Tim Flannery – apocalyptic nonsense


The “global warming” enviro-head, author of The Weather Makers, and (shamefully) Australian of the Year in 2007, is making nonsensical apocalyptic predictions about how climate change is heading for a global catastrophe in as little as 10 years.

Dr Flannery told an international carbon market conference on the Gold Coast yesterday that emissions trading schemes alone could not save the planet in time.

Telling a carbon market conference that an ETS can’t save the planet? So the message would be something like: the world’s going to hell in a handbasket, an ETS won’t help, but hey, you carbon traders can still cash in on Armageddon (before we all get sautéed, that is) … sweet.

Dr Flannery said the catastrophe could be a large-scale methane release which would cook the planet or [cause] major ice sheet destabilisation.

All qualified by the words “could be“, of course. I suppose he’s talking about a methane release caused by the out-of-control global warming that’s happened since 2001? No, wait, hang on…

Read it here.

Daily Bayonet – GW Hoax Weekly Round-up


As always, a great read.

Wong calls Opposition "deniers"


Denier Alert: In this post, where I commented on the Nationals dumping their ETS policy, I wondered aloud how long it would take for Rudd, Wong or one of their cronies to squeal “deniers” or “sceptics”. My bet was less than 24 hours – it’s actually taken six days, but it was as inevitable as the sun coming up in the morning. The Canberra Times reports that “Climate Penny” can’t control herself any longer, and goes on the offensive (in more ways than one):

Senator Wong told reporters in Sydney today the calls for delay on emissions trading from the opposition were “the next chapter from the climate change deniers who don’t want us to take action on climate change”.

“These are the same people who prevented Australia from ratifying the Kyoto protocol, these are the same people who preferred not to act on the long-term challenge of climate change,” she said.

“They are now asking for further delay because they are simply climate change deniers.”

Notice that she doesn’t address the arguments about why the Opposition, in particular the Nationals, oppose the ETS, such as the fact it will have no effect on climate change, and that despite what the Treasury modelling says, it will substantially damage our economy, she wheels out the offensive term “denier” – subtly linking those who deny climate change to those who “deny” the Holocaust – as if that’s all she has to do to win the argument. Sorry, Penny, that’s just not good enough. If you have sensible arguments against the Nationals’ position, let’s hear them – otherwise, just keep the offensive remarks to yourself.

The opposition “prevented” Australia ratifying Kyoto because it was a pointless political gesture. The government’s proposed ETS is nothing more, and advances an anti-capitalist political agenda.

Malcolm Turnbull has to simply let these personal attacks wash over, and stick to the facts about the ETS: even if Australia reduces emissions to zero overnight, it will make no difference to global climate, until or unless the other major emitters, the US, China and India, join in, which at this point they show little interest in doing. And, all this presupposes that CO2 drives temperature, which despite what the alarmists say, is by no means certain.

Read it here.

We can't think of any other cause, it must be us


This is the depth to which scientific research into climate change has sunk, like a kind of prehistoric civilisation that blames thunderstorms, earthquakes and volcanoes on humanity somehow having “upset the gods”. A Canadian study has concluded that we must be causing climate change because nothing else can explain it.

Under the triumphant headline “Study confirms human impact on climate change”, The Age reports all this without any discrimination:

“We found that we could only explain the warming that’s been observed if we included human-climate influences, particularly greenhouse gases,” the study’s author, Nathan Gillett, told ABC Radio.

“And we couldn’t explain those changes [if there] were just natural influences on climate like volcanoes and changes in the brightness of the sun.”

Maybe your models aren’t all they’re cracked up to be? Did you get them cheap off the IPCC? And to finish off, ACM Idiotic Comment of the Day gong awarded for dumbest alarmist remark:

“In the Arctic, we have the Greenland ice sheet, in the Antarctic, the Antarctic ice sheet.

If those all melted, that would contribute 70 metres to sea level.”

Yawn.

Read it here.

"Stock and Land" – Nationals' Warren Truss ridicules ETS modelling


“Stock and Land?”, I hear you ask. Well yes, as it appears to be one of the few media outlets that have the sense to print the views of the Nationals on the ETS modelling (as neither The Age, Sydney Morning Herald nor The Australian appear to have given Warren Truss a single column-inch of space amongst all the leftie propaganda):

The Leader of The Nationals, Warren Truss said Treasury clearly stated this fact: “Stabilisation [of greenhouse gas emissions] is only possible with action by all major emitters”.

“The Treasury modelling confirms that the Rudd Government’s proposal to introduce an ETS in 2010 – ahead of most of the rest of the world and our major trading partners – is folly,” Mr Truss said.

“There seems to be an assumption that big emitters will simply fall into line once Australia and a few other countries act. This is unlikely and we certainly won’t know until well after Labor’s scheme is scheduled to begin.”

Hello, testing, testing… Are you receiving this, Malcolm Turnbull? This should be Coalition policy, not just Nationals policy.

“The Rudd Government seems prepared to rush into this most momentous of decisions based purely upon ideology and a desire to reap new tax revenue,” Mr Truss said.

Give this man a Nobel Prize (and an Oscar for luck).

Read it here.

P.S. Kevin Rudd can’t even make a joke when it’s staring him right in the face, such is the dullness of his intellect. Speaking on ABC’s 7.30 Report, he said:

“My Cabinet colleagues and I have a lot of midnight oil to burn on this and other challenges in the weeks ahead.”

