New – Open Thread

OK, first time for ACM, an Open Thread, while posting is light.

Discuss any current climate issues here.

Play nicely, as the saying goes. Comments will be moderated as usual.


  1. Sean McHugh says:

    I’ll start the ball rolling. Are there any AGW apologists out there who would like to support the joke/claim, “It’s happening faster than we thought!”?

    Beware the 1st of Juliar, 2012.

  2. What do Charles Manson and bears have in common? Check out these looney left posts:

    Now it’s global warming causing killer bear attacks-

    Crazed cult leader joins crazed cult –

    • The Loaded Dog says:

      Chuckie Manson is the quintessential environmentalist. I watched his chilling prison interview some years ago and was intrigued by his subscription to the warmist doctrine. He subscribes to all the lunacy of their teachings, one world government, psychopathic anthrophobia, eugenics etc.

      The whole interview is on youtube but here’s a quick summary.

      BTW Simon – open thread….great idea..


  3. Mervyn Sullivan says:
  4. Confusious says:

    He was one of the pioneers of warming theory applying that into practice by building a warm air ballon out of bedsheets to escape from prison. Sadly he was discovered before accumulating enough methane gas for burner. That was reported some 30 years ago or so and is thus not widely known.
    Can you imagine had he succeeded, he would have now few great ideas for Garnaud and Combet and even Brown Bob on how to address Global Warming, ah, sorry, I mean Climate Change!…..
    Juliar would most certainly invited him to serve on her Climate Change Advisory Gravy Train…., I mean Committee.

  5. Baldrick says:

    Global warming scientist at work …

    A Balmain resident in full swing at the recent Climate Change Conference-

  6. There have been many discussions going on about how effective a Carbon Tax in Australia will be at changing the composition of carbon dioxide in the Earths atmosphere. This is the goal of any Carbon Tax policy – reducing the parts per million (PPM) of co2 within the atmosphere. All other ‘benefits’ are just side issues used to help sell the policy – this covers topics such as ‘green jobs’, ‘leading the world’ and others. The primary reason is to reduce the amount of co2 in the atmosphere, in accordance with the UN stated goal of restricting global temperature rises to 2 degrees. There is no point in going ahead with any environmental policy unless it achieves the stated aims.

    With this in mind, I thought about what that would look like in comparison to a real-word object that people are familiar with – a standard Olympic 50m pool. So I took the measurements for the atmosphere, and applied them to an Olympic pool.

    Let’s imagine a 50m pool standing on end, so that it filled from the starting blocks upwards. Let’s fill it with water, in proportions with the different gases in the atmosphere.

    First up we need Nitrogen. Quite a lot of it, actually, because it is 78% of the atmosphere. It will take 65 tanker trucks (the sort you see filling up petrol stations tanks) to fill up the pool with our Nitrogen. When finished, they will have filled our vertical-standing pool to the 39m mark – well past halfway.

    Next up we will fill it with Oxygen. Luckily for us oxygen breathing organisms, there’s plenty of it. Another 18 tanker trucks will handle the Oxygen delivery. When the last one is finished, our vertical pool will be filled to the 49m mark. The water is now over the end of the black line that swimmers use to know the wall is near.

    Luckily for the tanker truck drivers, the last delivery is coming. This tanker is full of Argon, and when the truck drivers go home the pool will be filled so there is about 24cm to go. Less than the length of a swimmers arm from palm to elbow.

    Next up we take our delivery of Water Vapor. As we all know on a sticky hot day and by looking at clouds, water vapor is in the atmosphere. There is a bit of it to fill up, but we can take delivery in an average sized household water tank. This raises the level by another 20 cm. Just about 3cm to go – the length of a swimmers finger from their first knuckle to fingertip.

    We’ll get to Carbon Dioxide in a minute, but first lets deliver all the other gases, including Neon. We can deliver Neon with a bit of bucket carrying – just 6 buckets of Neon go in. This raise the level less than 1 mm. The ripples will be higher than the new water level. Methane- the other greenhouse gas often spoken of in terms of cow burps – we only need half a bucket of that, so in it goes. The rest – carbon monoxide – {car exhaust} – xenon {car headlights}, ozone – all of it adds up to another half a bucket of gases. Only co2 left to add – and our pool is 2 cm from the top.

    So we’ll deliver the Carbon Dioxide, but let’s do it in proportions of where it comes from.

    First up we need the naturally produced carbon dioxide. This comes from all types of sources – forest fires, volcanoes, rotting vegetation and dead animals and others. We’ll need about 5 average sized bathtubs full, or about 120 buckets to provide the naturally occuring co2. That takes the level up so there is a bit less than 1mm left to fill.

    Next up we’ll add in the carbon dioxide that is attributed to man-made emissions – driving cars, making concrete, burning coal – all those things. Not quite 4 buckets go in – 3 and a half buckets are poured in. Remember this is into an olympic sized swimming pool. The pool is now full with the addition of those 3 1/2 buckets – which is man’s contribution since about 1800.

    But there’s more to do – burning fuels is adding carbon dioxide every year, and the new carbon taxes are supposed to stop the growth in carbon dioxide. The existing atmosphere is what it is and gives us the climate we have now – you can’t change that. So we need to look at how much more carbon dioxide is going into our pool every year.
    The truth is that it’s about half a bucket – or 2 full 2-litre coke bottles per year. It’s the growth in emissions that people want to control, not the mix that’s already there. So the aim is to stop those two coke bottles going in each year.

    But this is a global issue, so let’s look at the contributions of all the countries to those 2 bottles. China is the largest emitter, they will add about 900 ml next year. That’s like 1 litre carton of milk that someone took a swig from. Next up is USA – pour in a wine bottle worth. Then we have the EU – over 30 countries altogether – they will add about as much as there is in a sauce bottle. Next up is india – we can pour in a wine glass worth. Then we have Russia – about as much as in a childrens juice pack. Japan is next – they can pour in a champagne flute. Instead of listing every country – the remaining countries (minus Australia) are one full 1 litre milk carton.

    Finally we get to Australias yearly addition to our olympic pool. Each year, we add about the same as you get in one of those little minibar bottles. 50ml in a olympic pool holding 2.5 million litres. That’s our contribution to carbon dioxide emissions growth.

    Now we know total Australian emissions, we can work out how much the carbon tax will reduce them by. Using the stated goal of a 5% reduction by 2020, we can calculate how much this would take out of the atmosphere. And it is equivalent to taking an eyedropper and filling it up twice from our 50ml minibar bottle. That’s how much reduction a carbon tax might achieve, if it actually works as expected.

    Maybe 2 eyedroppers sounds reasonable to you. And every little bit will do something – you can cut a tree down with a nail file if you’re persistent. But while considering this you should know that China alone is increasing by 9% per year. 9% of their contribution means that next year they will increase from a 92% full milk carton to a full milk carton. Chinas growth in emissions will replace the 5% cut in Australian emissions every 10 days.

    Calculations source:'s_atmosphere

    • Brc; Something along the same lines……..

      Here’s a practical way to understand the PM’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.

      Imagine 1 kilometre of atmosphere and we want to get rid of the carbon pollution in it created by human activity. Let’s go for a walk along it.

      The first 770 meters are Nitrogen.

      The next 210 meters are Oxygen.

      That’s 980 meters of the 1 kilometre. 20 meters to go.

      The next 10 meters are water vapour. 10 meters left.

      9 meters are argon. Just 1 more meter.

      A few gases make up the first bit of that last meter.

      The last 38 centimetres of the kilometre – that’s carbon dioxide. A bit over one foot.

      97% of that is produced by Mother Nature. It’s natural.

      Out of our journey of one kilometre, there are just 12 millimetres left. Just over a centimetre – about half an inch.

      That’s the amount of carbon dioxide that global human activity puts into the atmosphere.

      And of those 12 millimetres Australia puts in .18 of a millimetre.
      Less than the thickness of a hair. Out of a kilometre!

      As a hair is to a kilometre – so is Australia’s contribution to what the PM calls Carbon Pollution.

      Imagine Brisbane’s new Gateway Bridge, ready to be opened by the PM. It’s been polished, painted and scrubbed by an army of workers till its 1 kilometre length is surgically clean. Except that the PM says we have a huge problem, the bridge is polluted – there’s a human hair on the roadway.
      We’d laugh ourselves silly.

      There are plenty of real pollution problems to worry about.
      It’s hard to imagine that Australia’s contribution to carbon dioxide in the
      world’s atmosphere is one of the more pressing ones. And I can’t believe
      that a new tax on everything is the only way to blow that pesky hair away.

    • The Loaded Dog says:

      Very well put BRC, although heresy to the faithful – one must never question the elite.

      And don’t even THINK about trying to apply logic…like the above.

      I have forwarded this comment onto a number of colleagues, one of whom was a believer but is rapidly losing the faith.

      It’s really just too easy isn’t it?

      A tiny bit of scrutiny and the whole scam falls down in a quivering heap.

      Only a blind religious zealot won’t be persuaded.


      • Yes, feel free to disseminate far and wide. I originally wrote it to give to my parents and their peer group for their understanding. I see a lot of things that they all email to each other and some of it is, well, a load of crap. I don’t support incorrect propaganda even if it notionally supports the skeptic case. I wanted people to use real figures and clear examples to understand what is proposed. The text probably needs some editing and clearing up but surprisingly I have to earn a living as well as post anti-AGW information – my big oil cheques seem to have gotten lost in the post.

        I actually think the swimming pool example would make a great 10 minute YouTube clip with animations but that’s beyond my available time. A good presenter tipping the various amounts into an olympic pool would drive the point home quite well.

  7. If Australia produces 1.5% of the worlds CO2, which is (Total world CO2 4% of 385 ppm) & reduces that amount by 5% by 2020. How much will the reduction be? How much will it cost? The other question is what will have China increased its emissions by 2020, at a rate of Two Coal Fired Power Stations being built every week until then?

    • fred nerk says:

      Consider that plants will start dying at about 150ppm on the other will grow 15 to 20% more at 1000ppm which is well within our tolerance and still not as high as it has been in the past.Man made co2 is only a small percentage of what nature produces naturally.Follow the food chain and take out co2 and what happens,the system collapses.The amount of co2 in the atmosphere equates to the history of mankind in the earths history 4.5 billion minus 6 million equals Sweet FA.Co2 is not a problem however plastic and verbal excreta are and can be stopped one way or another. enough ranting cheers everyone.

  8. froggy uk says:

    Here are the latest findings on the “so called” environmentally friendly energy saving lighbulbs, it seems everything to do with the “saving the planet” lunacy is rushed into without proper studies just to appease the yoghurt knitters.

  9. Yesterday I took a trip over to Crikey to read some other view points. Reading the blogs I found that the comments appeared to be from “green” party supporters that have this superiority complex, and think they know better than everyone else to the point of arrogance on this issue. The use of big words etc seems like they were trying to “bamboozle with bs”. There were negative comments about Bolt & McCranns articles yesterday, but no alternatives given, no science quoted (outside of flawed IPCC stats) & spew vitriol at anyone who posted any alternative thoughts. They dont seem to understand that the public is now more interested in the science of the issue and are now actively seeking more information. I used to err on the side of caution, until I looked into the issue and the science about 5 years ago. My eyes are now open, I hope a lot more citizens of our country start doing the same.

    • You got it in one Banana … the global warming/climate change debate is not about science, it’s about politics! The greenies can’t quote any science, because there is none. What they have are only hypotheticals and junk science – not real facts.
      Ask any greenie by how much will our temperature drop if we introduce a carbon dioxide tax … and they wont give you an answer, because they can’t. All they like to do is use warming alarmist rhetoric. A carbon dioxide tax will decimate our economy and cost jobs – all because Juliar wants to stay in power because of a deal with the Greenies.


      • Following on from my earlier comments, I was again looking for some alternative viewpoints from the other side of the fence. Recently I dowloaded a copy of the sceptics handbook from Jo Nova for no charge. I then found a similar handbook for the warming thoerists and wanted to download it, but, surprise, surprise they wanted to charge me for it!!

        It then struck me that the whole warmist issue is nothing but a money spinner for all involved and everyone who thinks they can make a buck have their snouts in the trough.
        If the issues covered in their handbook are so relevant to the debate, should’nt they be giving it to people to spread their mantra, instead it smells like a another cynical cash grab.

        It seems so ironical to me that the people that support the warmist theories are generally those who distrust authority, but are willing to go all the way with the IPCC who do not answer to anyone and also support Govts that within the last 10 years have taken away a lot of citizens freedoms under the guise of “national security”, and we who are non accepting of Govts stance on warming are called “conservatives”.

        The warmists cant see the forest for the trees… noble a cause as wanting to save the earth is, they wont see this for what it really is, a money spinner for Govt, bankers etc etc, but with no real effect on the climate or environment.

  10. Re – the so called energy saving lightbulbs Froggy. Thank heavens I stockpiled my incandescents a year before they were banned.

    • Baldrick says:

      Energy saving light bulbs (CFL’s) are a con. They’re in the same category as the ‘ozone saving’ spray cans – Chlorofluorocarbons (CFC’s), the Y2K bug, and Global Warming! All unnecessary b.s.
      Those CFL’s are so full of toxins … soon you’ll have to call out the Hazmat team to clean up the chemical spill whenever you accidentally drop one!

  11. Baldrick says:

    From the Government that brings you the carbon dioxide tax….

    Well done Juliar and Kevin!

  12. Baldrick says:
  13. ELDERLY people would be bussed to cold rooms in a bold proposal to prevent people from dying during heatwaves across Sydney’s west. The special rooms are part of recommendations in a report commissioned by Parramatta City Council to help it prepare for climate change.
    … and of course it’s not because of rising electricity prices, with the added bonus of a carbon dioxide tax, that would force elderly people to go without cooling. Talk about alarmists!

  14. Peter Wardle says:

    Another erudite advocate for the anti-AGW army. Godfrey Bloom tells it like it is.
    web site here

    on youtube

  15. It is all very well debating climate change but why all the effort in trying to prove that man made CO2 specifically is responsible for climate change?

    I believe that the real issue is not about climate change at all! It is about how the West copes with China, and other growing economies.

    The Chinese economy is growing rapidly. The cost of production in China is far lower than in the West. The West therefore cannot compete with China without some sort of trade tariff.

    The whole CO2 global warming and ETS issue is to try to gain some financial benefit from China and developing nations for their growing economies.

    Western Countries have their carbon emissions pretty much under control and know they can quite easily set a target and beat it by 5 to 10%. They know that China is growing rapidly and will not be able to reduce emissions so through the proposed emissions trading scheme they plan to sell their “savings” to China. Effectively putting a tax on China to help balance trade.

    In order to do this they have to convince the population that CO2 is responsible for Global warming – hence the IPCC and fudging data etc.

    This may seem to be a good idea from the West however China and other developing nations are unlikely to sign up to the ETS and the West will end up shooting themselves in the foot!.

  16. According to Business Spectator, we need to force an early election, *before* the Labor/Greens can legislate. Why? Due to the half senate General Election rules, it would realistically take 2 winning general elections for the Coalition to wrest control of the Senate back from the Greens and “independents”. And they’d need control of the Senate before they could hope to repeal the tax.

    I think we all know what that means. Eventually we’d simply get lumped with the banksters intended carbon derivatives trading scheme *anyway*. Revoking the tax would most likely end up in the “too hard” basket, for political reasons. And, we’d just get sold a pup on how getting rid of the carbon tax by replacing it with a (newly retitled) ETS is a good thing. Politically expedient – “the only way to remove this tax is…” blah blah blah.

    So, the reality is that we must force an early election, before Brown/Gillard can legislate their tax thanks to Green balance-of-power Senate support after July 1 this year. Preferably, we need a double dissolution, so there is a Full Senate election at the same time. A landslide win in both Full houses seems the only way to kill this thing. So how to block supply, a la Whitlam… anyone?

    In any case, time to start calling and emailing *all* MP’s and Senators, to give them the message loud and clear –

    Julia, We Used To Care But Things Have Changed.

    More here.

  17. Bryan Harris says:

    Saw this reported, from America – Sounds like some people know this woman very well:

    Walking Eagle
    On a recent trip to the United States, Julia Gillard, Prime Minister
    of Australia, addressed a major gathering of Native American Indians.

    She spoke for almost an hour on her plans for Carbon Trading Tax for Australia.

    At the conclusion of her speech, the crowd presented her with a plaque inscribed with her new Indian name – Walking Eagle.

    A very chuffed Ms Gillard then departed in her motorcade, waving to the crowds.

    A news reporter later asked one of the Indians how they came to select the new name given to Ms Gillard.
    They explained that Walking Eagle is the name given to a bird so full of shit that it can no longer fly.

  18. Click to access birth-certificate-long-form.pdf

    Please open this document and view it at 600% and see what you see,
    Anyone who knows anything about creating documents can clearly see this is doctored,
    Why Would they be so stupid? The weird part is there seems to be no explanation, other than that the original was extremely damaged, if so say so
    Take a look here is a list of the edited part of the doc (pixilated) with an original scanned doc all the text is pixilated identically)
    No 1 in main number Health Dept 10641
    Sect 1. r in Barack
    Sect 3. g in single, p in triplet
    Sect 5a. Comma in Day
    Sect 5b. M in PM
    Sect 6c. N in Name, H, a & l in Hospital, I in Institution, If in If, H, a & l again in Hospital, Add in Address
    Sect 7a. d in Residence
    Sect 7c. d in and, S in State, Co in Country
    Sect 7e. the X in the box
    Sect 11. K in Kenya
    Sect 13. S in Stanley
    Sect 16. K in Kansas
    Sect 17a. Colour variation in the e in None
    Sect 18a. Mothers Signature – First Bracket OK then Stanley Ann D replaced rest original (weird) and tick in Parent
    Sect 19a. Attendant Signature – all added later as well as scribbling in MD
    Sect 20. Colour variation in the 1 in the Year 1961
    Sect 21. Local Registrar – added later.
    Sect 22. More Colour variation been doctored
    As well as lines on the form added later

    The main problems are the edited signatures in 18a, 19a and 21. That does not look good the rest could be justified.

    I still think he was born in the US but has a lot of explaining to do, not the end of this.

  19. Korea is also considering a carbon tax. See:

    The last paragraph is just hilarious: “Market-friendly economic policies like the carbon tax should be added to the direct management policies regarding energy use,” said a researcher from the Korea Energy Economics Institute (KEEI). “Carbon tax is a cost-effective method for cutting down greenhouse gases, and it can also bring double dividends.”

    Carbon tax: market-friendly and cost-effective.^^

  20. Bruce of Newcastle says:

    Simon & everyone – The Department of Climate Change is now requesting public comment & submissions on “the proposed architecture and implementation arrangements for a carbon pricing mechanism”, with due date of 10 May. Here’s the website:

  21. Uhavitbad? says:

    Yahoo!! A conservative majority here in Canada!
    Your leader can suck enough wind to…don’t get me started!
    You can do it too!

  22. Baldrick says:

    Well it seems the Canadians have voted against radical environmentalism and installed a conservative government:

    Apparently Tim Foolery was so perplex when he was in Canada recently as the environment didn’t rate very high on any of the main parties political agenda. Also the new government is planning to remove the tax status from any charity not dealing directly with humans – ie: environmentalists.

    Seems like Canada is heading in the right direction … next Australia!

  23. Dear Simon,
    I just stumbled on your blog and I am so relieved to find that there is some intelligence left in this whole debate. Thank you.
    I recently asked a question on QandA about Australia’s 1% of emissions and why we are not being allowed a vote on the issue. I have been so disheartened, not only by the politicians that gave an expectedly empty answer, but by the number of crazies that looked me up on the internet and sent emails that have nothing to do with the science and were all about attacking me personally.
    It seems all of these climate change supporters are intent on arguing the credibility and authority of the opposition and want nothing to do with the facts and real science.
    Like you, I am not a climate scientist but I do have a degree in Science and an understanding of rational thought and scientific method and I am outraged at how the very concepts of science are being distorted by the media and government organisations.
    So thank you for being a voice of reason in this whole crazy debate, and for having the guts to put it out there and make a difference.

    • Karly – a lot of people saw you on Q&A and were very thankful you asked the question many of us wanted asked. While you might have copped some abuse from that, rest assured there are many, many people who wish to thank you for being sensible and staying clear headed. You will prevail in the end, eventually everyone will see your question as one of the first signs of correct analysis emerging from the fug of propaganda and lies that are swirling around this issue at present.

      To put it in words of another : you don’t have to have a Phd to see dishonesty.

      • I also like this one “Just because something is beyond your comprehension doesn’t mean it is scientific.”

    • Hi Karly,

      Glad to see you join us.
      You will find the ABC is very pro-warming theory and you will not get a rational response from their demographic on anything other than the “sky is falling”.
      You find that a lot of government funded organisations both here (csiro, ABC etc) & overseas (NASA) etc are pushing the Govt view as they have vested interests in ensuring Govt funding continues.
      The funny thing about our 1% of emissions is that even if we cut emissions to zero from today, our 1% will be taken up by China & India increases within 6 months (burning Australian coal no doubt )
      I also went on the crickey blog a couple of weeks ago and asked 3 simple things.
      1. Why are we still trading coal overseas if it is carbon “pollution”
      2. Why is the govt ending the solar panel rebate
      3. Why is the money from the tax going to funnelled off to other areas instead of investment in alternative energies.
      I had one response, one one topic, and that was that the solar panel scheme was being scrapped as the govt classed this as “direct action” when it wants a market driven mechanism (trading scheme) to control emission. Is direct action a bad thing?
      Thats what annoys me about the warmists, no reasonable response to 3 simple points that most ordinary Australians would ask.

%d bloggers like this: