutherophiliac & Drapetomaniac
  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,790
  • I am not a number, I am a free man!
    • Vimeo page
Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
« Reply #241 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


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

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

Offline Kilika

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,762
  • Thank you Jesus!
Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
« Reply #242 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". ::)
"For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows."
1 Timothy 6:10 (KJB)

Offline mr anderson

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,355
    • WeAreChange Brisbane
Penny Wong defends $14m cost of climate change ads
« Reply #243 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
WeAreChange Brisbane
I hold personal views, beliefs and opinions that do not necessarily reflect the beliefs and opinions of WeAreChange Brisbane as a whole.

Our Bitcoin address: 1Fzb4bp48oMr7CFzT3SbkTzKpMSvWW1X1t

Offline mr anderson

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,355
    • WeAreChange Brisbane
Emissions trade price tag: $7 a week
« Reply #244 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.
WeAreChange Brisbane
I hold personal views, beliefs and opinions that do not necessarily reflect the beliefs and opinions of WeAreChange Brisbane as a whole.

Our Bitcoin address: 1Fzb4bp48oMr7CFzT3SbkTzKpMSvWW1X1t

Offline mr anderson

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,355
    • WeAreChange Brisbane
Families face $364 carbon slug
« Reply #245 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.
WeAreChange Brisbane
I hold personal views, beliefs and opinions that do not necessarily reflect the beliefs and opinions of WeAreChange Brisbane as a whole.

Our Bitcoin address: 1Fzb4bp48oMr7CFzT3SbkTzKpMSvWW1X1t

Offline mr anderson

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,355
    • WeAreChange Brisbane
Emissions scheme Rudd's chance to prove economic credentials
« Reply #246 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.
WeAreChange Brisbane
I hold personal views, beliefs and opinions that do not necessarily reflect the beliefs and opinions of WeAreChange Brisbane as a whole.

Our Bitcoin address: 1Fzb4bp48oMr7CFzT3SbkTzKpMSvWW1X1t

Offline liko

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,031
  • Freedom or Nothing!
Re: Emissions scheme Rudd's chance to prove economic credentials
« Reply #247 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.

Offline mr anderson

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,355
    • WeAreChange Brisbane
'Impose carbon levy on farms'
« Reply #248 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.
WeAreChange Brisbane
I hold personal views, beliefs and opinions that do not necessarily reflect the beliefs and opinions of WeAreChange Brisbane as a whole.

Our Bitcoin address: 1Fzb4bp48oMr7CFzT3SbkTzKpMSvWW1X1t

Offline Brocke

  • Eleutherophiliac & Drapetomaniac
  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,790
  • I am not a number, I am a free man!
    • Vimeo page
Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
« Reply #249 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


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

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

Offline Brocke

  • Eleutherophiliac & Drapetomaniac
  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,790
  • I am not a number, I am a free man!
    • Vimeo page
Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
« Reply #250 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


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

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

Offline Brocke

  • Eleutherophiliac & Drapetomaniac
  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,790
  • I am not a number, I am a free man!
    • Vimeo page
Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
« Reply #251 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


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

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

Offline Brocke

  • Eleutherophiliac & Drapetomaniac
  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,790
  • I am not a number, I am a free man!
    • Vimeo page
Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
« Reply #252 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


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

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

Offline Brocke

  • Eleutherophiliac & Drapetomaniac
  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,790
  • I am not a number, I am a free man!
    • Vimeo page
Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
« Reply #253 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


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

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

Offline Biggs

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,440
Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
« Reply #254 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.
STOP THE KILLING NOW
END THE CRIMINAL SIEGE OF GAZA - FREE PALESTINE!!!!!!!

Offline Brocke

  • Eleutherophiliac & Drapetomaniac
  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,790
  • I am not a number, I am a free man!
    • Vimeo page
Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
« Reply #255 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.


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

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

Offline Brocke

  • Eleutherophiliac & Drapetomaniac
  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,790
  • I am not a number, I am a free man!
    • Vimeo page
Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
« Reply #256 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


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

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

Offline Brocke

  • Eleutherophiliac & Drapetomaniac
  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,790
  • I am not a number, I am a free man!
    • Vimeo page
Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
« Reply #257 on: December 01, 2008, 08:33:52 pm »


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


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

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

Offline Brocke

  • Eleutherophiliac & Drapetomaniac
  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,790
  • I am not a number, I am a free man!
    • Vimeo page
Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
« Reply #258 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", 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


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

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

Offline Brocke

  • Eleutherophiliac & Drapetomaniac
  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,790
  • I am not a number, I am a free man!
    • Vimeo page
Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
« Reply #259 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


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

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

Offline Brocke

  • Eleutherophiliac & Drapetomaniac
  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,790
  • I am not a number, I am a free man!
    • Vimeo page
Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
« Reply #260 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


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

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

Offline mr anderson

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,355
    • WeAreChange Brisbane
More than 84 per cent of South-East QLD is off limits for urban development
« Reply #261 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
WeAreChange Brisbane
I hold personal views, beliefs and opinions that do not necessarily reflect the beliefs and opinions of WeAreChange Brisbane as a whole.

Our Bitcoin address: 1Fzb4bp48oMr7CFzT3SbkTzKpMSvWW1X1t

Offline mr anderson

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,355
    • WeAreChange Brisbane
Kevin Rudd faces Al Gore's heat on climate
« Reply #262 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."
WeAreChange Brisbane
I hold personal views, beliefs and opinions that do not necessarily reflect the beliefs and opinions of WeAreChange Brisbane as a whole.

Our Bitcoin address: 1Fzb4bp48oMr7CFzT3SbkTzKpMSvWW1X1t

Offline mr anderson

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,355
    • WeAreChange Brisbane
Another Tax and More Politics: The ETS Proposed for Australia
« Reply #263 on: December 13, 2008, 07:10:48 am »


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

Our Bitcoin address: 1Fzb4bp48oMr7CFzT3SbkTzKpMSvWW1X1t

Offline mr anderson

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,355
    • WeAreChange Brisbane
Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme: Australia's Low Pollution Future - Whitepaper
« Reply #264 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)
WeAreChange Brisbane
I hold personal views, beliefs and opinions that do not necessarily reflect the beliefs and opinions of WeAreChange Brisbane as a whole.

Our Bitcoin address: 1Fzb4bp48oMr7CFzT3SbkTzKpMSvWW1X1t

Offline Brocke

  • Eleutherophiliac & Drapetomaniac
  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,790
  • I am not a number, I am a free man!
    • Vimeo page
Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
« Reply #265 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


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

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

Offline Brocke

  • Eleutherophiliac & Drapetomaniac
  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,790
  • I am not a number, I am a free man!
    • Vimeo page
Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
« Reply #266 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


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

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

Offline mr anderson

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,355
    • WeAreChange Brisbane
New Zealand scraps 'thermal ban'
« Reply #267 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.
WeAreChange Brisbane
I hold personal views, beliefs and opinions that do not necessarily reflect the beliefs and opinions of WeAreChange Brisbane as a whole.

Our Bitcoin address: 1Fzb4bp48oMr7CFzT3SbkTzKpMSvWW1X1t

Offline mr anderson

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,355
    • WeAreChange Brisbane
5% cut in emissions not good enough for "Greenies".
« Reply #268 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.
WeAreChange Brisbane
I hold personal views, beliefs and opinions that do not necessarily reflect the beliefs and opinions of WeAreChange Brisbane as a whole.

Our Bitcoin address: 1Fzb4bp48oMr7CFzT3SbkTzKpMSvWW1X1t

Offline Brocke

  • Eleutherophiliac & Drapetomaniac
  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,790
  • I am not a number, I am a free man!
    • Vimeo page
Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
« Reply #269 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


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

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

Orgetorix

  • Guest
Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
« Reply #270 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.

Offline mr anderson

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,355
    • WeAreChange Brisbane
Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
« Reply #271 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
WeAreChange Brisbane
I hold personal views, beliefs and opinions that do not necessarily reflect the beliefs and opinions of WeAreChange Brisbane as a whole.

Our Bitcoin address: 1Fzb4bp48oMr7CFzT3SbkTzKpMSvWW1X1t

Offline mr anderson

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,355
    • WeAreChange Brisbane
Emissions Trading Scheme a big pain for little gain - Professor Bob Carter
« Reply #272 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
WeAreChange Brisbane
I hold personal views, beliefs and opinions that do not necessarily reflect the beliefs and opinions of WeAreChange Brisbane as a whole.

Our Bitcoin address: 1Fzb4bp48oMr7CFzT3SbkTzKpMSvWW1X1t

Offline mr anderson

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,355
    • WeAreChange Brisbane
Emissions Trading Scheme: Completely unnecessary - Dr. David Evans
« Reply #273 on: December 19, 2008, 07:48:02 am »

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

Our Bitcoin address: 1Fzb4bp48oMr7CFzT3SbkTzKpMSvWW1X1t

Offline mr anderson

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,355
    • WeAreChange Brisbane
Electronics to get "Green" rating system
« Reply #274 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.
WeAreChange Brisbane
I hold personal views, beliefs and opinions that do not necessarily reflect the beliefs and opinions of WeAreChange Brisbane as a whole.

Our Bitcoin address: 1Fzb4bp48oMr7CFzT3SbkTzKpMSvWW1X1t

wvoutlaw2002

  • Guest
Re: Electronics to get "Green" rating system
« Reply #275 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.

Offline Wood0173

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 194
Re: Electronics to get "Green" rating system
« Reply #276 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.
"I do believe that all politicians are corrupt but Obama seems to be less corrupt than the rest!"--too many people to give credit to just one or even a thousand.

Offline Wood0173

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 194
Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
« Reply #277 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. 
"I do believe that all politicians are corrupt but Obama seems to be less corrupt than the rest!"--too many people to give credit to just one or even a thousand.

Offline Brocke

  • Eleutherophiliac & Drapetomaniac
  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,790
  • I am not a number, I am a free man!
    • Vimeo page
Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
« Reply #278 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


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

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

Offline Brocke

  • Eleutherophiliac & Drapetomaniac
  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,790
  • I am not a number, I am a free man!
    • Vimeo page
Re: Global Warming / Climate Change scam
« Reply #279 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


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

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