I mean, if he’d said that Peter Garrett (who is after all the Environment Minister, God help us) has a lot of Midnight Oil to burn, see, that’s funny…

A Tale of Two Headlines


From The Australian:

ETS will slow economic growth and push up inflation, models show

And from The Sydney Morning Herald:

Emissions cuts: ‘little economic impact

You pays your money, you takes your choice…

Read them here and here.

OT – Krudd's a jerk


We all had our suspicions in November 2007 about whether Kevin Rudd was simply an incompetent buffoon in a suit, but we never believed in all our wildest dreams that he would reveal himself to be a bigger idiot than anyone could have suspected. But that is exactly what he has done by leaking a story to The Australian about a conversation he had with George Bush. Andrew Bolt makes hay while the sun shines:

He betrayed Bush by retelling their conversation in ways to make the President seem a donkey, and Rudd the genius who trained him to behave. And Bush has noticed.

Still not satisfied, Rudd then apparently made things up – to take public credit for a decision Bush had already made.

I can’t recall a greater breach of confidence, a more studied insult to an ally or a more craven attempt at big-noting from an Australian Prime Minister.

Rudd made Bush seem a “donkey” by briefing that Bush queried to Rudd “What’s the G20?” (as if the President of the United States, no matter how you choose to view Bush, wouldn’t know that).

In fact, Channel 9’s Laurie Oakes last night reported that White House staff deny Bush ever asked Rudd: “What’s the G20?” They’re on to Rudd.

They sure are. It’s tawdry and embarrassing for Australia, and this is the guy we trust to tell us the truth on the economic crisis and the ETS. Let’s just hope Rudd’s a one-termer.

Read it all here.

Treasury modelling on ETS – garbage in, garbage out


The newspapers are full of this story today, and the fact that the ETS will not harm the economy. From the Sydney Morning Herald:

Climate Change Minister Penny Wong on Wednesday was putting a positive spin on the modelling ahead of its release, saying it shows there is nothing to fear in emissions trading.

Well, she would, wouldn’t she (or else her job and her department would disappear in a puff of Nitrogen Trifluoride).

Treasurer Wayne Swan said the data showed emissions trading would not hurt economic growth.

“What the modelling will show is that we can deal with climate change … without having a dramatic impact on economic growth,” he told Macquarie Radio Network.

I bore myself having to repeat this, but an Australian ETS will not deal with climate change, as cutting 10% or 20% from Australia’s tiny contribution of 1.5% of global emissions will, in terms of “dealing with climate change” achieve nothing. And the Government is in cloud cuckoo land if it thinks that the rest of the world is going to somehow “follow Australia’s lead.”

The EU is in a shambles on its emissions reductions, India and China are simply not interested, and the US is far from unified on its approach (apparently only 18% of the US public think that climate change is real, human-caused and harmful – thanks to Watts Up With That).

There are a number of parallels that can be drawn between the results of the Treasury modelling about the effects of an ETS on the Australian economy and the modelling of the future climate by the IPCC.

Any model of a complex system is an approximation, and complies with the usual “GIGO” (garbage in, garbage out) rule. The IPCC, as we all know, have cherry-picked the data they use in their models to advance their own political agenda (think Michael Mann and “hockey sticks”). The results show that we must “act now” to avoid “catastrophic” climate change, and allows the socialist/anti-capitalist agenda of the UN to be advanced.

Similarly, we all know what the Treasury’s modelling will say – the ETS will have little effect on the economy and they will trot out the usual desperate argument that if we don’t act now, it will cost more later. The government have admitted that the models do not take into account the current financial crisis, although somehow, despite the boffins taking a year to produce this modelling, the government seems able to incorporate a “fudge factor” which will miraculously deal with this, from the ABC:

The modelling was done before the global financial crisis began.

Environment Minister Peter Garrett says it is one element that will help shape the final policy, due to be finalised by the end of the year.

“This provides us with additional information on how we can approach this issue,” he said.

Dismissing the global financial crisis as just “one element” is sheer nonsense. It will be no surprise that the modelling will favour the Government’s approach. It will have been carefully designed to achieve that result. Treat with caution.

Read the SMH article here, although there are hundreds of others to choose from.

WWF – Marxist environmental group threatens ecological "credit crunch"


More environmental claptrap from the WWF, which wants humanity to live in perfect harmony with Mother Earth, and at the same time put civilisation back into the Dark Ages.

“We are acting ecologically in the same way as financial institutions have been behaving economically — seeking immediate gratification without due regard to consequences,” said the Zoological Society’s Jonathan Loh.

“Continued ecological deficit spending will have severe economic consequences,” argued GFN head Mathis Wackernagel.

“Resource limitations and ecosystem collapses would trigger stagflation with the value of investments plummeting, while food and energy costs skyrocket,” he cautioned.

Read it here.

Wong bangs on about the benefits of an ETS


Yawn again. Same ol’ same ol':

“We can take action on climate change but also retain a strong economy and in fact we’d anticipate that the modelling will show that there are significant opportunities for Australia if we do take action on climate change,” she said.

“What the modelling shows is that Australian industries will remain competitive and there are significant opportunities in us taking action on climate change and doing the economically responsible thing.”

Amazes me how she says all this with a straight face.

Read it here (and also check out some of the priceless comments from the unwashed greenie hoards the ABC web site attracts)

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 8,707 other followers

%d bloggers like this: