Tag Archives: climate change

Zen And The Art Of Environmental Maintenance

20 Sep

For all those who “believe” in the Warmageddonist faith.

And.

For our Green-Labor government, who constantly repeat the refrain in their mutually-dependent and mutually-contradictory Clean Energy bills, that these “ensure compliance with section 55 of the Constitution”:

“You are never dedicated to something you have complete confidence in. No one is fanatically shouting that the sun is going to rise tomorrow. They know it’s going to rise tomorrow. When people are fanatically dedicated to political or religious faiths or any other kinds of dogma or goals, it’s always because these dogmas or goals are in doubt.”

– Robert M. Pirsig
Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance

It’s The Sun, Stupid: CERN Confirms

3 Sep

Man-Made Global Warming Climate Change, huh?

Real scientists (ie, physicists) at CERN confirm what every rural person has known all along.

It’s the Sun, stupid:

CERN’s 8,000 scientists may not be able to find the hypothetical Higgs boson, but they have made an important contribution to climate physics, prompting climate models to be revised.

The first results from the lab’s CLOUD (“Cosmics Leaving OUtdoor Droplets”) experiment published in Nature today confirm that cosmic rays spur the formation of clouds through ion-induced nucleation. Current thinking posits that half of the Earth’s clouds are formed through nucleation. The paper is entitled Role of sulphuric acid, ammonia and galactic cosmic rays in atmospheric aerosol nucleation.

This has significant implications for climate science because water vapour and clouds play a large role in determining global temperatures. Tiny changes in overall cloud cover can result in relatively large temperature changes.

Unsurprisingly, it’s a politically sensitive topic, as it provides support for a “heliocentric” rather than “anthropogenic” approach to climate change: the sun plays a large role in modulating the quantity of cosmic rays reaching the upper atmosphere of the Earth.

Veteran science editor Nigel Calder, who brought the theory to wide public attention with the book The Chilling Stars, co-authored with the father of the theory Henrik Svensmark, has an explanation and background on his blog, here, and offers possible reasons on why the research, mooted in the late 1990s, has taken so long.

Svensmark, who is no longer involved with the CERN experiment, says he believes the solar-cosmic ray factor is just one of four factors in climate. The other three are: volcanoes, a “regime shift” that took place in 1977, and residual anthropogenic components.

When Dr Kirkby first described the theory in 1998, he suggested cosmic rays “will probably be able to account for somewhere between a half and the whole of the increase in the Earth’s temperature that we have seen in the last century.”

More from CERN here, and a video here.

What’s that you say, Julia? Bob?

A scientific, IPCC “consensus” that man is to blame, you say?

For a global “warming” that just ain’t happening?

Perhaps you and all these “consensus” scientists might well have heeded one of the most famous scientists of all time:

“No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong

– Albert Einstein

Barnaby: To Those Who Called Me Fool, Who’s Laughing Now?

8 Aug

Senator Joyce writes for the Australian.

Listen up this time!! –

The joy of vindication on the prospect of a US government default is bittersweet; I was right, Wayne was wrong. To those sucked in by the Treasurer, placing wishful romantic theory above clinical reality, then saying “you wouldn’t cut it with the Bloomsbury group if you talk like that at our soiree”, I suggest this, get real.

Do not confuse tackling a problem with delaying when it comes to debt. If while out on the tiles on a Friday night you discover a septic gash on your leg, and in response down another five jagermeisters, pain gone, problem gone, keep dancing, that is delay. Going to hospital to avoid amputation is dealing with the problem.

Tim Flannery said that the impact of climate change policies won’t be felt for at least a thousand years. The impact of a catastrophic default this time was avoided by a mere 10 hours. When prioritising threats I know which one I would be concentrating on.

