Writing in The Australian, Terry McCrann opens his article with the exact point I have made directly to Penny Wong – why does the Government refer to the harmless trace gas carbon dioxide as “carbon pollution”? The answer, clearly, is because it helps to massage public opinion into thinking that the “carbon pollution reduction scheme” is there to reduce belching soot from industrial chimneys.

What’s in a name? The lie. For the truth is that it is not a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, but a Carbon Dioxide — pollution or not — reduction scheme.

Just a minor difference? An understandable, even appropriate, abbreviation? No way. The difference is huge and quite deliberate. It’s not even “justified” on the basis of a snappy acronym. CPRS or CDPRS — neither has the vowel necessary for snappiness.

There’s no question the continual harping on “carbon pollution” is intended to send a subliminal impression. We’re getting rid of all those little bits of black stuff floating around in the air. And who can possibly be against that?

He then goes on to expose the utter ridiculousness of the Treasury’s ETS modelling for all to see:

The most ludicrous aspect of [Treasury official David] Gruen’s rationalisation is that cutting emissions is “just like tariff cuts which move the economy towards its true competitive advantage”.

I’ve pointed out that it is in fact the exact opposite; it is like embracing tariff increases. Cutting tariffs removed an artificial cost on the economy; the CPRS will impose an artificial cost on the economy.

The response is that, ah, I don’t understand “externalities”. That you have to properly price the external costs — climate change. I understand them only too well — I suggest, on the evidence, somewhat better than Gruen.
…
We cut our emissions to zero and what happens to the (supposed) cost? Nothing. We still incur it. Cutting our emissions to zero can have no impact on our climate. Irrespective of what the rest of the world does.

Read it here.

Always desperate to plug the green agenda, The Sydney Morning Herald gleefully swallows a WWF report that claims Australia could build a low-carbon economy based on solar, wind and geothermal power for less than half the cost of the Government’s economic stimulus package.

The WWF-commissioned report calculates the price for transforming the nation’s energy base, using technology that exists, would be $28 billion between 2010 and 2050 – less than half the Government’s stimulus handout, but spread over 40 years.

It was prepared by Climate Risk, a corporate analyst that advises the federal and local governments and businesses on climate modelling [and which is making very tasty profits out of climate change hysteria, see here for a list of their services – Ed]

It shows that a transition to renewable power is affordable, but that the proposed carbon trading scheme and renewable energy target could not achieve it. Extra government investment in energy of about $100 million a year from 2010 would be enough to make solar, wind and geothermal power dominant in the electricity and manufacturing sectors by the middle of the century.

Well I’m convinced, or I would have been if this report had any basis in reality. And so is Paul Toni of WWF Australia:

“Earth Hour shows that millions of Australians want this government to act to battle climate change. This report shows they can.”

Earth Hour shows nothing of the sort of course, as most of the participation comes from councils and organisations who fear being branded as non-environmentally aware if they don’t. And to all those councils and organisations who have signed up, Earth Hour isn’t just a jolly little bit of fun once a year, it has a deeply political agenda (dictated by WWF):

This will send a powerful message to our world leaders to support a new climate change agreement at the UN Climate Change Conference being held in Copenhagen in December 2009 (source)

Read it here.

P.S. If you are in the mood for some top quality Fairfax BS, look no further than here.

PP.S. In the interests of full disclosure, Earth Hour is run by WWF, and sponsored by Fairfax (coincidentally)

Minor crisis over, I will be back to blogging tomorrow, but in the mean time, here’s a great article from Andrew Bolt, which explores the issue I discussed here (Mother Nature playing tricks on warmists, a sort of global version of the Gore Effect):

In 1956, US psychologist Leon Festinger became instantly famous for giving us “cognitive dissonance” — the theory that humans couldn’t tolerate two conflicting perceptions. One would have to go.

Ha! It’s taken half a century, but warming believers are now making a monkey of old Festinger.

As proof, here are three recent news items about the latest pilgrimage to the North Pole of three scientists, all hot gospellers of our new faith and all convinced the ice cap is barely there.
…
March 18, 2009, from AFP: Project director and ice team leader Pen Hadow and his colleagues, Martin Hartley and Ann Daniels, are now down to half rations and fighting to survive in brutal sub-zero weather conditions.

Great stuff. Read it here.

… due to unforeseen circumstances. But check out some of the other great blogs in my Blog Roll (at the right).

I hope to be back blogging very soon…

It seems that whenever explorers try to get to the North Pole to measure some aspect of climate change, Mother Nature unleashes her evil streak and dumps on them from a great height. A British team trying to ski to the North Pole to measure how fast the ice is disappearing are being thwarted by bad weather.

Project director and ice team leader Pen Hadow and his colleagues Martin Hartley and Ann Daniels are now down to half rations and fighting to survive in brutal sub-zero weather conditions.

“We’re hungry, the cold is relentless, our sleeping bags are full of ice and, because we’re not moving, the colder we get,” Hadow said Tuesday in a statement from the London headquarters of the Catlin Arctic Survey.
…
During the past 17 days temperatures have consistently dropped below minus 40 degrees Celsius, and have been accompanied by strong winds increasing the chill factor.

But SBS cannot resist playing the “global warming” joker at the end:

Global warming is believed to be the main culprit in the rapidly melting north polar ice cap that is freeing up new sea routes and untapped mineral resources on the ocean bottom.

Setting aside the humorous aspect of this, let’s hope these explorers are rescued safely.

Read it here.

It must be really tough being Penny at the moment. On the one hand, she has to appear to want the ETS legislation to go through the Senate, while at the same time really wanting it to all fall over so she can stamp her foot, scream and shout and say “the Liberals did it! Deniers! Deniers!” and then quietly dropping it so that the Government can get on with more important things, like screwing up its response to the financial crisis…

Climate Change Minister Penny Wong says some critics would prefer no scheme at all if they cannot have their way. [Dead right – Ed]

“What they are actually doing is locking in continued emissions growth,” she told ABC Radio.

The government was being “highly consultative“, having met already with the Australian Greens and independent senators.

“So we are serious about engaging with the Senate about this issue,” Senator Wong said, adding the government was not at the point of negotiating legislation.

i.e. talk to the hand, ‘cos the face ain’t listenin’.

Read it here.

Although this is in The Age, it actually comes from Agence France-Presse (AFP), which has to be the most moonbattish news agency on the planet. It doesn’t excuse The Age, however, which mindlessly regurgitates it all:

Countries around the Arctic must commit to curbing climate change to ensure the survival of the polar bear, Norway’s environment minister said on Tuesday as an international meeting opened on the species’ fate.

Do they honestly think that the emissions of Arctic countries will make any difference to the Arctic climate? If you believe that reducing emissions will stop climate change, it’s the US and China you should be looking to.

With the mercury rising ever higher, as many as two thirds of the 20-25,000 polar bears that roam the Arctic could disappear by the middle of this century, according to a recent estimate from the US Geological Survey.

Rising ever higher – like this you mean?

All of which allows me to post my favourite picture once again:

(Thanks to Theo Spark)

Read it here.

As Lenore Taylor points out in The Australian, Krudd & Co really can’t be bothered with the ETS any more:

The best argument the scheme’s chief saleswoman, Climate Change Minister Penny Wong, could put when she released draft legislation last week was that it was better than nothing.

If you compare it with the way the Government argues for things it really wants to get through, such as its stimulus plan, the defence of its major policy on climate change is largely devoid of passion. It would be a strange tactic for a government still vehemently determined to get its scheme through. It is entirely consistent with a government with far bigger problems, that wants to be able to say it has tried to meet its election promise and then blame the failure on someone else, while suffering none of the potential short-term political consequences of success.

All of which raises the following awkward question: if this is supposedly the greatest challenge to humanity since the dawn of time (as we keep being told), why does it have such a low priority?

Read it here.

Weather isn’t climate (as we all know) but the number of stories about extreme cold in the Northern hemisphere this last few months has been staggering (see here for a recent example). And now it appears the Southern hemisphere may be about to follow suit:

Parts of southeastern Australia are having their coldest nights since spring, colder than it’s been this early in the year since 2005 for some.

Temperatures are plummeting five to 10 degrees below average across parts of inland Victoria, the ACT and western, southern and central NSW due to clear skies and dry winds. Bega on the NSW South Coast dipped to 5.6 degrees early this morning, the coldest it’s been this early in the year in 15 years.

Do you think I should send this to Fairfax? What do you think they would make of it? The answer of course is nothing, because as it sayeth in the Holy Gospel according to Gore, extreme heat shalt be called global warming, but extreme cold shalt be called “just weather”.

Read it here.

An excellent article in the Courier Mail skewers the whole “Australia should go it alone” myth:

For everyone else, you need to put together one basic reality and one utterly undeniable fact.

That our emission reductions can make absolutely no difference to the climate outcome. Either for the world, for Australia, or in relation to bushfires and floods.

One of the great deceptions from the climate believers is to imply the reverse. That if you turn off the lights, you will save us from bushfires. We produce just 1.5 per cent of total emissions. We cut to zero tomorrow and it makes not the slightest difference to the climate. And again to stress, not just the global climate but our own little piece of it.

We can’t create a low carbon dioxide bubble over this continent. Our climate is in the hands of the US and China principally, and then India and Europe after that.

Read it all.