Greens joke poll results

15 November, 2009 by

The Greens - a bad joke

The Greens - a bad joke

The Greens are trumpeting the results of a Galaxy poll that they claim shows that the majority of voters want the government to adopt tougher emissions reduction targets. The ABC reports:

The Galaxy poll says 54 per cent of people support at least an unconditional 25 per cent reduction in emissions by 2020.

The Government says it will commit to that target only if the rest of the world agrees.

Greens Leader Bob Brown told Sky News most Australians back the stronger position of the Greens.

“The Government’s going for a very paltry per cent and the majority of people are saying ‘let’s get behind the 25 per cent’, which is where the Greens are placed,” he said.

“The amendments we’ll be putting to the Government’s legislation would lift it to a 25 per cent minimum reduction.” (source)

So let’s have a close look at the question they asked:

The government has proposed a minimum emissions reduction target of 5% by the year 2020. Scientists and environmentalists have suggested a more ambitious target if we are to properly address the issue of climate change. In your personal view, should the aim of the legislation be a minimum reduction of 5% as suggested by the government, or a reduction of at least 25% as argued by scientists and environmentalists?

  • 5% target
  • At least 25% target
  • Neither/Don’t know

(source)

So who can spot the elephant traps here? Firstly, the two main options, 5% or more than 25% conveniently leaves out any option of a middle ground, and secondly, the sentence “Scientists and environmentalists have suggested a more ambitious target if we are to properly address the issue of climate change” almost gives respondents the answer the Greens want! And it that wasn’t enough, it repeats the “scientists and environmentalists” line a second time, just to ram it home. The question so blatantly telegraphs the desired result, it’s amazing they didn’t get a higher percentage!

In other words, Bob, the poll is a joke, the results are a joke, and the Greens are a joke as well.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: ,

APEC waters down emissions targets

15 November, 2009 by

Rudd looks a tit in Singapore

Rudd looks a tit in Singapore

Just as it looks more likely that the ETS will be passed in Australia, the rest of the world is hedging its bets. Funny how when the crunch comes, other countries are so reluctant to put their economies where their mouth is, and name a figure on their emissions reductions:

ASIA-Pacific leaders will drop a fixed target for halving greenhouse gas emissions in a final summit statement, a Chinese official said, ahead of a breakfast meeting on climate issues organised by Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd.

“On the 50 per cent reduction target (from 1990 levels) by 2050, yes, it did appear in the draft,” said Yi Xianliang, a Chinese foreign ministry official who is part of the country’s negotiating team at world climate talks.

“However, it is a very controversial issue in the world community… if we put it in this (final) statement, I think it would disrupt the negotiation process,” he told reporters on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit.

Leaders from 21 APEC members including US President Barack Obama and Chinese President Hu Jintao are in Singapore for an annual summit ending today.

The meeting is one of the last international gatherings ahead of world climate change talks opening in Copenhagen on December 7.

Why is it that only Australia seems to want to bind itself to emissions targets ahead of Copenhagen?

Read it here.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: , ,

Agriculture permanently exempt from ETS

15 November, 2009 by

This is a huge backflip for the government. Agricultural emissions were to have been included in the ETS from 2015, but it is now being reported that such emissions will be permanently exempt, with farmers no longer being required to buy permits.

The Coalition has been calling for the exemption – and the Government’s surprise move dramatically raises the stakes for Mr Turnbull to close a deal with Climate Change Minister Penny Wong to pass the ETS in the next two weeks of Parliament.

Yet sections of the Opposition Leader’s Liberal Party and the Nationals are likely to remain opposed to any such deal regardless, leaving Mr Turnbull’s authority in shreds.

The surprise concession by the Government will be announced by Senator Wong today ahead of the resumption of Parliament this week.

The initiative will also isolate the Nationals, who have been using the inclusion of agriculture in the proposed scheme by 2015 to spearhead its opposition to the package.

Senator Wong’s announcement is likely to get backing for the scheme from key Nationals constituencies such as the National Farmers Federation, which has been lobbying heavily for such a decision.

In another concession, Senator Wong will also announce the Government will develop plans to give farmers carbon credits for any efforts to capture and store carbon as part of their farm practices.

If the Opposition reject the ETS now, having obtained significant concessions from the government, it will be even easier for the government to claim the moral high ground, and accuse the opposition of being climate change deniers. Which is, of course, why the opposition should never have been negotiating on this awful legislation in the first place…

Read it here.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: , ,

Penny Wong: alarmism and empty threats

14 November, 2009 by

The Wong-bot

The Wong-bot

Curious, isn’t it, that CSIRO choose to release dire warnings about the effects of sea level rises of 1.1m by 2100 just before the Senate is due to debate the ETS, giving the Wong-bot the perfect opportunity to threaten the Coalition with apocalyptic consequences if the ETS isn’t passed. The Wong-bot denies that it’s a scare campaign (well, she would, wouldn’t she) but I think the evidence speaks for itself:

As a result, the report says, more than $60 billion worth of residential property faces flooding.

In addition 120 ports, 1,800 bridges, power stations, water treatment plants and airports close to the coastline are also under threat.

Climate Change Minister Penny Wong says the findings can’t be ignored.

“The science tells us our climate is changing faster than first projected and the impacts are likely to be more severe,” she told reporters in Sydney.

Australia must immediately reduce its carbon emissions, she said.

“Which is why we are determined to pass the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.”

OK then, Penny. Let’s work this through the twisted logic of this, shall we?

Question 1: Assuming the two-errors-in-four-words Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (ETS) is passed and Australia cripples its economy and reduces its emissions by, say, 20% by 2020, what effect will that have on sea level rises around Australia?

Answer: Nothing, because Australia produces less than 1.5% of global emissions.

Question 2: Assuming that at Copenhagen, the rest of the developed world is so impressed with Australia’s brand new, shiny ETS that they all fall over themselves to cripple their economies too, and sign a treaty reducing emissions significantly by 2020, what effect will that have on sea level rises around Australia?

Answer: Nothing, because increased emissions from China (who are building a new coal fired power station every week) and India (who have more important things to worry about, like tackling poverty and disease – you know, stuff that really does kill people) will more than make up for any cuts by developed countries. Plus, the developed countries will begin to realise that running a developed economy on sunbeams and fart-power ain’t as easy as they thought, so targets will simply not be met.

Question 3: Assuming that China and India miraculously reduce their emissions as well, what effect will that have on sea level rises around Australia?

Answer: Almost certainly nothing, for the same reasons as above, and also since CO2 is unlikely to be revealed as the main driver (or even one of the main drivers) of “global warming”.

Question 4: Assuming that CO2 is the main driver (or one of the main drivers) of “global warming”, what effect will the ETS and/or the Copenhagen treaty have on sea level rises around Australia?

Answer: Nothing, because just like the Kyoto Treaty, which even if fully implemented would have reduced global temperatures by about three and a half gazillionths of a degree, the Copenhagen treaty will have no discernible effect on the climate whatsoever.

Scare campaign? You decide. Why on earth the Coalition are even bothering to negotiate is quite frankly beyond my comprehension.

Read it here.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: , , ,

Jobs for the boys: Flannery to head climate change council

14 November, 2009 by

flannery

Flannelly

Who says alarmism doesn’t pay? It does when you have a government like ours in charge:

The Coast and Climate Change Council, headed by Tim Flannery, was officially announced by Climate Change Minister Penny Wong in Sydney on Saturday, coinciding with the release of a report looking at necessary preparations for coastal maintenance.

“This report marks a new phase in our work on adapting to a climate change we can’t avoid,” Senator Wong told local government mayors, councillors, community members and reporters at Sydney’s Clovelly beach on Saturday.

“And as part of this I’m announcing that we will be establishing a Coast and Climate Change Council to be chaired by Tim Flannery to engage with the community and stakeholders, local government, state government and advise the government in the lead up to the coastal forum which we propose to hold early next year.

Just when we need cool heads and impartial judgement, we get an AGW hysteric. Nice work if you can get it.

Read it here.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: , ,

Australia "least affected by climate change"

14 November, 2009 by

Hang on… surely Kevin Rudd is pushing the ETS through because Australia is one of those countries most affected by climate change?

Kevin Rudd in 2008:

“Australia is the driest inhabited continent on earth and is more vulnerable to the impacts of climate change than any other industrialised nation.” (source)

Oops, maybe not:

Countries that are being asked to contribute billions of dollars a year as part of a climate treaty to be signed at Copenhagen next month are least at risk from climate change, according to a new study.

The study, released to Asian Correspondent by international risk consultancy firm, Maplecroft, shows that out of 166 nations,  the United States (152nd), United Kingdom (156th), Australia (157th), New Zealand (162nd), Canada (163rd) and Japan (164th) are among the 15 countries expected to be least affected by climate change.  Listed in 166th place is Norway. Maplecroft rates the risk for all of these nations as low.

Maplecroft’s Climate Change Vulnerability Index (CCVI) quantifies and maps vulnerability to the impacts of climate change. The index rates the ability of nations to mitigate risks to society and the business environment posed by changing patterns in natural hazards, such as droughts, flooding, storms, sea level rise and the resulting effects on ecosystems.

The findings have the potential to embarrass Australia’s Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, who has been trying to get legislation on an Emissions Trading Scheme passed before the Copenhagen meeting on the grounds that Australia “will be worst affected by climate change”. This follows confirmation that Mr Rudd’s claim that Australia is the hottest continent is also not true.

Read it here (h/t Climate Change Fraud)

Filed Under: Climate

Climate sense from Nick Minchin and Mitch Fifield

14 November, 2009 by

Nick Minchin

Nick Minchin

Nick Minchin has responded to his “fruit loop” critics with a dignity that some of them would do well to emulate:

“I get called lots of things as a politician, so being named after a breakfast cereal is pretty mild really,” he told The Weekend Australian.

“Over the past 30 years, I’ve got reasonably used to that type of stuff.

“I have very few attributes, but one of the few I have is a thick skin that’s been developed over many years in politics.”

…

He stressed they were not off-the-cuff thoughts and they reflected what he had said previously in the Senate.

“I always consider my statements deliberately and, naturally, I stand by everything I said,” he said.

“I stated my views clearly. I stand by the comments.“

Mitch Fifield

Mitch Fifield

And some sensible words about the climate debate from Senator Fifield:

In a message to a conference on the economic consequences of climate change obtained by The Weekend Australian, Senator Fifield accused proponents of an ETS of “a theological approach to discussion more suited to an inquisition“.

“To be a sceptic was once considered a good thing and to be at the heart of scientific inquiry and robust policy debate,” he said.

“Sadly, some have sought to demonise those who pose legitimate questions and to caricature them and their views.”

Senator Fifield attacked the government’s ETS proposal and climate policy, claiming both would “hike prices, increase taxes and destroy jobs for doubtful environmental benefits“. [Actually zero environmental benefits – Ed]

And he warned that any treaty stemming from Copenhagen “risks committing Australia to unforseen consequences, and should be approached with the utmost caution“.

It’s difficult to argue with that. Yet the government portrays such comments as heresy against the great Climate Change Religion.

Read it here.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: ,

Sea levels "threaten 250,000 homes"

14 November, 2009 by

Rising faster than ever?

Rising faster than ever?

Garbage In Garbage Out Alert: This is the sort of nonsense one gets when one treats as gospel the projections of hopelessly incomplete models. Even the IPCC thinks that sea level rises will only reach 79cm, but Australia’s own alarmist CSIRO goes one better. It has chosen the figure of 1.1m (how?) as the figure to base yet further modelling on the effects to our coastal fringes, and (phew!) comes up with suitably alarmist results which will get printed in every paper in the country. Why not choose 1.5m or 2m? Surely they can find a model that predicts that?

Almost 250,000 homes, now worth up to $63 billion, will be “at risk of inundation” by the end of the century, under “worst-case but plausible” predictions of rising sea levels.

The study — released ahead of the crucial Senate vote on Labor’s emissions trading scheme — modelled the effect of a 1.1m sea-level rise on cities and towns around Australia.

This is a higher level than the 79cm end-of-century rise predicted by the last Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, but in the mid-range of some subsequently published research.

It found between 157,000 and 247,000 homes “at risk of inundation” — meaning they would be permanently flooded or frequently flooded by storm surges or king tides — with hospitals, water-treatment plants and other public buildings also found to be at risk.

Even Sydney airport would be at “increased risk” of inundation, according to the study, written by the Department of Climate Change with input from CSIRO, Geosciences Australia and scores of academics.

…

Andrew Ash, director of the CSIRO climate-change adaption flagship, said the 1.1m sea-level rise was “certainly plausible”.

“As things stand, the only variation will be exactly when we reach that level,” Dr Ash said.

So that could be in 2100, 2500, 3000, then? Climate nonsense.

Read it here.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: , ,

Ian Plimer: "Not one great climate change in the past has actually been driven by carbon dioxide."

13 November, 2009 by

Ian Plimer

Ian Plimer

Ian Plimer is in the UK at present, and The Telegraph has a short article about five tenets central to his view of climate change, although the article author does his best to ensure that the “consensus” view is represented as well:

  • The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has no effect on climate above 50 parts per million (ppm).
  • Extraterrestrial events like solar flares have driven major climate change episodes in the geological past.
  • Global warming should be welcomed because humans ‘thrive’ in a warmer planet.
  • Climate change scientists push global warming theory because it is good for their careers.
  • A belief in man-made climate change is a “fundamentalist religion.”

Read it all here.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: ,

Headline of the Day

13 November, 2009 by

‘Ring church bells against climate change’

Given that climate change is a religion, this seems entirely appropriate.

Read it here.

Filed Under: Climate
«Previous Page
Next Page»