Just don't tell me the debate's over…
You'll get piles doing that mate
Carve a polar bear out of ice in the middle of Sydney. Watch it melt. Suddenly you believe in climate change.
No, really.
Link.
But wait, there’s more. They froze the ice around a bronze skeleton. In London. And then flew it to Australia. Really. In a plane. Which emits carbon. Honestly. I’m not making this up. Link.
I need a stiff drink…
Lots of spin
The Sydney Morning Herald and the ABC are spruiking a new survey that they claim shows scepticism is on the way out. Take this from the Herald:
Climate change sceptics are an endangered species in Australia, a national survey shows.
The survey of almost 3100 Australians found 74 per cent believe the world’s climate is changing.
When asked a different question about the causes of climate change, which removed the reference to personal beliefs, 90 per cent of respondents said human activity was a factor.
Just 5 per cent said climate change was entirely caused by natural processes.
Overall, less than 6 per cent of respondents could reasonably be classified as true climate change sceptics, the study by Griffith University researchers found.
“It’s clear that people want the government to do something about climate change and they also feel they have a personal responsibility to act,” environmental and social psychologist Professor Joseph Reser said. (source)
Or this from the ABC:
A national survey reveals most Australians believe in, and are concerned about, climate change.
The study by Queensland’s Griffith University surveyed more than 3,000 Australians across the country and found 74 per cent believe the world’s climate is changing and 90 per cent believe human activities are playing a role.
The research found less than 6 per cent of Australians are true climate change sceptics.
Griffith University Professor Joseph Reser says the results show public opinion has been greatly misrepresented in the media. (source)
What they have sneakily done here is to redefine the word “sceptics” to mean only those who believe humans have no influence whatsoever on the climate. This, of course, is utter nonsense, as the vast majority of sceptics acknowledge that human activity has some effect on climate. So before we even start, commonly used terminology has been misused to make it appear that sceptics are dwindling – phew, say Herald and ABC editors.
And when you look at the actual results, they also tell a very different story (as always). Here is the key question from the original report (source – 1MB PDF):
Q9. Thinking about the causes of climate change, which, if any, of the following best describes your opinion?
- Climate change is entirely caused by natural processes: 4.9%
- Climate change is mainly caused by natural processes: 12.6%
- Climate change is partly caused by natural processes and partly by human activity: 45.8%
- Climate change is mainly caused by human activity: 27.6%
- Climate change is entirely caused by human activity: 4.2%
Which would I be in? Somewhere in the middle of the 12.6% that climate change is mainly caused by natural processes and the 45.8% who say climate change is partly caused by natural processes and partly by human activity. So according to the Herald and the ABC, I’m not a sceptic – and I run a climate sceptic blog! Hilarious.
So without our warmist goggles on, let’s interpret the results a different way, shall we?
So in reality, the survey shows a healthy scepticism of the claim that human activity is predominantly to blame for climate change. But that doesn’t fit the warmist agenda does it?
Another result was that 85% of respondents were either fairly or very concerned that electricity would become unaffordable in the future. But strangely, that result didn’t make it into the Fairfax or ABC articles…
No carbon tax (articles)
By popular demand (!) a carbon [dioxide] tax-free day. Here’s a few links to enjoy:
Response to Climate Commission’s Report
For those of you who didn’t catch it the first time, here are Bob Carter, David Evans, Stewart Franks and William Kininmonth, taking the scaremongering report The Critical Decade to pieces. But Labor don’t need to take any notice of these filthy deniers because “the science is settled” and “the debate’s over”. Really? You decide.
Remember the Hockey Stick? Mann and the University of Virginia are on collision course with Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli. Watts Up With That posts a summary for those of us who haven’t followed the twists and turns. Prediction: it’s looking very bad for Michael Mann, and very good for the integrity of science.
Does ethics require us to believe in tornado witches?
Lubos Motls lays into an extraordinary article that claims we are ethically bound to link tornados to CO2, even though there is no science to back it up. Here’s a taste:
A huge percentage of people, including some people who are very close to me for various reasons, will start to curse you as soon as you suggest that ghosts and spiritism are nonsense or that the motion of glasses on the table, as well as the motion of all other material objects we have ever seen, agrees with the laws of physics. When you say such a thing, they make you sure that you are attacking an essential part of their soul and human dignity – because the bulk of their knowledge and perception of human dignity is built out of superstitions and lies. The bulk of their brain is composed of rubbish.
It gets better. Read it all.
Germany’s knee-jerk reaction to Fukushima
German climate madness, as Merkel abandons nuclear power which will mean… more emissions from coal. One day, the Greens will be called to account for the damage they are wreaking on our economy and way of life. And I will be there in the front row, enjoying every minute.
And finally…
Daily Bayonet GW Hoax Weekly Roundup
As always, a great read!
Economy, you're next
Any price on carbon [dioxide] in Australia is a pointless gesture that will do nothing for the climate. Nothing. At all. And that’s if you assume that CO2 is causing dangerous warming. So our government, without a democratic mandate, intends to tax a harmless trace gas and wreck our economy for no purpose whatsoever. And yet many people, including Julia Gillard and her government, think that’s a good idea? O.M.G. as the saying goes.
At least by trying to stick to the middle ground, $20 a tonne will annoy everyone: business and consumers because it’s too high, eco-nazis, sorry, Greens, because it’s too low. So there is a glimmer of hope that sanity might prevail at the 11th hour, but it’s looking less and less likely.
JULIA Gillard’s key climate change committee is working on a carbon price of between $18 and $23 a tonne – a level that will deepen rifts with business groups demanding a starting price of no more than $10.
As Tony Abbott issued a call to arms yesterday to angry miners to reprise their successful campaign against the resource super-profits tax and fight the carbon tax, senior government sources confirmed that the price of the European Union’s emissions trading scheme would heavily influence the Australian starting price.
A carbon price set between $18 and $23 a tonne would collect between $8 billion and $10bn a year from big polluters [or big employers, exporters, contributors to the economy – Ed], of which more than half is expected to be distributed to households to compensate against higher prices.
Climate Change Minister Greg Combet has indicated that the carbon price would be “well south” of $40 a tonne – a level initially endorsed by the Greens – when it is introduced on July 1 next year.
The Australian Industry Group and the Business Council of Australia have recommended the carbon tax start at $10 a tonne, while the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry is flatly opposed to the carbon pricing regime.
The Greens have indicated they could accept a lower price than $40 if it were buttressed by the prospect of deeper emissions cuts, accommodated by a rising carbon price. (source)
I think we all know where the tax will go (up) and where the compensation will go (down).
Undemocratic
So says Tony Abbott. I think he may be right, since giving the power to levy taxes or change tax rates to an unelected body sounds pretty dangerous to me:
TONY Abbott has rejected the latest climate change report from economist Ross Garnaut as an assault on democracy, warning that it proposes to give a committee of unelected appointees the power to set tax rates.
“There is a developing democratic deficit here,” he said. “First of all the Prime Minister wasn’t upfront with the Australian public before the election. Now the idea that taxes in this country should effectively be set by people who are outside the parliament, and who are not accountable to the people, I think, is just odd.
“This just goes to show how out of control the government is on this whole climate change question.”
Later, the Opposition Leader continued his attack in question time, noting that the report said: “Australian households will ultimately bear the full cost of a carbon price”.
“So how can (the Prime Minister) continue to maintain that her tax only makes big polluters pay?” Mr Abbott asked parliament.
“Who pays? Big polluters or households? The truth is: households.” (source)
Not the usual carbon cycle we’re used to, but a variation, for us down in Aus-shire at the forefront of “tackling climate change”.
Strangling the economy
The truth will out
Just one line from his latest report is enough:
“Australian households will ultimately bear the full cost of a carbon price.” (source)
So it isn’t the big polluters, is it Julia and Greg?
Lies, lies and more lies from our deceitful government. When will it ever end?
WTF?
Australia’s plan to put a price on carbon [dioxide] and reduce emissions by 5% by 2020 will remove 160 million tonnes of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
But last year alone, global emissions rose by 1.6 BILLION tonnes, which is TEN TIMES Australia’s total reduction over the next 8 years, or EIGHTY TIMES Australia’s planned reduction in a single year.
But, according to Labor’s logic, Australia’s carbon tax will “tackle climate change” and is “in the national interest.”
Julia, Greg, Penny: please explain.
Climate Madness.
(h/t Bolta)
Rehashed IPCC propaganda
Australian scientists Bob Carter, Stewart Franks, David Evans and William Kininmonth have produced a stinging rebuttal of the Climate Commission’s biased report, “The Critical Decade”, issued last week (see here).
The main accusation, which is difficult to ignore, is that the report simply rehashes the same old IPCC propaganda without any critical review. The IPCC isn’t a scientific body, but an organisation formed to find evidence for a preconceived conclusion, namely that AGW is real and dangerous. The Climate Commission, comprised of well-know alarmists, simply regurgitated the IPCC line, and, since there are no sceptics allowed on the Commission, failed to critically assess the validity of the IPCC’s pronouncements:
IPCC advice has been known to be politically motivated since publication of the 1995 2nd Assessment Report, in which the wording of the Summary for Policymakers was tampered with after the scientists had signed off on it. In 2001, the 3rd IPCC Assessment Report took as its leit motif a deeply flawed paper by Michael Mann and co-authors that falsely depicted Northern Hemisphere temperature over the last 800-1000 years as having the shape of a horizontal hockey-stick in which the upturned blade represented alleged dramatic warming in the 20th century; this graphic was later exposed as false, and the result of statistical incompetence. Most recently, the 4th Assessment Report, published in 2007, has been subjected to a blizzard of criticism subsequent to the revelations of the Climategate affair.
The overall weaknesses of the IPCC have been well documented by Melbourne researcher John McLean, and they reflect that the IPCC represents a political advocacy organisation more than it does an impartial scientific advisory body. Relying on IPCC recommendations (as interpreted by Professor Steffen and the Department of Climate Change) as the sole source of advice for setting Australian climate policy is therefore clearly unwise. In no other major financial or medical context would such dramatic policy prescriptions be adopted without exposing the expert advice to contestability by seeking a thorough second opinion and audit.
…
The Critical Decade contains no substantial new science. Rather, the report is a reworked amalgam of many of the IPCC’s dated and alarmist assertions, and at the same time it ignores recent independent reports (for example, that of the Non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change; NIPCC) and also ignores the numerous published papers that are consistent with the null hypothesis that contemporary climate change has largely natural causes. As for the IPCC reports on which it is based, The Critical Decade cites no empirical data that demonstrates that dangerous warming is occurring, let alone that human-related carbon dioxide emissions were responsible for the late 20th century phase of mild warming. Instead, the case for action to “prevent” dangerous warming put by the IPCC and the Climate Commission rests almost exclusively upon the validity of numerical computer models that are known to be incompatible with decades of detailed observations of the atmosphere.
In other words, the report, and the Commission, simply ignore dissenting views, and as a result, have produced a worthless report, on which no government should ever base its climate policy. Read it all here (PDF).
In other good news, Tony Windsor has said he won’t support a carbon price unless the rest of the world takes action too (see here). OK Tony, read the next item below…
Kyoto has been pronounced dead, as Russia, Canada, US and Japan all pull out of any further cuts under the treaty (see here).
Looks like you can’t support the carbon tax, Tony…
(h/t Jo Nova)
Cate Blanchett, who travels everywhere by first class air travel or private jet, and is worth millions of dollars, lectures ordinary Australians struggling to pay their energy bills on saying “Yes” to a tax that will make their lives even more difficult and achieve precisely nothing for the climate, whether in Australia or globally. Hmm, that will go down well!
The Australian Conservation Foundation, an extreme environmental pressure group (which still organises lectures in Australia to spread Al Gore’s climate falsehoods – see here), is launching an ad campaign to say Yes to a carbon tax. Here it is:
And as expected, there are all the usual misrepresentations. Let’s go through them shall we?
The ad is very good at confusing harmless carbon dioxide with “carbon pollution”, smoke, soot and dirt – as demonstrated by the usual belching smoke stack photo. Because the more confusion that can be sown in the minds of the public, the more chance of pulling the wool over their eyes, and getting all these misrepresentations and falsehoods past them without being noticed.
I am all for reducing proper pollution such as particulates and toxins, but reducing carbon dioxide has nothing to do with this. If the campaign was about reducing “real” pollution by taxing people more, and had nothing to do with “saving the planet”, it wouldn’t get off the ground.
But who cares about the facts? As this blog has said countless times, nothing Australia does on its own will make any difference to the climate, and that’s even if you believe that CO2 will cause dangerous global warming.
Cate can afford to pay a carbon tax and not even notice (and can always go and live elsewhere if things get too rough here in Australia), and will continue to travel all over the world by fossil-fuel powered means of transport. When she turns up at a film premier on a bike, then we may take some notice. But until then, forget it.
The Herald Sun editorial sums it up well:
FEW Australians would dispute Cate Blanchett’s acting prowess.
She is a genuine international movie star who won an Oscar for her role in The Aviator and has banked an estimated $50 million fortune off the back of her success.
Good on her.
But that doesn’t qualify her to lecture Australian families — she is the star of a pro-carbon tax TV advertising campaign starting tonight — on why such an impost is good for them. Particularly when Prime Minister Julia Gillard has failed to tell the nation exactly how big this new tax will be.
It’s reasonable to assume that cost-of-living pressures are not something that trouble Blanchett, but they are certainly keeping Aussie mums and dads awake at night.
Electricity prices will soar higher once the tax is imposed. And it is likely that many families deemed “wealthy” by Ms Gillard will miss out on compensation. Cate Blanchett should stick to what she does best — acting. (source)
Australian Climate Madness 
Recent Comments