"Death threats" to ANU scientists

4 June, 2011 by

Why no investigation?

The ABC and other news sources are reporting that climate scientists at the Australian National University (ANU) have received “death threats”. The ANU climate department is a hotbed (if you will excuse the phrase) of warmism, and is the home of government scaremonger, sorry, adviser Will Steffen:

Several of Australia’s top climate change scientists at the Australian National University have been subjected to a campaign of death threats, forcing the university to tighten security.

Several of the scientists in Canberra have been moved to a more secure location after receiving the threats over their research.

Vice-chancellor Professor Ian Young says the scientists have received large numbers of emails, including death threats and abusive phone calls, threatening to attack the academics in the street if they continue their research.

However, a later part of the article says the following:

The Australian Federal Police says it is aware of the issue, but there is no investigation underway.

Last time I checked, which was about thirty seconds ago, making threats to kill in the ACT was a criminal offence, thanks to section 30 of the Crimes Act (ACT) 1900, and punishable by a maximum of ten years imprisonment. A similar provision for threats to kill via a postal service or carriage service appears in the Schedule to the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act 1995, with a similar punishment.

TEN YEARS in clink? That’s a serious offence. So if such threats have been made, why isn’t it being fully investigated?

Read it here.

Filed Under: Climate

Carbon [dioxide] market "stalled"

4 June, 2011 by

Not worth the paper it's printed on

The Australian reports:

THE World Bank has revealed the global market for trading in carbon permits has stalled, just weeks out from the federal government’s release of its detailed plans to shift to an emissions trading scheme.

But while the opposition and miners demanded Julia Gillard slam the brakes on her carbon pricing plans in light of the latest World Bank review of the international carbon market, the Prime Minister’s climate change adviser Ross Garnaut urged her to press on with her reforms. [No surprise there – Ed]

“This should be the best of times for structural change in Australia,” he told a policy forum yesterday. [That’s code for “economic suicide” by the way – Ed]

The World Bank report found that after five consecutive years of robust growth, the total value of the global carbon market had stalled at $142 billion last year, despite a continued rise in emissions.

The value of the primary Clean Development Mechanism market fell by double digits for the third year in a row, ending lower than it was in 2005, the first year of the Kyoto Protocol.

It also remained dominated by Europe, which accounts for 97 per cent of total trades, defying efforts to make the market a truly global affair.

Opposition climate action spokesman Greg Hunt yesterday said the level of volatility in carbon markets in Europe and America was of concern. “I think the government must explain how a market which can be changed at the whim of international players will provide certainty,” he said.

The Chicago Climate Exchange collapsed last year, with carbon credits trading for cents.

Read it here.

Filed Under: Climate

Climate gimmick number 5,324,927

3 June, 2011 by

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…

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With:

Survey results spun to fit warmist agenda

3 June, 2011 by

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?

  • Less than a third of the population think that climate change is mainly or entirely caused by human activity (31.8%)
  • Almost twice that number think that climate change is mainly or partly caused by natural processes (58.4%)

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…

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With:

Friday's (non-carbon tax) reads

3 June, 2011 by

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.

Hockey Stick in a Nutshell

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!

Filed Under: Climate

$20 a tonne: the price of economic suicide

2 June, 2011 by

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).

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With:

Garnaut report "an assault on democracy"

1 June, 2011 by

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)

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: , ,

The Aussie Carbon (tax) Cycle

31 May, 2011 by

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

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With:

Garnaut tells the truth about a carbon price

31 May, 2011 by

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?

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: ,

Labor's twisted logic on "go it alone" carbon tax

31 May, 2011 by

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)

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