Swan has given 25 speeches this year and mentioned climate change 24 times. Debt has only been mentioned 16 times, and eight of these in one speech made last month. A year and a half ago I implored the government to prepare contingency plans for the threat of a US default stating the prospect was “distant but real” but if it eventuated the fallout would be a financial Armageddon making the GFC look like a mere preamble. US President Barack Obama also used the term Armageddon in the past month, so if I’m mad, so is he.

When asked on ABC radio whether the government had prepared for a potential US default, our Treasurer could point to no specific actions taken. But we do have parts of Treasury modelling climate change. The Treasurer believes I have been captured by “Tea Partiers”. Disagree with him on climate change you’re a denier, disagree with him on economics you’re a Tea Partier.

Ken Rogoff, obviously another of Swan’s Tea Partiers, but also moonlighting as a professor of economics at Harvard University, has been warning about these problems since we were first introduced to the term sub-prime. The Global Financial Crisis involved ordinary people and silly governments taking on too much debt. There was nothing unique about it, the same process has been repeated over and over again with tulips, railroad stocks, Florida real estate, dot-com investments and our modern example, collateralised debt obligations.

A couple of years ago Rogoff wrote a book titled This Time Is Different, showing actually it’s almost always the same. Public debt crises are more common than economists tend to acknowledge and financial crises in particular place extreme stress on government finances.

Rogoff wrote a paper a couple of months ago titled A Decade of Debt in which he measured the increase in public debt in different countries since 2007, when we voted in these current economic luminaries. No surprises, Iceland and Ireland, are one and two but Swan got the bronze, Australia is third, with a 150 per cent increase in our public debt since 2007. As I previously said we can’t keep going on like this, but we are. We have just extended our debt ceiling to $250 billion.

In 2008, before the GFC’s nadir, Ireland’s net public debt was 12.5 per cent of GDP according to the OECD. The Treasurer boasts that our net public debt is low compared with others. The parliamentary library estimated last year our net public debt will be 12.3 per cent of GDP in 2012-13, the same year Swan predicts surplus.

In the political sphere the person who drives via the rear vision mirror, with a wonderful recitation about everywhere you have been and why, but not a clue where you are going, is dangerous. When, with a coterie of bureaucrats, they cannot keep the car on the black stuff but seem to be targeting the trees, you are in for the economic ride of your life.

Things changed for Ireland after it guaranteed the debt of its banks during the GFC. We have done that, too. Three years ago the Treasurer introduced the financial claims scheme which guarantees $730 billion in deposits. It’s up for review in October but there is barely a discussion about how we might mitigate the risks of such taxpayer exposure. We are too busy trying to cool the planet from a room in Canberra.

Barnaby is right.

Take very careful note of that last paragraph.

Moody’s ratings agency has already warned our government – when it downgraded the credit rating of all our banks in May – that the government’s guarantee was worth two ratings notches.

In other words, without the government guarantee – the our-future-earnings guarantee – our banks’ credit rating would be slashed even further.

Meaning higher interest rates for you.

The long overdue collapse of our housing bubble.

The collapse of our banks.

The bailout of our banks.

And Australia looking exactly like the rest of the Western world.

Oh yes …

And your super stolen by our government – both “sides” – to bail out the banks, and/or finance the floundering government.

Don’t believe me?

Fine.

Piss off then.

Or…

Read. And learn.

Start here –

Stealing Our Super – I DARE You To Ignore This Now

Mum’s The Word

4 Aug

My dear old Mum has a few choice words for her oceanfront-dwelling, interstate ring-in “local” Member of Parliament using another $4 million of taxpayers’ money to peddle warmageddonist propaganda.

One hopes that green cargo cult members everywhere will applaud her admirable demonstration of the most apropos method of recycling junk mail:

Ministry Of “Truth”: Labor Spends $3 Million So Cargo-Culters Can “Share Stories”

2 Jul

Media Release – Senator Barnaby Joyce, 30 June 2011 (apologies for delayed publication):

Government deserts northern Australia but spends $3 million so others can “share stories”

Today the Department of Climate Change will begin taking applications for grants of up to $250,000 so that organisations can “share their stories and demonstrate the opportunities associated with Australia moving to a clean energy future.” 1

We are almost morphing from political propaganda to straight out political bribery. $250,000 is more than I and one of my staff get paid combined so that someone can write a Labor pop-up book. I bet you Rhys Muldoon will be all over this one.

This “Climate Change Grant Program” will cost $3 million. Coincidentally, that is the same amount that Labor has offered those affected by this Government’s overnight ban on live cattle exports.

While people in the north of Australia are told to get by on the dole, the government is handing out to others cheques of $250,000 so that others can “share stories” for a clean energy future. I bet you there would be quite a few people in the north who would like to “share stories” mainly about a Green-Labor-Independent free future.

Fair dinkum, what is going on here? The Wizard of Oz, Alice in Wonderland and the Green-Labor-Independent government. This is bizarre. This is more money we are going to be borrowing from overseas for something that would go down very well at a hothouse, talkfest at a community forum in Nimbin.

1 http://www.climatechange.gov.au/en/government/programs-and-rebates/climate-change-grant-program.aspx

Gillard: “I Have Always Been Determined To Create An *Emissions Trading Scheme*”

1 Jul

Three days ago, I wrote an article arguing by reference to the Government’s official documentation, that the Green-Labor-Independent Alliance is not proposing a “tax”, but an emissions trading scheme with a fixed price start –

“The Carbon Tax is Not A ‘Tax’ … It Is The Bankster’s CPRS By Another Name”.

Two days ago, prompted by a reader, I wrote a detailed email to the Shadow Minister for Climate Action, Mr Greg Hunt MP, arguing the same point –

“Letter To Greg Hunt MP”.

Yesterday, I engaged in multiple correspondences with Mr Hunt, continuing to present the same irrefutable point; that the Government’s proposed “pricing carbon” scheme is not a tax, but is, and always has been, planned and intended to be an emissions trading scheme with an initial and temporary “fixed price” period –

“Letter To Greg Hunt MP”Updates 2, 3, 4, 5.

In one of these correspondences, Mr Hunt stated the following (emphasis added):

Thur 30/6, 10:30pm –

I respect your views but the Prime Minister herself has said that it operates like a tax.

As has the Treasurer.

Cheers,

greg

I will leave it to those interested to read my detailed critical response to Mr Hunt’s statement.

Remarkably however, just a few short hours later the following was being widely reported in the mainstream media (please note carefully my bold emphasis added):

By Malcolm Farr, National Political Editor | From: news.com.au | June 30, 2011 2:38PM

Prime Minister Julia Gillard today said the imposition of a fixed price on carbon pollution will last for the minimum possible of three years before being replaced by whatever the market decides.

The decision will be a bid to take the “tax” out of the Opposition’s highly effective “carbon tax” attacks as quickly as possible.

“What (Opposition Leader) Tony Abbott likes to refer to as a carbon tax, a fixed price period for an emissions trading scheme, is a period I believe should be as short  as possible,” Ms Gillard said in Darwin.

I’ve always been determined to create an emissions trading scheme, and I’ve always been determined that the fixed price period would be as short as possible and we would get to that emissions trading scheme.”

She said her aim “has always been to have an emissions trading scheme.

“That’s an aim I share with (former Liberal Prime Minister) John Howard and (current Liberal front bencher) Malcolm Turnbull – an emissions trading scheme for our nation’s future,” said the Prime Minister.

And then there was this, from the ABC (emphasis added):

Jeremy Thompson, On Thursday 30 June 2011, 16:55 EST

Prime Minister Julia Gillard says she is determined to introduce an emissions trading scheme as soon as possible, amid reports the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee has agreed the transition from a carbon tax to an ETS will take three years.

It is understood the Government, Greens and independents agreed to transition from the carbon tax to an ETS in 2015 – at the early end of the stated aim of three to five years.

