The Royal Society, that formerly learned institution dating back to 1660, has once again shown that it has gone completely off the rails. Having decreed that the debate on global warming was over (just see this page to see how hysterically the Society reacts to any opposing view on AGW), they are now backing research into “simulated volcanic eruptions” to “stave off climate change”:

The Age‘s headline screams:

It’s not drought, it’s climate change, say scientists

The reality:

(source: Bureau of Meteorology)

Read it here, but honestly, I wouldn’t bother.

The Spectator Australia publishes an excellent opinion piece which just about sums up everything ACM stands for, applauding Barnaby Joyce for standing up to the nonsense of an ETS, and urging the Coalition to have the guts to fight an election on climate change and Rudd’s spending spree:

Barnaby Joyce, leader of the National Party in all but name, gave a formative speech on Sunday at the Party Federal Council in Canberra. He underlined his party’s opposition to any emissions trading scheme, and called for a referendum on the use of nuclear power in Australia. His determination to stake out a National Party position independent of his Liberal coalition colleagues is understandable. The ETS is a political boon for the Nationals. Long a party in decline, they are now the only major Australian party that is outright opposed to an ETS. Many Australians support this position, and far more will support it once the full cost and futility of an ETS become widely apparent.

…

Polls show most Australians support an ETS. But that is because it is bound up with the popular yet asinine notion of ‘doing something for the environment’. Only an election campaign provides the resources and political focus to blast away the moral hype. All that would remain is a giant tax to fix a debatable problem of disputed cause, a totally ineffective tax to boot. The world’s climate is never going to change because a country that produces about 1 per cent of the world’s carbon emissions decides to restrict its contribution a bit. And that is assuming all the science about anthropogenic global warming is correct. The ETS could end up being the Labor government’s own WorkChoices.

Sounds promising, you think, but then the moonbats cop out and suggest something almost as bad:

The federal government’s proposed emission trading scheme is like as a “GST from hell”, says an independent think-tank.

The Committee for Economic Development (CEDA) says the planned carbon pollution reduction scheme (CPRS) – which the government is preparing to re-submit to parliament later this year – is an invitation for trouble.

The government should look instead at a carbon tax, which would be more workable in reducing carbon-emitting activities in Australia, it says.

Now there’s a surprise! Never saw that coming, did we? Just check out the figures in this article:

With just 100 days to go before the crucial Copenhagen Climate Conference, world leaders are being warned they have seriously underestimated the cost of adapting to the dangers of global warming.

In December, delegates from up to 192 countries will congregate for two weeks to negotiate a global emissions reduction deal to replace the existing Kyoto Protocol.

The new report by the International Institute for Environmental Development and the Grantham Institute for Climate Change says the figure of $100 billion the UN estimates might be needed for adaptation could actually be as much as three times higher.

Tackling climate change is a bottomless pit into which Western governments seem only too happy to throw your money. Turkeys voting for Christmas, yet again.

Read it here.

Soon there won’t be any gases left which aren’t “pollutants” or in some other way deemed “harmful” for the environment. In a weird throwback to the 1980s, the ABC runs a story on the depletion of the ozone layer. So get out your Aviator sunnies, put on an episode of Miami Vice and enjoy:

New research shows that nitrous oxide, also known as happy gas, is now the most abundant ozone-depleting substance in the atmosphere.

A paper published in the journal Science reveals the increasing levels of the gas will cause more damage to the ozone layer than the more commonly known chloroflourocarbons (CFCs).

The research found emissions of nitrous oxide are now present in such large amounts that it will remain the most damaging ozone-depleting substance throughout the 21st century.

Dr A Ravishankara from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration says an international treaty has stemmed the use of CFCs, but nitrous oxide is still not regulated. [Give it time, give it time – Ed]

“Currently ozone depletion in the stratosphere is largely due to the chlorofluorocarbons that have been already put in the atmosphere,” he said.

“But if you continue to put nitrous oxide it will contribute more and more to the ozone layer depletion in the future.”

Maybe they should regulate oxygen next, that evil, harmful gas without which bush fires would be so much less intense. Each person is entitled to their own allowance of oxygen each day, and if they use it up too quickly, they will have to purchase oxygen credits in order to, er, stay alive.

Read it here.

Hopefully, this is a sign of what will happen nationally when people wake up to the realities of the ETS:

SUPPORT for the Rudd Government has slumped in country areas in the past two months, with experts pointing to the emissions trading scheme (ETS) for Labor’s crashing popularity in the bush.

While the Government had enjoyed a major lead in both city and country areas in the Nielsen polls compiled for Fairfax, those figures have fallen away sharply between June and August.

In mid-June, 58 per cent of rural voters surveyed said on a two-party preferred basis they would vote Labor, while 42pc said they would support the Coalition if an election was called at that time.

Figures released by Nielsen last week reveal the two-party preferred rural vote was now neck and neck at 50-50.
…
Senior lecturer in politics at Monash University, Dr Nick Economou, said the dramatic swing back to the Opposition in rural seats would most definitely be as a result of the Government’s climate change and emissions trading policies.

Dr Economou said rural voters often had a very sharp focus on the impacts of government actions because of their more narrow economic bases.
…
“The only conclusion you could make about these figures is the shift in support is to do with climate change policy.

“City voters want to do something about climate change but they don’t understand the impacts of what’s being proposed in the same way country voters do.”

Indeed they don’t. Let’s see if we can change that, shall we?

Read it here.

As always, a great read!

And when you get to the comment about the Ashes, I’m actually an expat Pom, so I’m celebrating!

Little by little, drop by drop, the public seem to be ever so slowly waking up to the reality of the ETS. It’s far too late of course – this should have been happening years ago – but the efficient spin machine of the Krudd government has made sure that the reality has not escaped into the public domain. Farmers are going to be one of the hardest hit industries under the new tax and they are not happy about it:

FARMERS are about to be “ambushed” by the Government’s emissions trading scheme and it’s time they marched on Canberra in protest, according to Liberal Senator Bill Heffernan.

Senator Heffernan believes farmers need to send a loud message to politicians and Australia’s urban consumers that food security is under attack and the future of farming will not survive a tax on carbon.

Senator Heffernan, who is also a farmer from Junee in Southern NSW, told Rural Press this week that urgent action was needed to force the Government to make an immediate decision to exclude agriculture from an emissions trading scheme, but allow farmers to generate credits voluntarily.

He says various studies have proven that farmers will be forced to bear massive cost increases from the start of the scheme and from 2013 when a decision is made on the treatment of agriculture – regardless of whether the sector is included or not.
…
“The farm sector is beginning to understand just how serious an emissions trading scheme is going to be.

“They need to be drumming this into the Government and urban consumers who take the availability of clean green food for granted and believe it will always be there in the supermarket.

“I know many farmers are mentally, physically and financially exhausted but this new tax will be the end of family farming, so I think it’s time we march.

“This is something which will affect all farmers – not just wheat growers, not just dairy farmers, but everyone. No matter what you grow, you’re going to face significantly higher costs.”

Read it here. Note that this doesn’t get any press in the other Fairfax media, such as The Age or The Sydney Morning Herald – it is relegated to the North Queensland Register…

More interference and micro-regulation in everyone’s lives from the EU in the name of “tackling climate change”. Europeans will no longer be able to buy 100W incandescent bulbs from next week:

From September 1, 100-watt versions of the old incandescent bulbs will be banned from Europe’s shops and other bulbs with lower wattage will follow in the ensuing years, under a system agreed by EU experts last December.

New technology light bulbs, such as compact florescent lights (CFL) can save up to 80 per cent of the energy used by the worst old-style lights in homes.

The move will also cut carbon dioxide emissions as part of the European Union’s wider climate change package.

Admittedly, CFLs are more efficient and last longer, but on the downside, they produce a horrible light, are hideously expensive, take ages to warm up to full brightness, look ugly in light fittings, and are actually more damaging for the environment than traditional incandescents:

However the [European consumer group BEUC] added, in a statement, that removing the old-style light bulbs from the market also holds drawbacks for some consumers.

There are concerns “about the risks to health from the high mercury content of the new bulbs,” the group warned.

The EU plan also “falls short of the needs of some consumers who need to use the old-style light bulbs for health-related reasons such as light sensitivity,” BEUC added.

But none of that matters when we’re talking about “saving the planet”.

Read it here.