What is it with alarmists and avoiding debate? Only yesterday it was Gore. This time it’s Penny Wong’s own “adviser” Will Steffen, who has turned down an invitation by Steve Fielding to attend a briefing for Senators at which Professor Bob Carter will also be speaking.

This is the second time Senator Fielding has sent a letter out to senators about climate change ahead of the vote on the Government’s emissions trading scheme on August 13.

Senator Fielding has questioned whether climate change is caused by human activity because he says there is evidence which shows global temperatures are not rising in line with carbon emissions.

He wants senators to attend a briefing by Professor Bob Carter, who is well known for speaking out against the link made between human activity and climate change.

The briefing is scheduled for just one day before the Senate vote.

Senator Fielding says he also asked Professor Will Steffen of the ANU Climate Change Institute to give a briefing, but he declined.

What’s wrong, mate? The debate’s over, right? Science is in, surely? Should be a walk in the park to make that fool Bob Carter look a right chump in front of a bunch of pollies! Wait, I know what it must be… it’s all just too easy for Will. Needs more of a challenge, I reckon…

There’s a saying: “Put up, or shut up.” Could be usefully employed against the warm-mongers.

Read it here.

And a porcine aviator just passed my window. Anyway, the poor journos at Fairfax have to do something to pass the time, so they write fairy tales. Despite the fact that in the next decade, China will bring on line about 1000 average-sized coal-fired power stations, 34 times Australia’s present coal-burning generation capacity, they will apparently still sign a binding emissions treaty in Copenhagen!

THE chief US climate negotiator, Todd Stern, has given his most bullish [bullshit? – Ed] prediction yet of a successful outcome at the forthcoming Copenhagen meeting, saying China is equally keen to achieve a new climate treaty.

Speaking after the first day of a US-China economic and strategic dialogue between the world’s two powerhouse economies, Mr Stern said that ‘‘on the US side, the issue has risen to the top of the US national security set of priorities’’.

‘‘With respect to prospects, you know, we’re slogging ahead … I think we will end up with an agreement.’’

Mr Stern cautioned that the perspectives of the big developing countries such as China and India were still quite different and the issues difficult, which meant an agreement would not be easy.

‘‘But I do think that we will get there, and I think that there is a lot of interest on the Chinese side fundamentally to arrive at a constructive and successful outcome in Copenhagen.’’

Don’t bet the house on it.

Read it here.

The Australian gives a cool-headed assessment of the current manoeuvrings around the passage of the ETS throught the Senate next month. Whilst The Australian’s leader writers appear to be still broadly in support of some kind of emissions trading scheme (which given the unproven science ACM considers is just plain wrong) at least they are demanding that Kevin Rudd address the concerns with the proposed scheme, rather than merely scoring cheap political points:

The Opposition Leader, having decided to deal with the government rather than be trapped into a green election the Coalition would be hard-pressed to win, must now offer effective ideas on the legislation. For its part, the government (after months of rhetoric) must be more precise about the impact of its scheme. While the opposition may be out of wriggle room on this issue (it must ultimately pass the legislation or risk a double-dissolution election), the government must make sure it does not bestow a costly and risky scheme on future generations.

And the first place where the Prime Minister must convince people of the ETS’s economic feasibility is at this week’s federal Labor conference. The ETS is not universally popular with cabinet ministers, and backbencher Jennie George spoke for other MPs with energy-intensive industries in their electorates when she said she was “mindful” of the scheme’s impact. Mr Rudd has been adept at exploiting conservative divisions over the ETS, but the time for politics is past: he must now show a willingness to explain and justify the detail of an ambitious and unproven scheme.

Read it here.

But strangely couldn’t find time to meet an elected Senator of the Australian parliament. Tim Mahar [who he? – Ed], who hails from the middle of nowhere, was granted an audience with Saint Al at the Asia Pacific Climate Change Conference in Melbourne a couple of weeks ago, whilst Steve Fielding was snubbed. Do you think it might be because Mr Mahar has swallowed Gore’s misrepresentations whole, and is a fully paid up member of the church of Global Warming Alarmism [surely “Climate Change Alarmism” – Ed], whereas Steve Fielding might ask a few tricky questions?

Here’s a sample of Mr Mahar’s arguments:

“Imagine your child had a heart problem and nine out of 10 specialist said she needs surgery immediately or she will be severely disabled and may die. [And there is the glaring flaw in your mawkish argument – the earth is not heading for severe disability or death thanks to a gentle warming from the Little Ice Age, which has, since about 2001, ceased – Ed]

“However one said: ‘Let’s wait a while and see what happens’.”

“What would you do?”

“In fact, it is our children and grandchildren who are most at risk,” Mr Mahar said.

Much of the three-day conference involved working with Al Gore on the most recent developments in the science of climate change. [Al doesn’t give a fig about the science, he only cares about making big bucks out of carbon credits – Ed]

“It was disturbing to hear just how quickly the climate is changing,” he said.

“Extreme events here are droughts and fires, but other totally unprecedented events are happening all over the world [like thousands of records for cold being broken all over the northern hemisphere summer? – Ed].

“We can turn things around but it will require a huge change and urgent action.”

No wonder Al was happy to meet this guy.

Read it here.

Nothing is going right for Malcolm Turnbull. It now seems that his decision on the ETS will be timed perfectly to meet an opposing tide of public opinion:

Just as Malcolm Turnbull has turned the Liberal Party towards accepting an ETS before the global climate change conference in Copenhagen in December, there has been a turnaround in public support for delaying finalisation of a carbon emissions trading scheme.

And while most people are still prepared to pay higher costs for petrol, electricity and gas to cut greenhouse gas emissions, support drops away rapidly as the expectations rise of higher costs.

According to the latest Newspoll survey, 45 per cent of voters want the Rudd government to delay finalising its Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme until after the Copenhagen conference compared with 41 per cent who said Australia should not wait to see what other nations were doing.

Eight per cent of respondents to the survey, taken exclusively for The Australian last weekend, oppose an ETS outright, taking the total who oppose the scheme or want it delayed to 53 per cent.

In September last year, 61 per cent wanted Australia to act as soon as possible, no matter what other countries were doing, and only 33 per cent wanted to delay or opposed the scheme outright.

So that’s a 20% increase in those opposing the ETS or wanting it delayed, and Turnbull does precisely the opposite. Not surprisingly, his popularity is at rock bottom, and the writing is on the wall for his leadership…

The Opposition Leader’s about-face over passing the ETS before Copenhagen and commitments from the big carbon emitters — the US, China and India — came as he slipped to his lowest standing against the Prime Minister, a worse position than former leader Brendan Nelson when he was replaced.

Read it here.

The point I made about an emissions trading scheme is that I don’t like it one little bit. I think it’s economically suspect and I think the science behind the policy is contentious to say the least.

Read it here (h/t Andrew Bolt)

Hands up who can guess why Kevin Rudd wants to reduce the voting age to 16 or 17? Could it be because the “yoof” of today are all brainwashed by their schools into thinking we have to “tackle climate change”? Or because the “yoof” of today think that pointless gestures such as Earth Hour, heavily supported by the educational establishment, actually makes some discernable difference to the climate? Or because the “yoof” of today are too naïve and inexperienced to see the damage an ETS would do to Australia’s economy? Or maybe because the “yoof” of today would therefore all vote Labor?

Read it here.

In an excellent article in Quadrant, Richard Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, discusses climate alarmism, and possible reasons behind it.

The notion of a static, unchanging climate is foreign to the history of the earth or any other planet with a fluid envelope. The fact that the developed world went into hysterics over changes in global mean temperature anomaly of a few tenths of a degree will astound future generations. Such hysteria simply represents the scientific illiteracy of much of the public, the susceptibility of the public to the substitution of repetition for truth, and the exploitation of these weaknesses by politicians, environmental promoters, and, after 20 years of media drum beating, many others as well.
…
Before disintegrating in a pyrotechnic display of unscrupulous manipulation, ENRON had been one of the most intense lobbyists for Kyoto. It had hoped to become a trading firm dealing in carbon emission rights. This was no small hope. These rights are likely to amount to over a trillion dollars, and the commissions will run into many billions.
…
With all this at stake, one can readily suspect that there might be a sense of urgency provoked by the possibility that warming may have ceased and that the case for such warming as was seen being due in significant measure to man, disintegrating. For those committed to the more venal agendas, the need to act soon, before the public appreciates the situation, is real indeed.

Read it all here.

Kevin Rudd and his band of cronies are a bunch of small minded politicians with gutter standards and even less dignity, always on the lookout to score cheap points against the opposition. So the ETS, and the undoubted mess the opposition has got itself into, is the perfect stage for Rudd to perform his tawdry brand of politics:

Opposition emissions trading spokesman Andrew Robb said last night that the Prime Minister was insincere after the government launched a series of attacks on the Opposition Leader despite his offer of a compromise.

His comments came as Labor backbencher Jennie George echoed one of Mr Turnbull’s “log of claims” by insisting Australian workers had the same protection as American workers in the scheme before the US congress.

On Friday, Mr Turnbull said the opposition was prepared to consider supporting ETS legislation to go to parliament next month, reversing the shadow cabinet’s position that the Coalition would not vote for the legislation before the UN climate conference in Copenhagen in December.

But yesterday Finance Minister Lindsay Tanner scoffed at the offer of talks, telling the Ten Network’s Meet the Press that Mr Turnbull should propose legislative amendments rather than vague talking points. And he questioned whether Mr Turnbull could guarantee he spoke for his colleagues after encountering opposition to the ETS from Coalition conservatives. Last night, Mr Robb said Mr Tanner’s comments, and a similar attack on Mr Turnbull’s “platitudes” by Climate Change Minister Penny Wong on Saturday, showed the government was not interested in genuine progress on its plan to begin emissions trading in 2011.

“This is just a smokescreen,” Mr Robb said. “They have been playing politics all along on this.

“Kevin Rudd should say, for example, whether he agrees that the jobs of Australian workers should get as much protection under our scheme as American workers would get under the proposed American scheme.

“It’s not a difficult question.”

Read it here.

This is Penny Wong’s and her arrogant government’s idea of negotiation. Malcolm Turnbull’s suggested amendments to the ETS have already been rejected by the government. Clearly they considered them in detail before reaching that decision…

The plan was alive for less than half a day before Climate Change Minister Penny Wong dismissed it as a shopping list of “vague and inconsistent demands”.

Senator Wong said the Government would listen to Mr Turnbull only if he had a coherent set of instructions from the joint Coalition party room.

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd similarly gave it the thumbs-down, taunting Mr Turnbull to unify the warring Coalition before putting anything before the Government again.‘

Rudd cannot resist cheap political point-scoring, even when we are talking about the most complex piece of legislation since the GST. But at least the Nationals have some principles:

Senator John “Wacca” Williams said he would rather walk away from Canberra with a clear conscience than vote for the legislation in its present form. “Permits could cost the agricultural sector $7 billion. Under that scenario there’d be no farmers and no food.”

Senator Williams said the Government was only interested in getting a double dissolution trigger for an early election.

“Politics is what’s behind it all, and we shouldn’t be playing politics with Australia’s future,” he said. [Absolutely right – Ed]

The Nationals Senate leader Barnaby Joyce reiterated that he would not support the scheme, and other senior Nationals said they would never vote “for anything that looks remotely like the existing bill”.

Read it here.