The Government wanted to go directly to an ETS, but the minority nature of the Parliament meant the Greens were able to insist on an initial fixed carbon tax.

“I’ve always been determined to create an emissions trading scheme and I’ve always been determined that the fixed-price period would be as short as possible and we would get to that emissions trading scheme,” Ms Gillard told reporters in Darwin.

She sought to change the nature of the rhetoric, rejecting the term “carbon tax” as a description used by Opposition Leader Tony Abbott.

I’m tempted to end this piece right now, with a triumphant “I rest my case”.

Sadly, there will doubtless be those who are to a greater or lesser degree incapable of critical thinking, who may dismiss Gillard’s remarks as not supporting my argument.

For one reason.

They no longer trust anything she says.

It is not necessary to believe that she is telling the truth now.

It is only necessary to critically examine the facts.

And the facts are these*.

The Rudd-Gillard government has always officially (ie, in written documentation) referred to their “carbon pricing” proposal as an “emissions trading scheme”.

Always.

Never as a “carbon tax“.

If those who oppose the introduction of a carbon “tax” wish to succeed in preventing it, they need to start using their brains.

It is better for everyone in the community to clearly understand that it IS an emissions trading scheme.

We should all encourage and applaud Gillard and Co in their new “bid to take the “tax” out of the Opposition’s highly effective “carbon tax” attacks”.

Why?

Because the people we need to convince are not those who already oppose the carbon “X”.

The people we need to convince – the people we need on our side against the carbon “X” – are the lefties, green cargo-culters, and others like them who go along with most every popular delusion, and are too thick to critically think for themselves.

Now believe it or not, those of us who understand the grave threat of a carbon “X” actually do share one very important thing in common with the lefties, et al.

We all – broadly speaking – HATE BANKERS.

It is vital for “righties” to understand, that “lefties” generally think that taxes aren’t such a bad thing – especially if the wise and compassionate, caring Big Government is going to “save the planet” by taxing “only” those big bad “polluters”.

But … if just once these poor deluded fools could glimpse the reality – that the governments plan is NOT a wise and benevolent Robin Hood “tax” as they imagine, but is in truth, nothing more than a grandiose scheme that is designed by, and for, the benefit of BANKERS – then we have a chance.

Then, there is hope that we can all become one.

“Leftard” and “Rightard” alike.

United in opposition  … to the banksters’ ETS.

So I say … Go for it JuLiar!

You’re on the right track now 😉

Tell it like it is.

Keep telling the world that it ‘aint no “tax”.

Keep telling us all that it is what you have always been determined to create”.

An emissions trading scheme for our nation’s future

And We The People will drive home the patently obvious “bankster” connection in this grand scam for you.

________

* The Facts

References:

Garnaut Review 2011, Chapter 5 (emphasis added):

In implementing an emissions trading scheme with a fixed-price start, there are two sets of decisions to be made: the starting price and how much the price will rise in each subsequent year; and the timing, conditions and manner of transition to emissions trading with a price that is set by market exchange.

*******

Government’s climatechange.gov.au website (emphasis added):

Multi-Party Climate Change Committee

Broad architecture of the carbon price mechanism

A carbon price mechanism could commence with a fixed price (through the issuance of fixed price units within an emissions trading scheme) before converting to a cap-and-trade emissions trading scheme…

*******

Government’s climatechange.gov.au website (emphasis added):

Publications

CPRS White Paper:

Policy position 8.1

Each permit will have a unique identification number and will be marked with the first year in which it can validly be surrendered (its ‘vintage’). It will not have an expiry date.

8.4.1 Banking

Banking allows permits to be saved for use in future years. With unlimited banking, permits would not have an expiry date—once issued, they could be used for compliance at any future time.

… the advantages of banking are greatest if banking is continuous. For these reasons, the Government will allow unlimited banking from Scheme commencement.

Kyoto Is Dead, But Our Lunatics Press On Regardless

4 Jun

Shadow Treasurer Joe Hockey questions The Goose on the G8 meeting, where Russia, Canada, and Japan all refused to resign Kyoto CO2 emissions reductions targets, and the world’s biggest economy, the USA, refused (again) to sign up at all.

Nothing but obfuscations, dancing around the issue, and rank “denialism” from the Goose, natch. But then, we’ve all come to expect that. He’s a lunatic who appears to be genetically incapable of honesty:

Barnaby Challenges ABC’s Fran Kelly: Interview Dissenting Scientists

25 May

From ABC Radio National (via the Australian Conservative):

“I don’t condone this argument that the debate is over,” Senator Joyce said.

“In fact, reading through the report in a cursory way, I notice that [in] a whole range of areas they themselves have made adjustments on previous statements they’ve made. One being ice in Greenland where they’ve said they were out by a factor of two. Now this just goes to show that everything is a continuation of the big quest for knowledge.”

Senator Joyce challenged ABC Radio National Breakfast presenter Fran Kelly to interview leading dissenting scientists.

“I’m sure that if you give the opportunity for other people who are also scientists and eminently qualified to come on your show and give it a contrarian view, you will get them in droves.”

On Labor’s planned carbon tax, Senator Joyce said:

“I don’t believe that we developed the wheel because we taxed walking, or we developed the motor car because we taxed horses, and I don’t believe we’re going to become a more efficient economy because we tax the bejesus out of every man, woman and child walking down the street, so that everything you do, every power point in your house becomes a collection revenue mechanism for the Australian Taxation Office. I don’t think that’s going to cool the planet. I just think it’s going to make people very miserable, angry.”

Turning Back The Tide

18 May

Paul Kelly finally calls BS on the green “cargo cult”:

Let’s tell the truth about the past half decade. The green agenda has corrupted Labor values. It has seen Labor governments embrace fiscal irresponsibility, regressive income re-distribution and treat their supporters as too dumb to understand they were being played for mugs. For too long the idea that any green scheme was a good scheme was sanctified as a compliant media cheered such initiatives.

Repentance will take many forms and have multiple consequences. The electoral backlash from defective pro-green policies and the arrogance towards ordinary voters embedded in such schemes will haunt Labor, state and federal, for many years. Perhaps some tolerance for mistakes should be extended. The bigger point, however, is that Labor’s culture abandoned fiscal discipline and social equity for what became the climate change cargo cult.

Bravo!

Well said.

Took you long enough Paul.

Next time, do the public a real favour.

Grow a pair, and call BS before it’s obvious to Blind Freddy that the tide is going out.

Carbon Tax Causes Cannabilistic Infanticide

25 Apr

Chalk up the first big horror outcome for the carbon (dioxide) tax.  Evidence is growing that sustained public opposition to taxing the air we breathe can cause our self-appointed moral and intellectual betters to start eating their own children.

From today’s Sydney Morning Herald:

Why is there such a sharp and growing divide between the majority who oppose the carbon tax and the minority who openly treat the majority as idiots? …

The justification for this tax is that it will curb greenhouse emissions endangering the planet. It is an argument which covers a multitude of sins. Here are just some:

1. There is no mandate for the carbon tax. It was expressly singled out by Gillard during the last election as a no-go, which helped save her government.

2. The tax will have almost zero effect on global carbon dioxide emissions.

3. It is a tax on everything, as higher energy costs flow through the economy.

4. It is regressive, harming households and small businesses on tight budgets.

5. It is a massive exercise in tax churning.

6. It does not address the structural inefficiencies in the energy sector.

7. It is a prelude to a emissions trading scheme, a derivatives market.

8. Large-scale carbon trading is inherently vulnerable to fraud, manipulation and speculation, as seen in Europe.

9. It will introduce a new layer of complexity to the economy.

10. It ignores significant energy savings possible without a punitive tax.

11. The federal government has an abysmal record in delivering large-scale interventions.

12. Australia contributes about 1.5 per cent of global carbon emissions and any local measures will be irrelevant without a global carbon tax regime.

13. It will not introduce certainty to energy pricing as promised.

14. Solar and wind power generation are prohibitively expensive and cannot meet baseload power needs.

15. The tax represents a massive transfer of wealth and power to the bureaucratic class which benefits most from a new labyrinth of compliance and compulsion.

In short, a carbon chasm is emerging in Australia and when it is all boiled down, I think Sue Isles is right and Julia Gillard is wrong.

Damn straight.

Also from the Sydney Morning Herald recently, the government sales pitch for the carbon tax exposed and mocked:

You can tell everything you need to know about a product by the way it is sold. In advertising, a dog of a product is apparent from its unique selling proposition, or USP…

”One million people will be better off” is the USP with which the Minister for Climate Change, Greg Combet, hopes to persuade the public to buy his shiny new carbon tax.

I almost choked on my 100 per cent natural grain Wheaties. This must be a really crappy product.

There can be only one genuine way to sell the carbon tax, and that is by advertising the fact that it will prevent anthropogenic warming. It’s like Mortein. I buy it because I have a nasty problem that needs eradicating. Excessive CO2 emissions around your home? Stop them dead with the new carbon tax! Available at all good stores.

It’s instructive to think of how the GST was sold to a less than enthusiastic public. Basically, it was the castor oil strategy – this stuff is going to taste slightly unpleasant, but it’s going to do us all a power of (economic) good. And it worked. Arguably that is the only honest way of selling the carbon tax, too. Self-sacrifice for the greater good. In this case, of mankind.

Yet despite all the political shenanigans of the past few years and a massive teaser campaign for more than a decade (rising sea-levels, end of the world, Al Gore) “the greater good” is not the USP with which the government has chosen to sell this product.

Which must mean, to put it bluntly, that the product doesn’t work.

Here’s what happened behind the scenes. The advertising agency researched what a carbon tax might mean to people. To do so, they assembled groups of consumers – mums and dads, single parents, uni students, anyone who was prepared to give up an evening for $50 and some free food – and stuck them in specially designed research rooms where their every utterance was observed, taped and scrutinised. The topic was climate change. To a man and woman – apart from one or two sceptics – the groups agreed ”something must be done”. The polite, well-spoken researcher then introduced the concept of a carbon tax. The focus groups were wary, but accepted the idea so long as it solved the problem of global warming. Sandwiches and pizza were handed around. The researcher then showed the groups numerous concepts that attempted to distil the idea that the carbon tax could not fix the problem in and of itself, but rather, was a pre-emptive action that would require many other changes throughout the world over which Australia has no control before any useful reduction in carbon emissions could or might occur.

Things started to get a little sticky. When, via a detailed analysis and discussion of various phrases and catchwords the focus groups cottoned on to the fact that the tax was not going to do what they hoped for, they became angry. And the advertising dudes, watching them from behind a one-way mirror, became nervous. At this point, the researcher, her hands sweating slightly, popped some different boards under the noses of the focus groups. These new concepts and phrases introduced the idea that some people, due to the structure of the rebates, would find themselves better off under the new tax. And suddenly the conversations took a dramatic turn. The focus groups became pacified. Heads started nodding. Greed kicked in.

Meanwhile, behind the one-way mirror, the advertising folk and government consultants heaved a sigh of relief. Now they had found their USP, all they needed was a catchy phrase and the job was done.

One million people will be better off. You can’t get any catchier than that.

The avowedly warmist Sydney Morning Herald beginning to turn on its own children?

Perhaps now is a good time for someone to start a new list, similar to this one detailing all the publicly alleged effects of global warming.  You might wish to call this new list, “UCACA – Unintended Consequences of ‘Action on Climate’ Advocacy”.

%d bloggers like this: