Using soft toilet paper "worse than driving a Hummer"

No, this isn’t satire, really it isn’t. In the post-global warming world, we’ll all have to remember which hand is for eating and which hand is for, well, something else, if the warming Nazis have their way:

No forest of any kind should be used to make toilet paper,” Dr. Allen Hershkowitz, a senior scientist and waste expert with the Natural Resource Defence Council told the New York Times.

“This is a product that we use for less than three seconds and the ecological consequences of manufacturing it from trees is enormous,” Hershkowitz told the Guardian newspaper.

Future generations are going to look at the way we make toilet paper as one of the greatest excesses of our age,” Hershkowitz said.

“Making toilet paper from virgin wood is a lot worse than driving Hummers in terms of global warming pollution.

You really, really can’t make this stuff up. So, here’s a step by step guide for using “reusable” toilet wipes (source):

  • Step 1. “Shake, scrape, swish, or squirt off anything you don’t want in your laundry, and then toss the wipe into the pail or container.” [Sounds delightful - Ed]
  • Step 2: Store the used wipes in a wet bag or a diaper pail. “Some families find it easiest to put a small wet bag in their bathroom – either just laying on the floor near the toilet, or hanging from a nearby doorknob, cabinet knob, or hook.” [Sounds even more delightful - Ed]
  • Step 3: Wash with the diapers if you have a baby in the house. Otherwise, for neophytes in laundering poop-stained cloth, an important tip: Wash them separately from other laundry.

Never would’a guessed that one…

  • [continued] “Wash in hot, dry in the dryer. You may add whatever laundry additives you desire – chlorine bleach, oxygen bleach, tea tree oil, lavender oil, stain remover, whatever.”

Gee, that’ll really catch on.

Read it here.

Nothing will stop the ETS

Except perhaps the Senate, but certainly not the ever-increasing numbers of business groups who are warning Krudd & Co that the ETS will damage Australia’s already weakened economy. Rudd and Penny Wong are utterly deaf to their complaints, and will carry on regardless with introducing the ETS in 2010, a completely artificial deadline.

Climate Change Minister Penny Wong rejected yesterday calls from the Australian Industry Group to delay the beginning of the scheme until 2012, saying the Government still intended for it to begin next year.

“The longer we delay in making this economic transformation, the higher the costs.”

This is a government that doesn’t give two hoots about the economy, and therefore the standard of living of millions of Australians, and slavishly follows the policitised and deeply flawed pronouncements of the IPCC.

Climate madness.

Read it here.

Polar warming "greater than thought"

Gee, who’d have thunk it? The Sydney Moonbat Herald is on top alarmist form today, as it reports on the findings of International Polar Year:

Dr Ian Allison, of the Australian Antarctic Division, who co-chaired the project told the Herald the effect of global warming in Greenland was clear. [Despite there being no global warming for nearly a decade - Ed]

“In Greenland the rate of ice loss is getting greater over the last 10 years and the surface [ice] melt is definitely related to the warming,” Dr Allison said.

The project’s scientists summed up their findings, saying: “It now appears certain that both the Greenland and the Antarctic ice sheets are losing mass and thus raising sea level, and that the rate of ice loss from Greenland is growing.” [Show me the sea level rises please - Ed]

They also warned “the potential for these ice sheets to undergo further rapid ice discharge remains the largest unknown in projections of the rate of sea-level rise by the [United Nations] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change”.

The reality is that there has been no measurable change in the rate of sea level rise, which has remained virtually constant for centuries. The Herald signs off with its usual catch-all clause:

Since the findings by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2007, it has been widely accepted that the planet’s warming is almost certainly due to greenhouse gases being released from the burning of fossil fuels, land clearing and cement manufacturing.

Not by me, mate.

Read it here.

The Daily Bayonet – GW Hoax Weekly Roundup

As always, a great read.

This is the last weekly roundup from The Daily Bayonet for a few weeks – it’s author is going to be laid up in hospital for a while – let’s wish him all the best and a speedy recovery.

Australian Industry Group dumps support for ETS

It just goes from bad to worse for the Government’s ETS, as the Ai Group calls for the scheme to be delayed until 2012:

Industry groups, farmers and green groups are all ramping up their opposition to the scheme.

In parliament, the opposition and the Greens have sharpened their criticism of the scheme, raising the possibility it won’t get through the Senate.

The Ai Group’s policy change is significant because it had previously been quite supportive of the government’s plans.

The Opposition, rightly, are having a field day:

The opposition’s emissions trading spokesman, Andrew Robb, said Ai Group’s call for a delay was another blow to the scheme.

“The concerns of the Ai Group reflect the views of many businesses that I am meeting and what the coalition has been saying ever since Mr Rudd picked a politically-inspired, artificial start date of 2010,” Mr Robb said.

The government’s scheme is going to cost jobs, it’s going to kill investment and it’s not going to see any reduction in carbon dioxide of any consequence.

“They’ve failed on all fronts. Penny Wong calls that balance; I call that total failure.”

Read it here.

Survey: CO2 reduction – too high a price to pay

You won’t read this in the major media outlets – it’s left to the Stock Journal to report the results of a survey undertaken by researchers at the Australian National University, which reveals that whilst Australians are willing to pay to “tackle climate change”, it’s nowhere near what the “carbon pollution reduction scheme” (CPRS) will cost.

The pair [of researchers] surveyed 600 Sydney residents to find out their willingness to pay the extra household costs.

The study results show, yes, Australians are concerned about climate change and they are willing to pay for action.

But those levels of concern and willingness to pay are significantly less than the expected costs in Treasury modelling of the CPRS.

“The survey respondents were willing to pay an extra $135 per household each month towards the CPRS,” Professor Bennett said. “But when aggregated across the nation, this represents $8.46 billion a year – significantly less than the Treasury estimated cost of $14.7 billion a year.

Professor Bennett said that debates about the relative merits of an emission trading scheme, such as the CPRS, and a tax on carbon emissions are misplaced.

Both would leave the country poorer, he said.

“Rather, the debate should focus on the prospects for adapting to the negative impacts of climate change should they arise.

“That debate should similarly focus on the relative costs and benefits of adaptive strategies,” he said.

Right on the money (and in the Fairfax media as well!). A cost/benefit analysis of an ETS is always going to be tricky, since the benefit is exactly zero.

Climate sense, for once.

Read it here.

Listen To Us Petition against the ETS

A petition has been launched to oppose the Governments ETS (or its two-errors-in-four-words alternative, the “Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme”), sponsored by Dr Dennis Jensen, Liberal Member for Tangney in Western Australia. Dr Jensen will present the petition to the House of Representatitves. The petition’s web site states:

This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House the fact that:
  • We live on a dynamic planet; natural climate change occurs all the time.
  • As a nation we need appropriate infrastructure and planning to protect against climate change including long-term warming or cooling and severe weather related events such as cyclones, droughts and bushfires.
  • Global temperature increased slightly in the late 20th century and has been decreasing since 1998. Neither the warming nor the cooling is of an unusual rate or magnitude.Cutting carbon dioxide emissions in Australia will result in no measurable change in future climate. Australia contributes less than 1.5% of global emissions.
  • The introduction of a Carbon Trading Scheme represents a major economic intervention that will drive Australian industries and jobs overseas.

Petitioners therefore ask the House to ensure that the Government:

  • Invest appropriately in measures to ensure that Australia is well prepared for climate change and severe weather events including drought and floods.
  • Not attempt to stop global climate change by introducing a Carbon Trading Scheme.

I encourage all ACM readers to sign the petition here.

William Kininmonth on the Victorian Bushfires

A thorough meteorological analysis of the events surrounding Black Saturday, well worth the read. And this:

It is fashionable to promote climate change as being a contributor to changing fire frequency and intensity. The pattern of rainfall over the past century does not point to a trend of reduction in rainfall. Nor has any link been offered between global temperature trends and the meteorology of Victorian heatwaves. Extreme bushfire events are rare events and must be analysed according to the statistics relating to rare events; the breaking of a previous temperature record established 70 years earlier does not establish an underlying trend.

Read it here (in The Age amazingly – thanks to Andrew Bolt)

Farmers to suffer as cattle targeted

As the government begins regulating and interfering in more and more aspects of our everyday lives, using the excuse of “climate change”, farmers will bear the increased costs of a scheme to reduce emissions from cattle and sheep.

“Some of this goes to breeding options, some of it goes to better feed options, some of it goes to dealing with the bacteria in the stomach of the animal to try to reduce the amount of methane that then comes out of the mouth,” [Agriculture Minister Tony] Burke said on ABC television.

He conceded the farming sector would need to bear increased transport and fertiliser costs, but said the alternative would cost Australia far more.

That’s right, we can do precisely what we like, because as we all know, “climate change” trumps everything.

Read it here.

The debate is over

An Australian opinion piece this morning is entitled “The debate on how to reduce greenhouse emissions isn’t over”, but I’m afraid it is:

This is a complex issue that we cannot afford to rush, despite Senator Wong’s determination to push her plan through parliament by mid-year. Moving early on carbon reduction plays to the deep-green gallery that warns that the world is doomed without immediate action.

But there is no guarantee other countries will follow Australia’s lead. US Energy Secretary Steven Chu has floated a carbon tax and if the Americans took this path, Australia would be stuck with an immediately obsolete model. A fixed carbon price would leave us exposed to fluctuating demand. The price of carbon in Europe has dropped from €30 a tonne to €10 over the past month.

Greens leader Bob Brown suggests the Government and Opposition can’t make up their minds on targets or what the best system is. He has a point. Until both convincingly explain their schemes, and until we know how they will fit with what the rest of the world will do, it is folly to enact legislation.

Whilst this is all true, we are having the wrong debate. We shouldn’t be tinkering with the niceties of whether a cap-and-trade system or a carbon tax is the better approach to “tackling climate change”, or reducing “carbon pollution” as Penny Wong would say. We should be debating whether any such scheme is necessary at all. However, that debate appears to be over. The Government, the Opposition, the media – in fact virtually everybody – have been misled by the dire warnings of the hopelessly politicised IPCC, that without drastic CO2 reductions, the planet is headed for dangerous climate change. Only a few are now brave enough to stand up in the face of vicious ad hominem attacks of “denier”, “flat earther”, “climate criminal” etc. – Barnaby Joyce of the Nationals being one.

Australia, like the US and Europe will dive head first into an emissions reduction scheme which will make zero difference to the climate, but will do enormous damage to our economy and standard of living.

This is true Climate Madness.

Read it here.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 8,707 other followers

%d bloggers like this: