Kevin Rudd is sounding more like a cracked record every day. The same old nonsense, spouted day after day:

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd says he will not bow to pressure from business groups to delay the start of an emissions trading scheme.

On Monday the Federal Government will unveil the design of the scheme and reveal its mid-term targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

The head of the Australian Industry Group, Heather Ridout, says the impact of the global financial crisis will make it difficult for many businesses to cope when the scheme is due to start in 2010.

Mr Rudd has told the ABC’s 7.30 Report he is still determined to stick to the original deadline.

“We have not changed our ambition in terms of that 2010 introduction… our ambition remains and we have no cause to change it,” he said.

No cause to change it, except for the worst financial crisis since the 1920’s, that is. Idiotic.

Link.

As usual, a great read.

A great article in The Australian:

KEVIN Rudd’s ambition of an emissions trading scheme in Australia by 2010 has suffered two setbacks, with both the Coalition and independent senator Nick Xenophon warning they may push for a delay.

Read it all here.

Headline:

Countries agree on goals for new UN climate treaty

First paragraph of article:

A UN climate conference attended by 190 countries has failed to make a real commitment to reduce the amount of carbon emissions.

Read it here.

Even the IPCC, in its worst case scenario, only forecasts a 59 cm rise, and given there has been no change in the rate of sea level rise from its long term value of about 2 mm per year, even that looks wildly alarmist. But that’s not enough for the Victorian government, apparently:

Heeding warnings from climate change experts, the Government has ruled that new developments must assume sea-level rises of 80 centimetres by 2100. The rule will take effect on Monday, but not apply retrospectively.

Which “experts” are they, exactly?

Read it here.

It now looks even less likely that a global deal on emissions will be reached in Copenhagen in 2009, as more and more countries get cold feet about the harsh realities of emissions reductions, and talks in Poznan get bogged down:

The executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, Yvo de Boer, said it was possible only ”the key political issues” would be nailed down by this deadline [2009] and further talks needed to complete the details of the accord.

”We won’t see a fully elaborated, long-term agreement in Copenhagen in 2009. It won’t be feasible,” Mr de Boer said.

Australia will reveal its 2020 target under the government’s wrongly-named “Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme” on Monday, widely expected to be between 5 and 15%. This is much less than the enviro-loonies are demanding, and shows that even Krudd & Co are secretly aware of the damage a higher target would inflict on Australia’s economy. Watch this space!

Read it here.

The Australian wins ACM Idiotic Comment of the Day two days running. Yesterday it was Leigh Dayton, and today Emma Tom, writing in “The Wry Side”, under the headline “Apply anti-sceptic” – v. witty:

The thing that’s so irksome about hardline climate change sceptics is that the planet will need to be twitching and coughing up blood before they’ll agree to do anything. And while it’s always enormously gratifying to be proved right, even the narkiest greenie is unlikely to gain much pleasure from screeching “I told you so” as the last of the polar ice caps fizzes sadly into the sea like a stale Berocca.
…
Once you look at environmental issues through this lens, setting a 2020 greenhouse emissions target of a paltry 5 to 15 per cent becomes the equivalent of only conducting airport security checks on Mondays and Wednesdays.

And there’s a “D” Word alert into the bargain:

Contrary to the smug rhetoric of the deniers, taking out expensive or inconvenient insurance policies against tiny risks is not irrational or even that uncommon.
…
We take out insurance to protect our cars, our mobile phones and (if we live in the US of A) our celebrity boobs. Let’s not leave ourselves hideously underinsured when it comes to our primary residence.

Res ipsa loquitur.

Read it here.

As you would be, if your source of information was Al Gore. Unfortunately, Obama’s source of information is Al Gore.

US president-elect Barack Obama said delaying action on climate change was no longer an option, after a meeting Tuesday with former vice president and Democratic Party bigwig Al Gore.

Obama welcomed Gore for a private meeting in his hometown of Chicago, Obama’s base of operations as he prepares to take office on January 20. His transition team rejected speculation that Gore could be offered a position in the new administration.

“D” Word Alert:

“The time for delay is over. The time for denial is over,” Obama said, flanked by Gore and vice-president elect Joe Biden after the meeting.

There’s no hope.

Read it here.

The Australian‘s science writer wins today’s ACM Idiotic Comment gong for an article about Marvin Geller and Richard Lindzen. Leigh Dayton was the author of a recent fawning article about Geller that was deeply patronising to anyone who dared dispute “the consensus” (see here).

In this article, however, Dayton goes further, portraying Geller as a gallant crusader, desperate to avoid the charge of alarmism, and defending the IPCC as more likely to downplay results than exaggerate:

As Geller says, that makes Lindzen different to other climate-change sceptics. Many vehement critics are retired from the field, never worked in it or seem indifferent to recent peer-reviewed research impinging on their area. This is a shame. If the planet is heating up rapidly and dangerously due to humanity’s penchant for burning fossil fuels, policymakers and politicians need solid scientific information. Distraction by misinformed sceptics does not good public policy make.

That’s a big “IF”, Leigh, and to call sceptics an annoying distraction is offensive and misguided. Yeah, shut ’em up – close ’em down. Hey, the debate’s over! The article is also just plain wrong in places:

Climate sceptics also commonly recycle inaccurate “facts”. The myth that global warming peaked in 1998 is a case in point. Yes, 1998 was a global scorcher, thanks to a heat-inducing El Nino. But after a dip in 1999, data collected by NASA and Britain’s Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research show an upward trend, despite year-to-year variations. To claim otherwise is incorrect.

NASA = GISS = James Hansen = fudged figures. Just look at the satellite record. Surface stations measure urbanisation, satellites don’t – there has been no warming since 2001, and notable cooling in the last couple of years.

And finally, to suggest that scientists are going to cut their own funding by questioning the consensus is just idiotic. Follow the money. Many serious scientific journals have already made up their mind on climate change.

All in all, a well deserved winner.

Read it here.

And in rare moment of sanity, it appears that Australia is being blamed for taking a sensible approach, at least in comparison to other countries. The Age can hardly conceal its disappointment:

AUSTRALIAN diplomats have been accused of helping turn UN climate talks in Poland into “groundhog day” by failing to support a proposal that rich countries look to the advice of climate scientists when setting greenhouse targets.

It is believed that Australia has joined Japan, Canada and Russia in wanting changes to a proposed agreement that says greenhouse cuts should be “informed” by advice that the developed world needs to cut emissions by 25-40 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020.

In other words, Australia does not want to acknowledge the role of “the published science” (which in effect means the IPCC) in setting targets, which is exactly right. The IPCC isn’t science, it’s political propaganda.

Read it here.