Another week, another round of pointless climate talks, this time in the earthquake ravaged town of L’Aquila in Italy (you’d have thought they had suffered enough…). Rudd will be spreading his own special brand of “toxic boredom” around, however. I think these poor unfortunates should be warned in advance, and given a secret stash of “No Doz” caffeine tablets:

After a meeting with German Chancellor Angela Merkel on Tuesday, he will stop briefly in Zurich to lobby world soccer body FIFA chief Sepp Blatter on Australia’s bid to host the world cup in 2018 or 2020.

Later in the week, Mr Rudd will spend two days in Italy where he will meet Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi in Rome.

Mr Rudd will also visit the Vatican for an audience with Pope Benedict XVI where they are expected to discuss the potential canonisation of Josephite order founder, the Blessed Mary MacKillop.

Rudd and the Pope? Knowing his flair for protocol and dignity (see here for a truly awful video of him with Obama), Rudd will probably slap him on the back and say “G’day mate” and make some kind of cringeworthy attempt at a joke …

Read it here.

So much is talked about “green jobs” and the “green economy”, and how damaging emissions reductions schemes can somehow “create” wealth and employment out of thin air (or as it happens, carbon dioxide), that it is refreshing to see the whole myth so thoroughly debunked:

Given the pain (and public backlash) the EU has experienced from two years’ experience with its Emissions Trading Scheme, why would our politicians ignore that foreign experience, as well as popular sentiment against cap-and-trade here at home, and run full-steam with eyes closed into this regulatory quagmire?

The only answer I can come up with is: more money and more power for government. As a former government employee, I am familiar with the mindset. While the goal of a private sector job is to create wealth, the government employee’s main job is to spend as much of that wealth as possible. A government agency’s foremost goal is self preservation, which means perpetuating a public need for the agency. The idea that our government exists to help enable a better life for its citizens might have been true 100 years ago, but today it is hopelessly naïve.

Read it ALL!

How the media hate “big oil”. After yesterday’s Quote of the Day, the ABC gleefully trumpets that Exxon Mobil are funding “deniers”:

The world’s biggest oil company, Exxon Mobil, is reported to be funding the work of climate change deniers.

Company records show Exxon Mobil handed over hundreds of thousands of dollars to lobby groups that question the facts of global warming.
…
The [London School of Economics’] research institute on climate change and the environment says both organisations have published misleading and inaccurate information about climate change.

Well they would say that, wouldn’t they? Anything that doesn’t meekly submit to the consensus is “misleading and inaccurate” according to climate alarmists. And they also fail to mention that “big oil” hands over millions of dollars to green groups as well, but hey, that’s OK, because it’s all fine, dandy and politically correct. And they also fail to mention that the alarmist industry has been funded to the tune of about $50 billion by Western governments since 1990. How does that stack up next to a bunch of loose change for “deniers”?

Climate hypocrisy.

Read it here.

UPDATE: Andrew Bolt exposes the hypocrisy here.

That doesn’t quite fit with the Rudd government’s climate policy, does it? Once again, the realities of life seem to get in the way of high minded ideals.

THE Rees Government has dumped key elements of its plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, including promises to force big businesses to use less energy and to set a statewide energy efficiency target.
…
The promise to force big companies to make and implement energy-saving plans was announced by the former premier, Morris Iemma. Yesterday the Government agreed to make this voluntary, after the tribunal recommended the mandatory program be terminated.

The Australian Industry Greenhouse Network, a lobby group for heavy greenhouse gas polluters, told the tribunal it opposed mandatory energy efficiency standards for businesses because they “impose an unnecessary compliance burden on industry” and were not economically efficient.

And pointelss feel-good gestures still dominate:

Funding for switching schools to low-energy lighting will also continue despite the review finding that was “not a cost-effective way of saving energy and reducing greenhouse gas emissions“.

Personally, I am sick of CFLs. They flicker, take ages to warm up, cost a fortune, and Australia has no national plan for safe recycling. CFLs get chucked in the dumpster, releasing mercury into the environment (which is a highly toxic heavy metal, rather than a harmless trace gas). In this case, it seems green ideology overcomes reality.

Read it here.

As always, a great read!

Interviewing geoscientist Michael Asten on Radio National’s Counterpoint, Paul Comrie-Thomson couldn’t resist plugging the ABC’s alarmist agenda by trying to smear Asten as being in the pay of “big oil”. I’m glad to report that he got it all back from Asten, with interest:

Paul Comrie-Thomson: Michael Asten, I’m going to ask you a question from left field; are geologists influenced in this debate by their connection to mining and petroleum industries?

Michael Asten: Oh yes, the bogey of being funded by big oil, Paul. The reality is that geologists are exposed from about their second week of first-year studies to the Earth’s history of climate change. Climate changes on a daily cycle and dozens of other cycles all the way through to some cosmic cycles a couple of hundred million years long. So geologists are not surprised that we’re seeing a change in climate.

Hey, do you think Al Gore may stand to benefit a teensy-weensy little bit from scaring people witless about climate change? No one ever mentions that, of course, but when a scientist gets some loose change from an oil company and it’s scandal, outrage, shock horror…

Read the transcript here (the whole thing is an interesting read).

On Tuesday it was the AFP in the dark on their climate enforcement role, now it’s handbags at ten paces between the federal and state governments regarding compensation for increased energy costs as a result of the ETS [Funny, you never hear about the increased energy costs to consumers from Penny Wong – Ed]. Anyway, Penny says no more money for states, but the Greens say that states should be compensated. And what is Greg Combet’s response?

Assistant Climate Change Minister Greg Combet says the states should try to be more energy efficient.

But he says where they do face higher costs they are expected to pass them on to householders who are receiving compensation.

So here’s a quick quiz, which do you think the states will do – spend gazillions on more energy efficiency, or just pass all the extra costs onto ratepayers?

Read it here.

It was always only a matter of time. Yesterday, I was blogging about the AFP’s new role as “carbon cops” and I wondered what the possible climate crimes might be. I guessed some kind of fraud or scamming. As if by magic, and right on cue, we have the perfect example from PNG:

The head of Papua New Guinea’s Office of Climate Change has reportedly been suspended amid allegations of improper deals involving carbon credits.

The national newspaper is reporting PNG’s cabinet has decided to suspend Dr Theo Yasause while dealings at the Office of Climate Change are investigated.

The investigation was launched after media reports said the office had been making million-dollar carbon trading deals with foreign companies before a policy and legislation were in place.

Read it here.

(h/t Climate Depot). Yet again we see alarmists fabricating scare stories, and providing misleading information which the global media unquestioningly accept and publish. Roger Pielke Sr takes the latest Real Climate “economies with the truth” apart:

Real Climate writes

“So what does it say? Our regular readers will hardly be surprised by the key findings from physical climate science, most of which we have already discussed here. Some aspects of climate change are progressing faster than was expected a few years ago – such as rising sea levels, the increase of heat stored in the ocean and the shrinking Arctic sea ice. “The updated estimates of the future global mean sea level rise are about double the IPCC projections from 2007″, says the new report. And it points out that any warming caused will be virtually irreversible for at least a thousand years – because of the long residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere.”

First, what is “physical climate science”? How is this different from “climate science”. In the past, this terminology has been used when authors ignore the biological components of the climate system.

More importantly, however, the author of the weblog makes the statement that the following climate metrics “are progressing faster than was expected a few years ago” ;

1. “rising sea levels”

NOT TRUE; e.g. see the University of Colorado at Boulder Sea Level Change analysis.

Sea level has actually flattened since 2006.

2. “the increase of heat stored in the ocean”

NOT TRUE; see

Update On A Comparison Of Upper Ocean Heat Content Changes With The GISS Model Predictions.

Their has been no statistically significant warming of the upper ocean since 2003.

3. “shrinking Arctic sea ice”

NOT TRUE; see the Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Anomaly from the University of Illinois Cyrosphere Today website. Since 2008, the anomalies have actually decreased.

These climate metrics might again start following the predictions of the models. However, until and unless they do, the authors of the Copenhagen Congress Synthesis Report and the author of the Real Climate weblog are erroneously communicating the reality of the how the climate system is actually behaving.

Media and policymakers who blindly accept these claims are either naive or are deliberately slanting the science to promote their particular advocacy position.

Read it here.

Oddly, they are going to spend their money on other things, like fighting poverty and boosting economic growth, rather than flushing it down the toilet on pointless “emissions reduction schemes” that will do nothing to change global climate.

India is one of the world’s biggest emitters alongside China, the US and Russia, and the second most populous nation.

But India’s per capita emissions lag far behind rich countries and it feels the developed world should take the lead on tackling climate change.

“India cannot and will not take emission reduction targets because poverty eradication and social and economic development are first and overriding priorities,” a statement on behalf of Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh said.

A legally binding emission reduction target endangers India’s energy conservation, food security and transport, he said.

At least one country has its priorities right.

Read it here.