Rudd "begs" to get ETS through


How pathetic can you get? The proper response, of course, is “Get of your knees and clear out of here. The ETS is a crock of sh*t, and you know it.” Let’s hope that’s what the Opposition will tell him.

Mr Rudd tried to keep the ETS alive during a news conference in Hobart on Thursday following a meeting of the Council of Australian Governments.

“I’d appeal to all politicians in the Australian Parliament, in the upper house; this is serious stuff for the nation in the 21st century,” he told reporters. [No it isn't, it's bad law based on bad science. It needs to be chucked in the dumpster - Ed]

“Our job is to try and punch this through … we’re going to give it a damn good go.”

Jolly good, old chap, you punch away, for all the good it will do you.

Read it here.

Coalition report on ETS: it's a crock


But we all knew that anyway. It will damage the economy and do nothing for the climate (even if CO2 drives climate, which it almost certainly doesn’t). Maybe Krudd & Co should tax the sun instead to encourage it to reduce its output of harmful radiation (heat and light)!

The analysis, prepared by David Pearce from the Centre for International Economics, warns that the Government has failed to adequately assess the level of environmental benefits the CPRS will achieve for its cost, its ability to deal with uncertainty and whether it explicitly accounts for international developments.

Parliamentary Secretary for Climate Change Greg Combet effectively conceded yesterday that the Government will have to deal with the Coalition to pass the CPRS.

He said the Greens had “made themselves irrelevant” with demands that amounted to “lunacy”.

Mr Robb said the CIE report “clearly establishes that the design of the Government’s proposed emissions trading scheme needs to be reconsidered and compared empirically with alternatives.

“For the Government to have ignored the impact of the global financial crisis beggars belief,” he said.

“The costs over the next 20 years of lost competitiveness and lost jobs must be established, along with the likely impact, or not, on CO2 emissions.”

But the Opposition have still got it wrong at the core. They should not be questioning just the effect of the ETS on the economy, they should be questioning the whole purpose of the ETS at all. The science on climate change is not settled, despite what Rudd, Wong, Combet, Gore and Obama say, and there is no evidence, either from recent past or geological times, that CO2 is a driver of temperature. Tinkering with a harmless trace gas will do nothing, and the Opposition should have the guts to say that. Spend money on adaptation, not control.

Read it here.

Emerson peeks out of the closet, then goes back in again


As Andrew Bolt reports:

Days after being challenged here to come out of the closet, Craig Emerson peeks out:

FEDERAL Small Business Minister Craig Emerson has split from Kevin Rudd and ministerial colleagues by declaring science is undecided on key aspects of the global warming debate.

Dr Emerson yesterday became the first minister in the Rudd Government to cast doubt on the assertion that scientific evidence was conclusive for a catastrophic meltdown of the polar icecaps if global warming was not curtailed.

He said he would like to see scientists settle the question of what would happen to sea-level rises and the polar icecaps as a result of climate change.

Sadly, Emerson embarrasses himself – and will once day blush at his timidity – by still hiding behind this deceitful evasion:

“The science is in that we are experiencing climate change and we need to act to deal with it,” Dr Emerson told The Australian.

Give it time. Being sceptical will soon be the new cool.

Read it here.

New Australian temperature record set – for cold


Weatherzone reports that Charlotte Pass in NSW recorded the lowest ever April temperature:

This is the lowest temperature recorded anywhere in Australia in April and is 13 below the average. Nearby at Perisher it dipped to minus 11 degrees and at the top of Thredbo it dipped to minus 10.

Across the border, on the Victorian Alps April records were broken at Mt Hotham where it chilled to minus eight degrees and Mt Buller and Falls Creek where it got as low as minus seven.

Global warming sure is a bitch.

Read it here.

Photo of Wilkins Ice Shelf used 13 months after it was taken


In the same story in The Australian, it transpires that a photo of the Wilkins Ice Shelf, taken 13 months ago and used widely to spread alarm about climate change, has been used again last month to, er…, spread alarm about climate change.

British newspaper The Observer this month published prominently a story with a photograph of breaks in the Wilkins shelf.

“A huge ice shelf in the Antarctic is in the last stages of collapse and could break up within days in the latest sign of how global warming is thought to be changing the face of the planet,” the story began.

In March last year, US news agency msn published the same photograph with a similar story that began: “A vast ice shelf hanging on by a thin strip looks to be the next chunk to break off from the Antarctic Peninsula, the latest sign of global warming’s impact on Earth’s southernmost continent.” The photograph was published by numerous other outlets, including The Australian.

A spokeswoman for the British Antarctic Survey said the photograph in both stories was taken in March last year.

Nationals Senate leader and climate hero Barnaby Joyce is rightly hopping mad:

Nationals Senate leader Barnaby Joyce said the misuse of the photograph and the similar story lines 13 months apart reflected how the Wilkins ice shelf break-up was being recycled annually to fuel global warming concerns.

Senator Joyce said Mr Garrett’s entry into the debate demonstrated how it was being hijacked by misinformation.

“We are on the edge of a possible pandemic that could cause untold misery and people are running around tilting at windmills,” he said.

Read it here.

Government at war with Greens (and themselves)


The government, increasingly desperate to keep the ETS going, has launched an attack on the Greens for adopting an “unrealistic” emissions stance, and at the same time, Penny Wong and Peter Garrett are squaring up for handbags at ten paces about sea level rises.

To the Greens first, who have been spanked down by Greg Combet for their emissions reduction proposals:

“The Greens currently are arguing for a 40 per cent cut in emissions by 2020,” he said.

“That’s like taking the back of the axe to the economy potential in the absence of a wider international agreement. [Economy potential?? - Ed]

“They need to get towards a far more realistic position.”

But on the other hand, the government’s proposal, assuming CO2 were involved in climate change (which it isn’t), would make not a kangaroo’s fart of difference, Australia contributing only 1.5% to global emissions. The line they are treading here is about a micron thick…

On to Wong and Garrett, who are slugging it out about sea level rises due to melting of the Antarctic (last time I checked, Antarctic ice was way above average, but I’m splitting hairs…):

Federal government sources said Climate Change Minister Penny Wong was disappointed with the way her ministerial colleague, Peter Garrett, weighed into the debate about global warming [surely "climate change" - Ed], claiming sea levels could rise by 6m as a result of melting in Antarctica. Senator Wong yesterday pointedly refused to indicate whether she supported Mr Garrett’s view.

“The impacts of climate change are being seen in many ways, from sea level rise through to extreme weather events,” Senator Wong said yesterday. [Wrong on both counts, Penny - Ed]

“Climate change is a clear and present danger to our world that demands immediate attention.” [Adaptation, maybe. Attention? No - Ed]

Senator Wong declined to nominate potential levels to which seas could rise.

Why so coy, Penny? Debate’s over – science is settled. Let’s have the figure please.

Read it here and here.

Clinton: the new King Canute


Just as King Canute tried to stop the tide coming in (and failed miserably), so the Obama administration and Hillary Clinton will try to “tackle climate change”, and likewise, they will fail miserably. The only difference being that this time, it will cost billions of people trillions of dollars, and probably cost millions of lives in developing countries.

”Climate change is a clear and present danger to our world that demands immediate attention,” she said.

”It is a threat that is global in scope but local and national in impact.

”We know climate change threatens lives and livelihoods. Desertification and rising sea levels generate increased competition for food, water and resources. [Show me the rising sea levels and desertification, please - Ed]

”But we also have seen the dangers that these trends pose to the stability of societies and governments. We see how this can breed conflict, unrest and forced migration.

So no issue we face today has broader, long-term consequences, or greater potential, to alter the world for future generations.

Climate changes, that’s what it does. Trying to stop it is nonsensical. Adaptation is the key. But you can’t expect governments to pass up the opportunity to tax people out of existence, can you?

Read it here.

George Carlin on "saving the planet"


Because some people are now, finally, beginning to realise that humanity cannot control nature, and it cannot “tackle climate change”, I thought you would enjoy this famous routine by comedian George Carlin, which sums up the whole conceit brilliantly. Warning: contains strong language.

Enjoy!

Quote of the Day: Obama – unintended joke alert


This disaster of a President goes from bad to worse, as evidenced by this unintended hilarious utterance on climate change, said without any hint of irony:

“We have watched as scientific integrity has been undermined and scientific research politicised in an effort to advance predetermined ideological agendas,” Obama said.

Er, how about the IPCC for starters? Obama’s intellect is so dull he probably won’t get the joke…

Read it here.

The Australian backs Ian Plimer


This is excellent news. The Australian has always shown itself to be the only newspaper with a balanced approach to the issue of climate change, but in an editorial today it goes several steps further, by harshly criticising Robert Manne’s hysterical diatribe in response to Ian Plimer’s book:

Surely a measure of scepticism is healthy for a scientist. Professor Manne’s dogmatic approach is questionable in light of the complexities surrounding climate change. Much of Antarctica is cooling, for instance, and ice is expanding in much of the region. Contrary to popular belief, extensive Antarctic melting would be required to raise sea levels substantially. Not that the trend is new. As long ago as 1995, this newspaper reported that the sheet of snow and ice covering Antarctica was growing. Scientists speculated it was an early indicator of global warming, and that the extra ice would increase sea levels when it eventually melted over 10,000 years.

Such a scenario does not support Professor Manne’s belief that “humanity is at present marching, with eyes wide open, towards disaster”. It lends greater credence to Danish economist Bjorn Lomborg’s view that the immense cost of cutting greenhouse emissions in nations such as Australia would be better spent redressing malnutrition and preventable disease.

That the climate is changing is undisputed – it has done so for millions of years, notably before the Industrial Revolution. Given that the levels of carbon emissions have been measured only relatively recently, it remains to be be proved that their rise is the major driver of global warming. In the meantime, The Australian accepts the IPCC finding that the evidence of climate change calls for global intervention [This sentence is the only black mark. No-one should accept anything the IPCC says, but at least we're moving in the right direction - Ed]. A pragmatic approach, including investment in carbon sinks, renewable energy and clean coal research, is prudent. And nuclear power cannot be discounted forever in Australia. Professor Plimer’s sceptical eye on climate science is not to be dismissed as the “zealotry” of a “pseudo-sceptical scientist”.

And in a separate article, another convert (apparently as a result of Plimer’s book) writes about the “hubris” of believing that humanity can affect climate:

According to this scenario, human beings are the most important players in the history of the planet; they are the lords and masters who can destroy things as well as set them right. This belief in the capacity of humans to control the environment is very old. In some ancient civilisations the ruler was supposed to have the power to create a beneficial climate. If there were a prolonged drought, then the ruler sometimes was expected to make the ultimate sacrifice to propitiate the gods. During the depths of the Little Ice Age in Europe, some communities asked God for forgiveness of their sins so that a better climate might return.

Yet, reading Ian Plimer’s excellent Heaven and Earth, what impresses one about his extraordinary account of the Earth’s history and its climate is the many forces of nature that are beyond human control. These range from cosmic radiation to the movement of continents and the force of volcanoes. In so many ways we are just spectators, pilgrims who spend a short time on Earth.

That so many people need climate change in the face of the immense forces of nature can be put down to human hubris. They want the illusion of control, and the tool that they use to further that illusion is no longer religion but the state.

Bravo, The Australian!

Read it here and here.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 8,706 other followers

%d bloggers like this: