(h/t Andrew Bolt)
“I’m greener than you!”
“No you ain’t!”
“Yes I am!”
“No you ain’t!”
Fight, fight, fight! I love it when the warm-mongers start beating the sh*t out of each other – saves us realists the bother!
Greenpeace has taken aim at leading climate scientist Tim Flannery, saying his backing of the government’s planned emissions trading scheme is unhelpful.
Professor Flannery told ABC television on Monday the Australian Greens should vote for the scheme because “a first step is better than nothing”.
Greenpeace spokesman Steve Campbell says that view is disappointing and unhelpful.
“Doing something in this case is worse than doing nothing,” he said.
Read it here.
One of the pernicious things about the ETS is the sticky tentacles it will extend into every area of life, even those areas over which no influence was ever intended. Take the role of the AFP for example. As we reported here (“Forget the Keystone Cops, here come the Carbon Cops”), the ETS bill will include an enforcement role for the AFP in relation to “climate crimes” – your guess is as good as mine as to what these would be, but given that there are huge amounts of money involved, you can bet that the whole scheme will be ripe for scamming and fraud.
And Penny Wong is being uncharactaristically reticent about revealing the AFP’s role in all of this (and, more importantly, whether resources will be increased to cover the additional workload):
Australian Federal Police Association chief executive Jim Torr says companies who fail to comply with the ETS would be committing a crime against the Commonwealth and it would fall to the AFP to investigate.
“Someone who cheats on the scheme will gain the competitive advantage against the majority of organisations, and I’m particularly talking about larger carbon emitters where the scale of the crime would make it profitable,” he said.
Mr Torr says they have approached Minister for Climate Change Penny Wong but her office will not release the details of any enforcement mechanisms in the legislation.
“This is going to become a bigger issue as the years go by, it could become the AFP’s number one crime type as years go by that we investigate,” he said.
He says more resources would be needed to carry out the investigations.
Can you believe it? Climate crime becoming the number one crime type? All because we introduce a totally pointless piece of legislation that will have repercussions well beyond what the government could ever imagine. Just one of thousands of reasons (apart from the main one, of course – it won’t work) why the ETS is simply bad law.
Read it here.
As you would expect, Tim “Flannel” Flannery is given a really rough ride on ABC’s Lateline by fellow alarmist Tony Jones, but old Flannelly does manage to give us a good laugh or two – and reveals a few unpleasant truths as well. Here are a few quotes:
TONY JONES: It’s not only industry, it’s certain key politicians. Senator Steve Fielding had a very important potential vote in the Senate, is now being described by the ‘Wall Street Journal’ as something like a prophet, which is quite unusual to see, and beyond that, there’s a view that Australia is emerging as a sort of epicentre of the new scientific scepticism.
TIM FLANNERY: Australia’s climate dinosaurs are a lot bigger and uglier than the climate dinosaurs elsewhere, that’s for sure. And it is depressing, because it’s just so counter-productive. And, you know, the amount of time industry will waste disputing the science and not getting on with the job of adjusting to the future and a new energy economy in this country is just dismaying.
The usual story – mind closed to any possibility of the science not being 100% correct. And then this, which is nothing short of astonishing:
TONY JONES: Let me ask you on another issue altogether. New laws are now being used to penalise protesters who stop or impede production at coal-fired power plants and smelters and so on. Do you think those protesters should be protected in some way? [Protected in some way? Why on earth would a presenter at ABC suggest that those committing criminal acts should somehow be immune from prosecution? - Ed]
TIM FLANNERY: Absolutely. I find this completely outrageous to see state governments who are doing next to nothing to secure the future of younger people in Australia, penalising those who care with absolutely punitive measures now, making them pay for their protests. It is just extraordinary and I find it just utterly immoral and despicable.
So we can add Flannery to the ever growing list of hysterics who think that the rule of law doesn’t apply to those trying to “save the planet”. And then it just gets worse:
TONY JONES: We’ve just seen NASA scientist Jim Hanson, I think you know him pretty well, arrested along with an actress outside a coal-fired power station in Virginia, something he describes as a “death factory”. Have you considered yourself that kind of direction action?
TIM FLANNERY: Look, I have. I think we’ve all got a job to do, and my job has over the last couple of years has been working with business and the more progressive end of the business spectrum. I have considered those sort of actions, but there’s probably a lot of young people who’ve got a lot more at stake than I have who are gonna get angrier over time and who are gonna demand action, and they’re probably the ones who are gonna carry the day in that area.
Just read that last sentence again, and think what it means – sounds almost like encouragement. Flannery is a disgrace – and so is Tony Jones and the ABC.
Read it here.
Two examples of censorship in the climate debate, as reported in The Australian. You would have thought the case for AGW was so strong, so impenetrable, that any dissenting view could be heard, reviewed and easily rejected. Not the case. Dissenting views have to be banned, for fear that they may derail the global warming gravy train.
Firstly, the US Environmental Protection Agency suppresses an internal report that was sceptical of claims about global warming:
Less than two weeks before the agency formally submitted its pro-regulation recommendation to the White House, an EPA centre director quashed a 98-page report that warned against making hasty “decisions based on a scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain most of the available data“. The EPA official, Al McGartland, said in an e-mail message to a staff researcher on March 17: “The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward … and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision.” The email correspondence raises questions about political interference in what was supposed to be a independent review process inside a federal agency.
After reviewing the scientific literature that the EPA is relying on, [report author Alan] Carlin said, he concluded that it was at least three years out of date and did not reflect the latest research. “Global temperatures are roughly where they were in the mid-20th century. They’re not going up, and if anything they’re going down.“
And then a noted polar bear expert was excluded from the Polar Bear Specialist Group, despite having researched polar bears in Canada and around the Arctic circle for 30 years.
The (PBSG) chairman, Andy Derocher explained in an email that (Mitchell’s) rejection had nothing to do with his expertise on polar bears: “It was the position you’ve taken on global warming that brought opposition.” Taylor was told that his views running “counter to human-induced climate change are extremely unhelpful“. His signing of the Manhattan Declaration — a statement by 500 scientists that the causes of climate change are not CO2 but natural, such as changes in the radiation of the sun and ocean currents — was “inconsistent with the position taken by the PBSG“.
Funny that. Censorship is usually associated with oppressive regimes (think China, North Korea, Iran etc). Isn’t it curious that the global warming alarmist fraternity practise it as well?
Read it here.
(Of course – what did you expect?) Omitting the rather crucial point that the Waxman-Markey [Malarkey, more like - Ed] bill won’t become law until it passes the Senate, which is about as likely as the Greenland Ice Sheet melting next week, Rudd cannot resist the temptation to trumpet the US vote as something “important.”
Mr Rudd says the world is moving to tackle climate change and the Coalition needs to get on board.
“To those who are delaying action in the Australian Parliament, look at what’s happening in the United States,” he said.
“Rather than voting not to vote, which is what the Liberals have done here, let’s get on with the business of acting and getting things done.”
In other word, come on guys, let’s be as dumb as the Yanks. At least Tony Abbott has his head screwed on:
“We’re not going to support an ETS which costs Australian jobs without providing any definite and guaranteed environmental benefit. Why would we do that?”
Read it here.
Two excellent new books to cheer the sceptic’s soul, Heaven + Earth – Global Warming: The Missing Science by Professor Ian Plimer and Air Con by Ian Wishart. These two publications approach the global warming debate from different directions, but end up complementing each other very well.
Ian Plimer’s book is a thorough look at the science of global warming. As a geologist, Professor Plimer is perfectly placed to put the current climate change debate in the context of the history of the planet. It documents billions of years of climate change on earth, and puts into perspective the claims that somehow we are, just by coincidence, living at a time of “perfect climate”.
Professor Plimer takes us on a journey through the planet, with chapters entitled History, The Sun, Earth, Ice, Water and Air, describing in exceptional detail the interrelationships between these factors and the planet’s climate. It also puts humanity’s place in the scheme of things into stark perspective. The human race has a very high opinion of itself sometimes – for example, its ability to control climate by tinkering with a harmless trace gas – and reading this book disabuses us of that notion – we are but a tiny irrelevance in the universal scale of things. An important lesson that politicians should learn.
The book, as its subtitle indicates, is focused on the science, and will deserve a second (and probably third) read. There is a wealth of information to digest – but it is well worth it.
By contrast, Ian Wishart’s book Air Con is a little more approachable for the non-scientific reader, and whilst including enough essential science to gain a good understanding of the issues, concentrates more on the political aspects of the global warming debate, including how the global warming industry has tried (unsuccessfully) to shut down any criticism of the consensus, and exposes the scientific skulduggery that often goes on to perpetuate global warming alarmism.
One of my favorite sections quotes headlines from 1895 (“Geologists think the world may be frozen up again”) through the 1930s (“Chicago is in the front rank of thousands of cities throughout the world which have been affected by a mysterious trend toward warmer climate in the last two decades”) to 1975 (“Cold winters herald dawn of new Ice Age”), showing the yo-yo-ing backwards and forwards from fears of global cooling, to global warming and back again. If nothing else, such headlines demonstrate that humanity has a tendency always to think that the present time is the most important and crucial time in history, and that action on something must be taken “now”. It’s a shame we still haven’t learned from past mistakes.
ACM highly recommends both books as essential reading for those who wish to gain a more detailed understanding of the climate change debate.
Heaven + Earth can be ordered here.
Air Con can be ordered here.
Thanks to Ian Wishart for providing a copy of Air Con for review.
Breaking news. As clueless on climate as the Kruddites in Australia. At least it won’t pass the Senate.
Read it here.
UPDATE: Senator James Inhofe puts it into perspective:
“It doesn’t matter,” he declared flatly, “because we’ll kill it in the Senate anyway.”
Asked if he was confident that would be the case, Oklahoma’s senior senator said he was “absolutely certain.” He noted that it would take 60 votes to break an anticipated Republican filibuster over cap and trade and predicted the most the Democrats can muster is about 34.
As Tom Nelson puts it:
Enjoy today, alarmists, because it’s all downhill from here.
Steve Fielding’s trip to the US, followed by his refusal to accept “the consensus” and vote through the Australian ETS has been noted in the Wall Street Journal as the US congress prepares to vote on their equivalent cap ‘n’ tax [surely cap 'n' trade? - Ed] legislation, the Waxman-Markey bill. Ian Plimer’s book Heaven + Earth is also given the thumbs up:
Steve Fielding recently asked the Obama administration to reassure him on the science of man-made global warming. When the administration proved unhelpful, Mr. Fielding decided to vote against climate-change legislation.
If you haven’t heard of this politician, it’s because he’s a member of the Australian Senate. As the U.S. House of Representatives prepares to pass a climate-change bill, the Australian Parliament is preparing to kill its own country’s carbon-emissions scheme. Why? A growing number of Australian politicians, scientists and citizens once again doubt the science of human-caused global warming.
Among the many reasons President Barack Obama and the Democratic majority are so intent on quickly jamming a cap-and-trade system through Congress is because the global warming tide is again shifting. It turns out Al Gore and the United Nations (with an assist from the media), did a little too vociferous a job smearing anyone who disagreed with them as “deniers.” The backlash has brought the scientific debate roaring back to life in Australia, Europe, Japan and even, if less reported, the U.S.
Read it here.
It’ll be a close run thing, with the Washington Post predicting a close win for the bill. However, it stands even less chance of getting through the senate (sounds a bit like home, really!).
The House could vote today on a measure to cap U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, with Democratic leaders predicting a tight victory for a behemoth bill that has grown more complex with each compromise.
The heart of the bill, which now runs to 1,201 pages, is a plan to reduce emissions to 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020. To do that, it would create a cap-and-trade system, in which polluters would be required to accrue buyable, sellable credits for all the greenhouse gases they produce.
Republicans and some business interests have said the bill would add huge new costs and drive jobs to countries where emissions are still unregulated and free. The GOP byword for the bill has been “cap and tax.”
Sounds about right…
Read it here.