"Rich" are to blame for global warming

11 November, 2009 by

Life after Copenhagen…

Life after Copenhagen…

The climate nonsense comes thick and fast as we hurtle towards global oblivion at Copenhagen. And with headlines like the above, who would have possibly thought that somehow climate change has been hijacked by the global socialism movement? The politics of greed and envy laid bare:

In Australia, the poor are more likely to only own one car (or none at all), can rarely afford to fly overseas, are less likely to indulge in luxuries such as flat-screen TVs, spa baths, or perpetually heated swimming pools. The poor are in fact the least to blame for the state of the environment.

When was the last time you saw a homeless person burning fossil fuels and shattering the peace with a jet ski on the Murray River? When was the last time you noticed a beggar partying like there’s no tomorrow in the back seat of a Hummer stretch limousine in King Street?

No, those would be the behaviours reserved for those with more dollars than sense to burn.

As writer George Monbiot recently pointed out in The Guardian: “While there’s a weak correlation between global warming and population growth, there’s a strong correlation between global warming and wealth . . . It is the worst kind of paternalism, blaming the poor for the excesses of the rich.“

So there we have it ladies and gentlemen: we should take our developed Western economies back to the Dark Ages, and all live like sub-Saharan Africans to save the planet. Rich = bad, poor = good. Developed economies = bad, third world = good. Capitalism = bad, socialism = good.

Read it here (where else, The Sydney Moonbat Herald)

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With:

From "The Science is Settled" Department

11 November, 2009 by

Hang on a minute – the debate’s over, you denier you. Science is settled. Move on, nothing to see here. That’s what the warmists want us to believe, but unfortunately, the reality is that the science is far from settled, and we know comparatively little about the immensely complex climate system and the factors that influence it.

Firstly from The Age, a tricky one for the alarmists: the Antarctic ice is melting (debatable, but let’s go with it), but the increased sea area is soaking up more CO2 from the atmosphere.

Scientists led by Lloyd Peck of the British Antarctic Survey said that atmospheric and ocean carbon is being gobbled up by microscopic marine plants called phytoplankton, which float near the surface.

After absorbing the carbon through the natural process of photosynthesis, the phytoplankton are eaten, or otherwise die and sink to the ocean floor.

The phenomenon, known as a carbon sink, has been spotted in areas of open water exposed by the recent, rapid melting of several ice shelves – vast floating plaques of ice attached to the shore of the Antarctic peninsula.

[Read more…]

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With:

Climate madness from candidate for Higgins

11 November, 2009 by

Very green

Very green

Sorry, did you expect anything else? It’s the Greens we’re talking about. I think The Australian publishes Clive Hamilton’s alarmist rant tongue-in-cheek, so if you want a laugh, here we go. By the way the headline is “Alarmists create a climate of fear.” Sorry, “Sceptics create a climate of fear.”

The Right has jettisoned science in favour of deeper beliefs. [And I guess the green left, and Rudd, are still beacons of scientific impartiality? Think Lowy – Ed] One can only hope Kevin Rudd backs his strong words with leadership in Copenhagen, although his willingness to emasculate the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme in response to industry lobbying doesn’t augur well.

In Australia and the US, climate change is the most important arena for the long-running culture war of the neo-conservatives. In pursuit of their goals they have tapped into primitive fears. [Yeah, that’s right. Only redneck religious nuts question global warming – Ed]

Last week Czech President Vaclav Klaus finally gave in to irresistible pressure and signed the Lisbon Treaty aimed at streamlining the operation of the European Union. Klaus resisted to the end because he believed adopting the treaty meant the Czech Republic would cease to be a sovereign state, despite the fact none of the 26 other EU members or the two houses of the Czech parliament entertained such fears.

This is relevant because Klaus is an anti-warming fanatic, declaring it to be a plot by the UN to achieve world government. [Er, yes, and your point is? – Ed]

[Read more…]

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With:

Opposition on road to oblivion

11 November, 2009 by

Too green for me

Too green for me

Thanks to Malcolm Turnbull’s “I’m greener than you” policy on the ETS, the Opposition is now in the unenviable position of having a climate change policy at odds with much of the party room, and at odds with an ever growing sector of the electorate. No party, except the Nationals, is providing any kind of scrutiny for the government’s destructive ETS, since Turnbull just wants to wave it through. Paul Kelly analyses the Opposition’s fix:

The Nationals spiritual leader, Barnaby Joyce, recently told this column: “I can tell you the mood is changing. They hate this policy [the ETS]. They just hate it. A new tax on ironing, a new tax on watching television, a new tax on vacuuming. If you go to the supermarket Kevin will be in the shopping trolley with you.”

The full conservative ideological campaign, however, is unlikely to constitute a national majority against Rudd.

But how could Turnbull wage such a campaign with credibility? He believes in climate change, an ETS and early Australian action. In truth, Turnbull and Rudd are not far apart on the issue, with their disagreement being over details, not ideology.

[Read more…]

Filed Under: Climate

Barry Brook: Australia needs nuclear power

10 November, 2009 by

The way ahead for Australia

The way ahead for Australia

Professor Barry Brook has been a favourite of these pages for his relentless alarmism about the “climate crisis”. However, today he talks sense  – about the need for nuclear power in Australia. The UK announced recently the construction of 10 new nuclear power plants by 2025, yet Australia, despite having enormous uranium deposits, and despite being desperate to reduce emissions, steadfastly refuses to embrace nuclear power generation:

The British Government said the nuclear expansion would address climate change and ensure there was always enough power in the country.

Professor Barry Brook, the Sir Hubert Wilkins professor of climate change at the University of Adelaide’s Environment Institute, says Australia should follow suit.

In an opinion piece for AdelaideNow, Professor Brook says “nuclear power is the only proven electricity generation technology that can simultaneously meet reliable baseload demand, anywhere, and yet emit no carbon dioxide when operating.”

[Read more…]

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With:

Wong: sceptics in "fantasy land"

10 November, 2009 by

Our climate spin is this big

Our climate spin is this big

Penny Wong has hit back at the Liberals after yesterday’s Four Corners, accusing them of inhabiting a “fantasy land”. Denier Alert as the Wong-bot gets personal:

“This is fantasy land,” she told Fairfax Radio Network on Tuesday.

“As we get closer to the pointy end of this discussion, the people who have blocked action on climate change for years by denying the science, by scaremongering and by delaying are simply going to become more shrill.

Scaremongering, Penny? Don’t make me laugh – that’s the job of your lapdog alarmists, like Will Steffen.

“And the government is also very clear about our view – this is in the national interest of Australia,” she said.

In the national interest to burden the economy with a huge tax which will achieve nothing whatsoever for the climate, and before we have any idea what will happen at Copenhagen? Perhaps you can just explain that one again, because to my mind, that sounds like total climate madness.

Read it here.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: ,

String of Liberals question AGW

10 November, 2009 by

Nick Minchin

Nick Minchin

Yesterday I posted about ABC’s Four Corners programme, and noted that the Opposition is under more scrutiny from the media on the ETS than the government. However, there was an upside to the programme, namely the string of Liberals, including Nick Minchin, leader of the Liberals in the Senate, who came out openly to question the AGW dogma. Here are some of his statements:

“I frankly strongly object to you know, politicians and others trying to terrify 12 year old girls that their planet’s about to melt, you know. I mean really it is appalling some of that sort of behaviour.

“For the extreme left [climate change] provides the opportunity to do what they’ve always wanted to do, to sort of de-industrialise the western world. You know the collapse of communism was a disaster for the left, and the, and really they embraced environmentalism as their new religion.

“I don’t mind being branded a sceptic about the theory that that human emissions and CO2 are the main driver of … global warming. I don’t accept that and I’ve said that publically. I guess if I can say it, I would hope that others would feel free to do so.”

We also heard dissenting views from Dennis Jensen, Cory Bernardi, Tony Abbott and Julian McGauran. The following exchange sums up the Liberals’ dilemma very well:

SARAH FERGUSON (to Dennis Jensen): Does that mean that Malcolm Turnbull is sort of too green for a majority of the party?

DENNIS JENSEN, LIBERAL MP, WA: I think that that would probably be fair to say.

Read the transcript and see the episode here.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: , ,

Climate nonsense from Mikhail Gorbachev

10 November, 2009 by

Climate change is like Berlin wall?

Climate change is like Berlin wall? Really?

Obviously there are thousands of stories today about the momentous events in East Germany back in 1989, but it’s a bit desperate to compare the Berlin wall to climate change. However, that is what former Soviet Union president is saying in an article reprinted in The Australian this morning. Gorbachev was a great agent for change in the 80s and 90s, but on climate change, he reads like a typical alarmist.

The fall of the Berlin Wall brought hope and opportunity to people everywhere, and provided the 1980s with a truly jubilant finale. That is something to think about as the chance to take another momentous leap forward appears to be slipping away.

The road to the end of the Cold War was certainly not easy, or universally welcomed at the time, but it is for just this reason that its lessons remain relevant. In the 1980s, the world was at a historic crossroads. The East-West arms race had created an explosive situation. Nuclear deterrence could have failed at any moment. We were heading for disaster.

[Read more…]

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: ,

Christopher Monckton on the draft Copenhagen Treaty

9 November, 2009 by

Do you know what it says?

Do you know what it says?

I think it is essential for everyone who wants to understand what will really happen at Copenhagen to read the following section of the negotiating text for the Copenhagen climate change conference (COP 15):

38. The scheme for the new institutional arrangement under the Convention will be based on three basic pillars: government; facilitative mechanism; and financial mechanism, and the basic organization of which will include the following:

(a) The government will be ruled by the COP with the support of a new subsidiary body on adaptation, and of an Executive Board responsible for the management of the new funds and the related facilitative processes and bodies. The current Convention secretariat will operate as such, as appropriate.

(b) The Convention’s financial mechanism will include a multilateral climate change fund including five windows: (a) an Adaptation window, (b) a Compensation window, to address loss and damage from climate change impacts, including insurance, rehabilitation and compensatory components, (c) a Technology window; (d) a Mitigation window; and (e) a REDD window, to support a multi-phases process for positive forest incentives relating to REDD actions.

(c) The Convention’s facilitative mechanism will include: (a) work programmes for adaptation and mitigation; (b) a long-term REDD process; (c) a short-term technology action plan; (d) an expert group on adaptation established by the subsidiary body on adaptation, and expert groups on mitigation, technologies and on monitoring, reporting and verification; and (e) an international registry for the monitoring, reporting and verification of compliance of emission reduction commitments, and the transfer of technical and financial resources from developed countries to developing countries. The secretariat will provide technical and administrative support, including a new centre for information exchange.

And here is Christopher Monckton’s powerful explanation of what it will really mean, which can be summed up in three points: global government, global wealth redistribution and global enforcement, all without any democratic process whatsoever:

Monckton’s interview with Alan Jones can be heard here.

You can download a copy of the negotiating text of the Treaty here (large PDF).

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: , ,

The standard of climate debate in Australia – an example

9 November, 2009 by

Climate alarmism pays my mortgage

Climate alarmism pays my mortgage

Here we have a classic example of the ridiculous standard of the debate on climate change in Australia, and a perfect example of why the public do not have a clue about what’s going on. Steve Howard, CEO of the Climate Group, was interviewed by Virginia Trioli on ABC2’s Breakfast Television on Friday:

Trioli: And Steve Howard, finally, what if we’re wrong and what if those naysayers are right, if global warming is not human-induced but actually is a cyclical thing. Are you prepared to take responsibility for the economic and financial damage that might be done to some industries in the rush to try and fix it?

Howard: In the same way, yes, if we discover the world is flat then I’ll actually pay for all of the little globes to be reproduced. [You sarcastic little jerk. As if lumping climate realists with flat-earthers will end the debate – and it’s not even original, loser – Ed]

Trioli: No, the suggestion is not as outrageous as that.

Howard: It’s close to it.

Trioli: It’s just some honest dissenters and I think they have to be given their place too.

Howard: I think it is actually akin now to saying tobacco is not linked to lung cancer. It’s about that level of certainty on the science. [Yet more recycled BS – Ed] But let’s say, even then they are right, the worst we will do is create a greater energy security, a clean economy, we’ll clean up air pollution, and we’ve done a macro-economic (study) with our partner, with Tony Blair, and we found that if we have very deep emissions reduction cuts we’ll overall stimulate the global economy, we’ll create more jobs, so overall we’re better off if we do this. The worst we can do is be better off. We have the technology, we understand the policies, let’s just get on and do it.

Total, utter, unadulterated, undiluted, ill-considered, uninformed CRAP. But hey, the guy makes a living out of the climate crisis, what do you expect? At least Trioli asked the question, which given the ABC’s previous form, is a goddam miracle.

Read it here.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: ,
«Previous Page
Next Page»