Short break from blogging


Posts will be few and far between for the next couple of weeks. Hope to be back posting regularly in early October.

Don’t forget to check out the Live Blog Roll in the right side-bar of the home page.

Simon, ACM

Abbott: carbon tax is "economic self-harm"


No ETS or carbon (dioxide) tax

In this sea of climate madness which we are currently drowning, only Tony Abbott speaks the blindingly obvious truth: a carbon tax would be damaging to Australia’s economy for no benefit to the climate whatsoever. And the majority of business thinks the same (take note Moonbat Marius):

Opposition Leader Tony Abbott is sticking to his guns that he will “never” endorse Australia going it alone by putting a price on carbon, a stance supported by a new business survey.

Mr Abbott said on Friday that he will “never” put a price on carbon unless this becomes part of an enforceable international system.

“A go-it-alone carbon tax would be another act of economic self harm and it’s the last thing Australia needs,” Mr Abbott told Macquarie radio.

“The price of your power, the price of your petrol, the price of everything you do goes up under a carbon tax.”

He also attacked the government for a change of heart having “emphatically ruled out a carbon tax pre-election”.

“Now, apparently they’re ruling it in. It just goes to show you can’t trust these guys,” he said.

A survey of 1000 business owners conducted by the Australian Chamber of Commerce of Industry (ACCI) found that 75 per cent oppose the unilateral adoption of an emissions trading scheme (ETS) or carbon tax.

“Calls for a carbon tax or ETS in the name of business certainty certainly don’t represent the general view of business owners,” the chamber’s director of economics and industry policy, Greg Evans, said in releasing the survey results on Friday.

“The reality is business and consumers (would) face the prospect of a doubling of energy prices by 2015 with little global gain.”

Read it here.

UPDATE: Julia Gillard’s excuse for the backflip on the carbon tax is that it’s no longer her decision what happens on climate change, because the “committee” will tell her. No, seriously.

She told Fairfax that what she said before the federal election on climate change no longer applies because a committee of politicians and experts will now develop the policy.

“We laboured long and hard to develop a market-based mechanism,” she said of the emissions trading scheme. [Waffle]

“But I’m recognising the political reality. I campaigned as Prime Minister in an election campaign with policies for the Government. [More waffle]

“We are in a new environment where in order for any action to happen in this Parliament, you need more consensus than the views and policies of the Government and this committee is the way of recognising that.” (source)

No it’s not. It’s a stacked team of warmists who have made up their minds already.

Those independents who handed this incompetent government power should hang their heads in shame.

Gillard backflips on carbon tax


First of many?

Well, that didn’t take long, did it? Hands up those of you who didn’t see this coming. Comments by BHP’s Moonbat Marius yesterday put the issue of a carbon tax back on the agenda. The Greens are cock-a-hoop, as they would be, and Julia Gillard failed spectacularly to rule out such a tax, despite doing so before the election. As Australian Conservative reports:

Julia Gillard today walked away from her election-eve promise to oppose a costly carbon tax on Australian householders.

On the Friday before the election Ms Gillard stated categorically: “I rule out a carbon tax.” (The Australian, 20 August 2010).

But today, when asked by media, would she rule out a carbon tax, she blinked:

Gillard: Look, we, we’ve said we would work through options in good faith at the committee that I have formed involving of course the Greens … We want to work through options, have the discussions at that committee in good faith.

Journalist: So you are not ruling it out then?

Gillard: Well look ah, you know I just think the rule-in, rule-out games are a little bit silly.

Before the election, she unambiguously ruled out a carbon tax. Now, after the election, ruling in or ruling out a carbon tax is now “a little bit silly” according to the PM.

It now looks like Julia Gillard is opening the door to a plan by Labor’s partners, the Greens, for a carbon tax.

Now, after the election, it appears that Labor has a secret plan to back-flip and support the tax.

Before the election, Wayne Swan said: “what we rejected is this hysterical allegation that somehow we are moving towards a carbon tax” (Meet the Press, 15 August 2010).

Mr Swan also said: “We have made our position very clear, we have ruled it out” (7.30 Report, 12 August 2010).

Julia Gillard again claimed: “There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead” (Channel 10, 16 August 2010).

The Prime Minister was today speaking at a sustainability media event. But it’s now clear she hasn’t been able to sustain her pre-election promises to rule out a carbon tax. (source)

This will be just the first of many backflips by Julia as she desperately tries to appease the demands of the Greens, ably assisted by a self-serving businessman who wants to spruik his uranium over coal. At least some businesses are rejecting the call:

The Australian Chamber of Commerce & Industry said Mr Kloppers’s statements did not represent the views of its members.

“We unambiguously represent the views of energy users rather than producers,” ACCI economics and industry policy director Greg Evans said. “Our members are concerned about the impact of either of a carbon tax or an ETS.

“We certainly don’t believe Australia should pre-empt any international action.” (source)

A statement so blindingly obvious, it is astonishing that no-one seems to get it. We really are through the looking-glass now, folks.

Daily Bayonet GW Hoax Weekly Roundup


Skewering the clueless

As always, a great read!

Madness: BHP boss "wants price on carbon"


Turkeys voting for Christmas, perhaps? Terry McCrann eviscerates Marius Kloppers for this nonsense:

In his nauseating obsequiousness, figuratively flagellating himself and his company for their carbon sins, Kloppers ‘confessed’ how Australia had one of the highest emissions of carbon dioxide per capita in the world.

Again, his entire focus was on domestic emissions – principally and most obviously from our almost total reliance on coal-fired electricity.

These had to be cut – to stress again, unilaterally and Rudd-like, irrespective of whether or not the rest of the world followed or when.

Accompanied by this throwaway line: that a major consideration was that our “export-based economy is intrinsically carbon intensive”.

Doh. Young Mr Kloppers clearly doesn’t understand the fatal contradiction. Once you accept that producing carbon dioxide is a secular – indeed the greatest secular – sin, the sinning doesn’t stop at the border.

We accept by whatever process a mandatory reduction in our production of domestic carbon dioxide, exactly the same demand will be applied to carbon dioxide being shipped out embedded in resources.

Now none of this is actually about ‘climate change’ – whether the so-called science or the religion. It is about self-interest and the most basic common sense.

Our economy and our present and future prosperity – even our more basic viability as a society – is based totally on producing carbon dioxide. Both in generating almost all our electricity and earning the majority of our export income.

The so-called science demands we cut our output by 80 per cent. So if Kloppers “accepts” the science, he accepts that sort of reduction over the next couple of decades.

He accepts the long-term suicide of BHPB – a strange position for a a CEO paid a multi-million dollar salary.

To what purpose? This is where the common sense kicks in. We can cut our emissions by 100 per cent; we can stop all our exports of coal and iron ore, completely, and we will make not the slightest difference to the climate. Taking the ‘science’ not the religion as gospel.

Yes, let us have a price on carbon. Zero. That’s the certainty that Australia – and BHPB – really need.

Read it here.

UPDATE: Who does the ABC get to comment on this story on News Radio this morning? A sceptic perhaps, to put the other side of the climate change issue? A mining expert perhaps, who would expose the hypocrisy? No – Chrisine Milne, Greens Senator – who was uncritically asked candy-floss questions which allowed her to spout the usual Green climate nonsense, and support Kloppers’ position 100%, as you would expect. There’s quality journalism for you.

Climategate enquiries "rushed and inadequate"


Global Warming Policy Foundation

That’s the conclusion of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) in a report published yesterday:

The report The Climategate Inquiries, written by Andrew Montford and with a foreword by Lord (Andrew) Turnbull, finds that the inquiries into the conduct and integrity of scientists at the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia were rushed and seriously inadequate.

In particular, the report finds that:

  • none of the Climategate panels mounted an inquiry that was comprehensive within their area of remit
  • insufficient consideration in the choice of panel members led to a failure to ensure balance and independence
  • none managed to be objective and comprehensive
  • none made any serious attempt to consider the views and submissions of well-informed critics
  • terms of reference were either vague or non-existent
  • none of them performed their work in a way that is likely to restore confidence in the work of CRU.

Andrew Montford, the author of the GWPF report, said:

“The lack of impartiality manifested itself in the different ways the panels treated CRU scientists and their critics. While CRU justifications and explanations were willingly accepted without any serious probing, critics were denied adequate opportunity to respond and to counter demonstrably inaccurate claims.”

Now tell us something we don’t know or hadn’t suspected…

Read the rest of the announcement here, and download the whole report here (PDF).

Thomas Edison, you're under arrest!


"It's a fair cop, gov. I'll come quietly"

As the article puts it: Welcome to Green Hell. Obviously, ACM has been stocking up on incandescents since the moonbat Australian government outlawed them, and forced us all to use dim, ugly, horrifically expensive, flickery, epileptic-fit-incuding CFLs which you have to switch on, go and make a cup of tea, and by the time you return, might just be bright enough to use. And when they break, you have to sound an alarm in a three-street radius and dress up in HAZMAT clothing and breathing equipment just to put them in the freaking bin! From whence they go to a special dedicated CFL mercury recycling plant? No, to landfill. Brilliant. All to save the planet? Jeez.

Thomas Alva Edison was a genius credited with the invention of many things — the phonograph, the motion picture, the incandescent light bulb, global warming. That last credit was given by those who rank light bulbs right up there with the internal combustion engine as ravagers of the planet.

The General Electric light bulb factory in Winchester, Va., closed this month, a victim, along with its 200 employees, of a 2007 energy conservation measure passed by Congress that set standards essentially banning ordinary incandescents by 2014.

Just as they are by fuel-economy standards, consumers are denied choice and the freedom to evaluate any possible benefits on their own by the nanny state. Washington’s force and coercion are necessary because it seems the great unwashed can’t seem to see the benefits or ignore the risks of compact fluorescents, or CFLs.

In Europe, light bulbs are already a controlled substance. The 100-watt bulb was banned last year and the 75-watt became illegal as of Sept. 1.

Not surprisingly, incandescent light bulbs there quickly became a hot item, flying off the shelves while they were still available. Der Spiegel reported that German customers leave hardware stores with carts piled high with enough incandescent bulbs to last 20 years. Garages and attics throughout the Old World are full of them.

Read it here.

(h/t Climate Change Dispatch)

ABC: "mistaken not malicious"


Climate sense

Marc Hendrickx, who runs the ABC News Watch blog, writes in The Australian:

ON ABC’s opinion site The Drum, “public intellectual” Clive Hamilton has claimed the public broadcaster has been infested by a nest of climate deniers. According to Hamilton, Aunty has handed its editorial control to the far Right. It’s a pity he forgot to provide any evidence to support his claims, as even the most superficial assessment reveals nothing to substantiate the right-wing conspiracy alluded to, just everyday sensationalism, along with naive and inept journalism.

Aunty’s main problem is not opinion sites such as The Drum that has given Hamilton a megaphone, and also posted a range of views from climate experts and non-experts alike, including me. The problem is the ABC’s news and science reporting that continues to let down its audience.

It does this in several ways. First, the natural inclination of the media to favour alarm over calm results in stories with headlines such as “Oceans on brink of mass extinction: study” getting prominence over less sensationalist stories such as “Is climate change new (and bad)?”

The media’s bias towards sensationalism results in the ABC and other media outlets picking science stories that can be beaten up. In this context the restraint of sceptical scientists simply does not attract as much attention.

Second, certain ABC reporters seem to be suffering from Stockholm syndrome when it comes to interviewing scientists promoting climate alarm. They are failing to properly scrutinise experts and authoritative documents such as Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessments and government reports. Without bothering to properly verify the facts, they act as echo chambers, spreading misconceptions.

Third, the perception of bias in ABC climate reporting is not so much due to a conspiracy of amateurish environmental activists, though it seems many now walk the corridors of ABC’s head office, but stems from ineptitude. Aunty’s bias is most obvious in those stories that have gone unreported. In the same week the ABC failed to cover an important paper by Australian researchers that found no influence of climate change in last year’s Victorian bushfires (a disaster our non-climate expert, Hamilton, was quick to trumpet as a sign of impending climate doom), it also missed another study that smashed the notorious hockey stick graph to pieces.

Read it here.

Combet: coal industry is safe


Coal safe?

Although how Greg Combet can promise this with a straight face when he plans to introduce a pointless price on carbon [dioxide], and his Labor party is tied up in a formal agreement with the Greens, whose policy is to wipe coal from the face of the earth. Anyway, an interview in The Australian gives us a few hints as to what Greg is about:

As part of its deal to secure government, Labor signed a formal alliance with the Greens, whose policies include the eventual phasing out of the coal industry, Australia’s biggest export earner.

But in an interview with The Australian, Mr Combet said his background as a former coal engineer, union official and MP with coal workers in his NSW electorate meant he did not believe his job was to shut down the coal industry.

“I don’t agree with that. That’s not part of my job at all,” he said.

“I am acutely aware of the challenges that this policy presents. But people jump to these absolute positions, and I just don’t think that’s appropriate.

“I’ve got a responsibility to support those people’s jobs. The coal industry is a very vibrant industry with a strong future. What you’ve got to do is look to how we can achieve in the longer term things like carbon capture and storage for coal-fired power stations.” [Impossible in the near to medium term - and hugely expensive.]

Greens leader Bob Brown has described Australia as being like a heroin addict “feeding the habit” of the world’s reliance on coal. The party’s stated policy is to oppose development of any new coalmines or the expansion of existing coalmines and to phase out all existing coal subsidies. It wants to work towards stopping the development and granting of export licences for all new coalmines.

But in a statement last night, Greens senator Christine Milne, who has the party’s portfolio responsibility for climate change, said she did not intend to rehash the policy differences with Labor as she sought to build “trust” with the new Gillard government. [In other words, sweep our policy under the carpet - for now - so we don't expose our fundamental ideological differences.] “I have put in a call to Greg Combet to congratulate him and begin the exciting conversation,” she said.

“In the meantime, I hope we can all respect the delicate process of building trust between people coming from different policy positions so we can achieve the best outcomes possible for the climate.”

The Greens can almost sound vaguely reasonable sometimes, especially when they are pulling the wool over the eyes of the mainstream media – but believe me, it’s all an act. Underneath they are as radical as ever, and highly dangerous for Australia.

Read it here.

Combet to "push ahead with carbon price"


Also available for cabaret appearances…

Blimey, gov, that didn’t take long – I can hardly keep up! Only a few hours ago I was wondering when the first bit of Com-bot climate nonsense would come, and here it is already!

Newly-promoted cabinet minister Greg Combet says climate change remains a tremendous environmental challenge that demands careful economic reform.

“My priorities will be to continue the government’s strong support for renewable energy, to promote greater energy efficiency in industry and households, and to work towards the introduction of a carbon price,” Mr Combet said in a statement. [Because all of those things will help to stop global warming, er, climate change. No, wait…]

“In the new parliament, climate change policy will require broad consultation and the building of consensus,” he said.

That means broad consultation with people who have already made up their minds that leads to a consensus which gives us the answer we want. Brilliant. You can’t lose!

Read it here.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 8,706 other followers

%d bloggers like this: