Turnbull lists demands for emissions Bill


Quote:

He wants the Australian scheme to offer the same protection to workers and industries as the US scheme, which is still being written. There must be "full compensation" for heavy-polluting, trade exposed countries, until the bulk of their competitors face a similar carbon price. Coal mines should get the same assistance as mines in Europe and the US get. Agriculture must be excluded from the scheme, but agricultural biosequestration - storing carbon in soils and plants - must be included. Electricity generators must get adequate compensation. And the scheme must allow for voluntary action to reduce emissions to make a difference.

His demands seems to be sensible.

Quote:

It is virtually impossible to have a rational discussion based on facts with the global warmers before they plunge off into a tsunami of figures derived from their beloved computer models, any of which can produce wildly different outcomes with minor adjustments to any one of a number of variables. Now an Australian scientist with impeccable credentials has come forward to outline the problems with the case being stated by the politicians, who are in turn reliant on these model-addicted climate scientists. Dr Garth Paltridge was a chief research scientist at the CSIRO and is a Fellow of the Academy of Science. His specialties are atmospheric physics and climatology. In the 1970s he was involved in the establishment of the World Climate Program and was working with the US National Climate Office in 1989 when the IPCC came into being. For a decade, Dr Paltridge ran the Antarctic Co-operative Research Centre studying the role of Antarctica and the Southern Ocean on climate. He is also an Emeritus Professor at the University of Tasmania. He is eminently qualified, in other words, to offer a sound opinion on climate issues. While we can’t conclusively say whether man-made carbon dioxide emissions are contributing to climate change, Dr Paltridge has published his thoughts in a handy 111-page volume titled The Climate Caper (Connor Court Publishing). He approaches the issue with a clarity lost to many in the scientific community and his view is that the global warming lobby has vastly overstated the case for disastrous global warming. “Scientists,” he writes, “are told quite bluntly that is completely inappropriate for them to speak on matters of policy - unless of course they support it. Non-scientists are assumed to be technically ignorant and thereby incapable of speaking with authority on the issue.” Dr Paltridge said the IPCC has become a permanent feature with its own bureaucracy spawning a continuing series of reports which have not changed our basic knowledge (or ignorance) of the problem. He said one of the more frightening statements about global warming heard now is that “the scientists have spoken”, adding that “the implication of god-like infallibility is a little hard to take”. The science of disastrous global warming, he said, is far less settled than climate scientists would have us believe. Dr Paltridge said the experimental data simply did not exist to check the model calculations of an amplified temperature rise. The existing models were established before the political stakes soared and it is now almost impossible for dissenters to enter the field. His conclusion is that it has not been solidly established and it is certainly not accepted by the majority of scientists as proven fact, that global warming from increased atmospheric carbon dioxide will be large enough to be seriously noticeable - let alone large enough to be disastrous. Last week, Energy and Resources Minister Martin Ferguson savaged the environmental lobby for demonising nuclear, gas and coal-fired energy plants fully knowing that solar and wind energy are not viable on current technology. Yet the Rudd Government is hell-bent on pursuing its lunatic emissions trading system which will achieve nothing for the nation and is more likely to hasten the departure of energy-dependent industries to emerging nations like China and India. Those two nations, by the way, have both indicated they are not interested in following Western nations down a path of self-deprivation. Australia doesn’t need an ETS which will hasten a rise in unemployment and do absolutely nothing that will affect the climate of the planet. It does, however, need a free and thorough debate though before the Government kills what remains of the nation’s industry and imposes new taxes and charges to the population, beyond those foreshadowed by the Prime Minister in his weekend warning on tougher times looming. Dr Paltridge has spelt out a reasonable and rational opinion on global warming alarmists supported by his scientific knowledge. The least the Government can do is have Senator Wong respond with the same clarity before blindly proceeding with legislation that can only maim the nation’s future.

How does one avoid an Ad Hominem attack, of sorts, when confronted with biased puff piece journalim of the type that Grendel so dearly loves to cut and paste?
Building up this "Emeritus" Professor,(which incidentally just means retired, but is hoped to impress some into thinking it means "Super" Professor) as if he is some rare intellect who alone has unravelled the web of lies from that evil cabal of climate scientists who are imposing their secret agenda onto all.
All except the most astute observers, of course, who can see through their tissue of lies.(cough, cough)Now without having read this small book, which some less charitable people could categorise as just another sucker buy for contrarian nutjobs, I have to rely on good old google to find the actual scientific opinions published by the professor, and none but his much cited paper;
"Paltridge, G., Arking, A., and M. Pook Trends in middle- and upper-level tropospheric humidity from NCEP reanalysis data, Theoretical and Applied Climatology DOI 10.1007/s00704-009-0117-x"
appears to be of any interest at all.
Now unfortunately for his credibility as a serious scientist, this paper gained acclaim because it went with the "what if" theory, on water vapour.
The "what if" theory is that every other scientist gets it all wrong, and doesn't calculate the effects of water vapour on climate change correctly, so instead of using the actual data, it asks how different things would look if you used NOT the actual data.

Now the "what if" approach is very popular amongst denialist darlings, but not so popular with real scientists, as we saw with the recent case in the US where Monckton, yes that wacko again, had an article published in a newsletter of "The American Physical Society", which had the denialist liars proclaiming that he had published peer reviewed work in their "Journal", which showed how his opinions had garnered mainstream scientific support.
This was such a lie that the actual people the denialists claimed had peer reviewed Monckton's article, attached the following disclaimer;
"The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review. Its conclusions are in disagreement with the overwhelming opinion of the world scientific community. The Council of the American Physical Society disagrees with this article's conclusions"
yet you will still find numerous denialist sites all perpetuating the lies they have already told about this work, which always dismays me, and makes me question just how do honest people manage to affiliate themselves with such disreputable people?

So we have this retired aussie professor who has copped some flak for his earlier work on climate change, coming out with a book deriding climate scientists, and I must admit to being just a wee bit skeptical myself at this point, I am skeptical about just how much science the professor has put in his book, and how much is likely to be just the same old rehashed, and previously debunked denialist myths.

I will take the prudent course here, because I won't take the glowing praise of a denialist journo as validation for this man's scientific hypotheses, I will wait to see the opinions of real climate scientists on it when they review his work, even though we know how much denialists despise that process.

Quote:

Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull has accused the Rudd Government of ''extraordinary arrogance'' for refusing to negotiate on its proposed emissions trading scheme. ... Mr Turnbull yesterday told ABC TV he wanted to negotiate directly with the Government. ''Their refusal to do so is extraordinary arrogance and just shows the contempt that they have and how out of touch they are with the position of Australian workers,'' he said. ''If the scheme is presented in its current form on August 13 it will be voted down by the Coalition in the Senate as we've already agreed.'' ''And then if the Government chooses to bring it back we may well present amendments later in the year, but the better way to deal with this is through negotiation because as I say the guts of the scheme is actually not in the Bill, it's contained in regulations.''...

Looks like the government aiming for a double dissolution.
So much for environmentalism and workers rights :(

rudds ets is losing support.
Undoubtly if the coal industry has their "compensation" doubled, support will continue to falll away.
as the costs and the possible benefits have been aken into account it is being shown as the populist whim it was.

put it alongside fuel watch, grocerywatch, ruddbank and all the rest of the ruddbish the leftards have swallowed up.



Quote:

THE Rudd government is considering doubling compensation to the coal industry to $1.5 billion to protect mining jobs under a carbon emissions trading scheme as public opinion shifts definitively against Australia committing to carbon cuts before the rest of the world. Just as Malcolm Turnbull has turned the Liberal Party towards accepting an ETS before the global climate change conference in Copenhagen in December, there has been a turnaround in public support for delaying finalisation of a carbon emissions trading scheme. And while most people are still prepared to pay higher costs for petrol, electricity and gas to cut greenhouse gas emissions, support drops away rapidly as the expectations rise of higher costs. According to the latest Newspoll survey, 45 per cent of voters want the Rudd government to delay finalising its Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme until after the Copenhagen conference compared with 41 per cent who said Australia should not wait to see what other nations were doing. Eight per cent of respondents to the survey, taken exclusively for The Australian last weekend, oppose an ETS outright, taking the total who oppose the scheme or want it delayed to 53 per cent. In September last year, 61 per cent wanted Australia to act as soon as possible, no matter what other countries were doing, and only 33 per cent wanted to delay or opposed the scheme outright..............

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25844778-601,00.html

Well of course alarmists attack any dissent by attacking the dissenter Mozz...  

Dr Garth Paltridge was a chief research scientist at the CSIRO and is a Fellow of the Academy of Science. His specialties are atmospheric physics and climatology. In the 1970s he was involved in the establishment of the World Climate Program and was working with the US National Climate Office in 1989 when the IPCC came into being.

I'd think he has a better idea than you Mozz.


Quote:

The CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research has become one of the most blatant examples of taxpayer funded, AGW proselytizing to be found. Bill Kininmonth, who was director of the BOM's National Climate Centre from 1986 to 1998 saw how it happened from the inside and this the story he relates.      In the 1970s BOM and CSIRO joined forces to establish the Australian Numerical Meteorology Research Centre for the development of weather forecasting models and supporting climate research. This only lasted about a decade as hostility at the most senior levels of BOM and CSIRO Meteorological Research resulted in the bust-up of ANMRC. Numerical Weather Prediction went to BOM and CSIRO's case for numerical meteorology and climate was weakened (which was the BOM management intent---only room for one kid on the block). The wily CSIRO management saw an opportunity in AGW and went to the then Commission for the Future to make a case for a major effort in climate modelling. The Commission for the Future bought the story and established a major PR campaign to promote the AGW story (you might remember the posters of Canberra with the parliament house flag pole emerging from Lake BG!). Then Minister for the Environment Graham Richardson saw votes in the issue as a promotion of the environment protection cause. BOM, then in the Dept of Administrative Services, was recalcitrant and not supporting the scare. The government of the day then had an administrative reorganisation and brought BOM into the Dept of the Environment. The upshot was that the government gave special funding to CSIRO outside of the ARGC process to develop climate modelling, and BOM was left to get on with weather prediction modelling, So Graham Richardson bought the CSIRO for, I think $180 millions, and once committed to the AGW story line the CSIRO was stuck with it. Garth Paltridge, who was Director of the Antarctic CRC based in Hobart, and which was funded jointly by the CSIRO and the ARGC tells the story how one Easter he had made sceptical comments in the press about the global warming 'consensus', and returning to his desk on Easter Tuesday was threatened by a CSIRO functionary with major funding cuts to the Antarctic Research programme for which he was responsible if he uttered such blasphemy again.

As for your "peer review" claims I suggest you read this...

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/07/the_american_physical_society_1.html

One of many that refer to the APS and Peergate.


Quote:

An outlandish disclaimer, particularly considering that the paper had been reviewed by one of APS's own scientists, and all requested clarifications were duly incorporated by the author.

Not that you will bother or not just dismiss it out-of-hand  as you usually do being the hypocrite you are on this subject.

I read that link, and fear that only an utter imbecile would be taken in by such spurious reasoning, and blatant denialist rhetoric.
The statement from The American Physical Society was unequivocal Grendel, The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review. Its conclusions are in disagreement with the overwhelming opinion of the world scientific community. The Council of the American Physical Society disagrees with this article's conclusionsand just because you choose to once more go along with the blatant BS from ultra conservative "Think Tanks", you should bear in mind that the rest of the rational world, does not.

NOT UNDERGONE ANY!!!

None!!

Zip!!

Nada!!

The editor just reading it does not count as peer review in the world of real scientists, but denialist have such low standards of honesty that they will try and claim it does.

Monckton's assertion that the newsletter Editor, reading his article was a form of PEER Review, is nothing but more pompous bleating from the most thoroughly discredited climate scientist of our time, and if anyone but denialist fanboys accept that ridiculous argument, then it only further damns their desired credibility as unbiased skeptics, rather than totally biased denialist schills.

You seriously need to get your head out of the denialist blogosphere for five minutes, and examine the reponses to Moncktons assertions, which are ridiculed by the wider scientific community for the crackpot "science"? it promulgates.

Now these real scientists are so concerned by the continued, and proven factual errors which Monckton pushes, as to have voiced serious concerns for either his sanity, or integrity, and many fear a pronounced lack of both are at play.

We see it quite often in the political arena, when former politicians make outlandish statements, to once more feel the glare of the public on them, in some vain attempt to revive past feelings of power or relevance, and the more charitable of Monckton's critics ascribe his bizzarre campaign as possibly motivated by such vainglorious desires, but others fear a more sinister motive, and point to blatant falsifications of graphs and data by him as evidence of that more sinister aspect to his climate debate vandalism.

His denialism is far beyond the usual ignorance commonly displayed by so many, because when he is lying, he most certainly must know it, because he is eminently qualified to understand it, to a similiar degree to many of the best climate scientists around, yet he goes so far as to draw graphs that blatantly, and falsely misrepresent the IPCC predictions, that no high school educated child could claim as an honest error.
The most recent glaring example of this was when he represented IPCC climate predictions as a straight line from 2002 to 2100, to try and exagerate the variation from the IPCC predictions of the last few years hadcrut temps.

He had to fully understand the false picture he was creating, but chose deceit, because it suited his argument.

That is modus operandi the denialist darlings come up with time, and time again, yet cry foul when they have their credibility impuned.
Well if they behaved in a more ethical manner, then real scientists would be far more likely to respect them, even if they are making ridiculous, but honest mistakes, unfortunately Monckton cannot even make that small claim.

So while it is unfortunate, the Ad Hominem attacks, are validated because of the very unethical behaviour that is pointed out in these attacks on denialist spruikers who choose deception over science.

Ahhh  why would an "article" undergo per review?
It's not a scientific paper.

Oh and once more he is better credentialed than you and I'd trust his opinion over your Mozz.

But hey you and Bozo know best right? everyone else is just an idiot.

if you read the link you would know it was talking about that council of yours lying about  things that were peer review...  der...

Once a denialist always a denialist eh Mozz..  what's it like stomping around eyes closed fingers in ears shouting lalala at the top of your voice or praising the Emperor's New Clothes.

Well it is supremely instructive to see you worshipping at the altar of lord fruitloop, whose credentials are unquestioned, but what is most unfortunate is that his integrity does not share the same status.

He has not gained pariah status in the scientific community for posing different, or challenging views, but for debasing himself, and the whole scientific communities' integrity by positing absurd, and worse still, deliberately deceitful propaganda pieces for reasons only he, could possibly know, while the denialist puppets lap it all up, salivating like pavlovian dogs, eagerly waiting for the next regurgitated piece of rancid drivel.

Now as I said, in regard to Paltridges book,  I will wait to see what the real scientists make of it, before I make any judgement on it's merit, or lack of merit, whichever the case may be, while you lap it up as gospel, because some denialist bloggers decided to ring your bell.

Good boy Grendel, Sit, Roll Over, .......... and what comes next may be the price that too many ecosystems have to pay, as the cost of the hubris of the contrarian mindset.

you are an idiot...  I make a point and you run off at tangents name-calling and ridiculing.

Bozo would be soooo proud of you.

Fine...  be an alarmist fruitloop if that's what you want to be.  obviously you are way beyond rational discussion.

I have an open mind on the subject it's people like you and Bozo who so obviously don't.

Quote:

Oh and once more he is better credentialed than you and I'd trust his opinion over your Mozz.

_Grendel

Once more for the hard of hearing, or incredibly dense.
It is not MY opinion, it is the opinion of the overwhelming majority of climate scientists throughout the entire globe, I just happen to accept their arguments as reasoned, and reasonable.

As far as whose opinion you would trust goes, well we know very well you would agree with the local dog catcher, if he also was stupid enough to be sucked in by denialist misinformation.
The denialists don't care too much just what credentials their spokespeople have, retired weather broadcaster, oil company schill, potty peers, etc, they just need the ability to lie loudly, and longly, and know that  the dullards will lap up every deceitful word.

I am disappointed to have to say that I see you are an absolute sucker on this issue, a gullible dill who falls for the brain dead arguments of denialist scumbags.

You are also too gutless to respond to straight forward questions, which if they had been answered, would have at least allowed you to claim to be engaging the argument, but in unwavering Grendel style, you just avoid answering, evade the issue, and then abuse those who asked the question.

I just watched another denialist broadcast, where once more they put forward the ludicrous notion that all the scientists that agree with global warming do so to protect their jobs.

Now the absolute morons who spruik this denialist garbage, put forward the initial motivation for what they call the Global Warming Scam, as being that eminent scientists needed to create a world wide conspiracy to prevent them all suddenly being lined up at soup kitchens. I kid you not, that is the best motive these crackpots can invent, for what they still call a deliberate scam.

That fundamental question, which I asked you, and you refused to answer, because you know that there is no intelligent answer, so you evaded and abused instead, is something that every denialist needs to address.

Why would so many of the smartest, most committed, hard working people on the planet, need to lie about their work, or their findings?

Who amongst them initiated an intentional global scam?
Here we have an open invite to every conspirinut on the planet to join the denialist crackpots to push their personal paranoid delusions.

What was the goal of this scam?

If this claimed scam were to be successful, and global CO2 emmissions were reduced, then what terrible outcomes will we see for mankind from the devilish zionist plot?
What are the long term negative effects of reducing global CO2 emmissions?

Is there a single denialist that is not an absolute friggin arsehole?
(Honest skeptics not to be included in that derogatory generalisation)

If denialists have any faith at all in their arguments, then why do they insist on proliferating lies, and absolute misinformation, which they just repeat ad nauseum, pretending that it has not been utterly, and totally discredited.


You see the only valid arguments denialists have in their favour is that some journalists do not objectively report the issues, and facts, as presented by scientists, and they engage in alarmist language, and extremist hyperbole.

Well duhh, it is the media, that is what they do, and not on this issue alone, they do it on all issues, they talk stuff up,.
They are to objective information sharing, what real estate agents are to accurate property descriptions.

So go and shoot the messenger, but for goodness sake stop lying about the message.

Grendel wrote on Jul 28^th, 2009 at 12:49am:

Quote: It is virtually impossible to have a rational discussion based on facts with the global warmers before they plunge off into a tsunami of figures derived from their beloved computer models, any of which can produce wildly different outcomes with minor adjustments to any one of a number of variables. Now an Australian scientist with impeccable credentials has come forward to outline the problems with the case being stated by the politicians, who are in turn reliant on these model-addicted climate scientists. Dr Garth Paltridge was a chief research scientist at the CSIRO and is a Fellow of the Academy of Science. His specialties are atmospheric physics and climatology. In the 1970s he was involved in the establishment of the World Climate Program and was working with the US National Climate Office in 1989 when the IPCC came into being. For a decade, Dr Paltridge ran the Antarctic Co-operative Research Centre studying the role of Antarctica and the Southern Ocean on climate. He is also an Emeritus Professor at the University of Tasmania. He is eminently qualified, in other words, to offer a sound opinion on climate issues. While we can’t conclusively say whether man-made carbon dioxide emissions are contributing to climate change, Dr Paltridge has published his thoughts in a handy 111-page volume titled The Climate Caper (Connor Court Publishing). He approaches the issue with a clarity lost to many in the scientific community and his view is that the global warming lobby has vastly overstated the case for disastrous global warming. “Scientists,” he writes, “are told quite bluntly that is completely inappropriate for them to speak on matters of policy - unless of course they support it. Non-scientists are assumed to be technically ignorant and thereby incapable of speaking with authority on the issue.” Dr Paltridge said the IPCC has become a permanent feature with its own bureaucracy spawning a continuing series of reports which have not changed our basic knowledge (or ignorance) of the problem. He said one of the more frightening statements about global warming heard now is that “the scientists have spoken”, adding that “the implication of god-like infallibility is a little hard to take”. The science of disastrous global warming, he said, is far less settled than climate scientists would have us believe. Dr Paltridge said the experimental data simply did not exist to check the model calculations of an amplified temperature rise. The existing models were established before the political stakes soared and it is now almost impossible for dissenters to enter the field. His conclusion is that it has not been solidly established and it is certainly not accepted by the majority of scientists as proven fact, that global warming from increased atmospheric carbon dioxide will be large enough to be seriously noticeable - let alone large enough to be disastrous. Last week, Energy and Resources Minister Martin Ferguson savaged the environmental lobby for demonising nuclear, gas and coal-fired energy plants fully knowing that solar and wind energy are not viable on current technology. Yet the Rudd Government is hell-bent on pursuing its lunatic emissions trading system which will achieve nothing for the nation and is more likely to hasten the departure of energy-dependent industries to emerging nations like China and India. Those two nations, by the way, have both indicated they are not interested in following Western nations down a path of self-deprivation. Australia doesn’t need an ETS which will hasten a rise in unemployment and do absolutely nothing that will affect the climate of the planet. It does, however, need a free and thorough debate though before the Government kills what remains of the nation’s industry and imposes new taxes and charges to the population, beyond those foreshadowed by the Prime Minister in his weekend warning on tougher times looming. Dr Paltridge has spelt out a reasonable and rational opinion on global warming alarmists supported by his scientific knowledge. The least the Government can do is have Senator Wong respond with the same clarity before blindly proceeding with legislation that can only maim the nation’s future.

This article was written by Piers Akerman, the biggest climate change sceptic in Australian media,in fact most of Akermans writing  is a whine about Labor or a whine about climate change. ENOUGH SAID.

Hmmm, lets see is there any form of refutation here...
Nope.
Just name-calling and out of hand dismissal via shooting the messenger.
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Oh and Mozz do at least read what the man says b4 given yet another pointless diatribe.

Its ridiculous to even try and refute Akermans story, the bloke spends all his time trolling for what he calls "reputable scientists" who are  confusionalists while on the other side of the ledger we have thousands of scientists saying Akerman and all his cronies are wrong.

Most of the words in that article are Akermans, a climate confusionalist, how could anybody believe  what he said wasn't a continuation of his campaign to ridicule the climate change crisis.  

Skippy and Mozzaok - I am a staunch Greens' supporter as you both know, but even they are questioning this scheme.  As I have said a dozen times already - this is a scam to support the multinationals.


Quote:

The proposed doubling of handouts to the coal sector under the Continue Polluting Regardless Scheme will see householders and small businesses face higher costs and a worse climate crisis so that polluters can keep polluting, the Australian Greens said today. "Mr Rudd's climate plans are already a polluter's paradise, but this change would put the coal sector in seventh heaven," Australian Greens Deputy Leader, Senator Christine Milne, said. "Australians have clearly said they are happy to pay more if emissions will be reduced, but under Mr Rudd's Continue Polluting Regardless Scheme, householders and small business owners will be paying more so that the polluters can keep polluting. "Every dollar to polluters is a dollar less for the community. Christine Milne

The Federal Government will be raking in an extra $11 billion in taxes - I don't know about the States - and already there is a demand by the coal companies for $10 billion. For what?

The government itself doesn't even believe in what they're saying.

My argument isn't that Rudd is doing everything right mantra, I, like you, support the Greens and I'd prefer a totally different approach with more emphasis on CLEAN GREEN power.

My argument with this article from Akerman is that he continually posts stories that deny climate change is a problem, I believe it is a problem and we need to make changes.

The thing is whatever we do is going to cost lots of money, if the Greens were in power and implemented their plans it would still cost billions to change the way we do things.The good thing about that tho is at least we'd be using renewable power and not burning fossil fuel.

On the other hand if we do nothing at all most of us on these forums wont notice much difference to our lives before we die, I'm not so sure about our kids tho.

Yes we've got to do something, but not support a simplistic spiel which is going to cost Australians billions and will make absolutely no difference to our environment or reduce pollution.

If this money was going back into alternative energy industries - fine, most of us would be happy, but it's not. It's going back to the coal industry and they have no pollution regulations imposed on them at all.

We can't bring changes to our temperatures this way. What might help stabilise weather in some parts of the world, which governments won't even consider, is nuclear testing - underground or above ground. We do have proof that nuclear bombs affect the weather.

What we need is a real ETS where companies have to move to real GREEN power to get any money. Forget about this brown coal or clean coal stuff, thats a joke.

Quote:

If this money was going back into alternative energy industries - fine, most of us would be happy, but it's not. It's going back to the coal industry and they have no pollution regulations imposed on them at all.

Thats why we need the GREENS to hold lots of power in the Senate, its the only way we will move to cleaner power.

Yes we do need a lot more Greens in the Senate. They are opposed to this bill, and the Liberals are also opposed for different reasons, but they are going to go along with it to avoid a double dissolution to save their own necks.

I'm happy to not be completely close-minded like you and Mozz on this Skippy.

Mantra is right the ETS is a joke.

If there's a problem there's a problem you don't tax a company who then passes it onto us as added costs to continue being a problem.  You'd have to think maybe it's not really such a big problem and it's just a cash grab.  Also a foot in for more global governance legislation.

Quote:

I'm happy to not be completely close-minded like you and Mozz on this Skippy

Nice flame, but how so?
Because I rely on the mainstream majority of scientists for my information?


Quote:

Mantra is right the ETS is a joke.

Did mantra say that? I thought it was someone else. :D

No flame... fact..  

You just dismissed the last lot out of hand because you don't like the journalist.  You and Mozz do that a lot.

That is how so.

You obviously don't read everything mantra says.

Quote:

You just dismissed the last lot out of hand because you don't like the journalist.  You and Mozz do that a lot

The journalist wrote the story, the journalist is a climate confusionalist,the journalist will put any spin he can on a story to push his POV ::) ::).


Quote:

You obviously don't read everything mantra says.

LIAR, she didn't say it.

I suggest you don't lie  Skip.

The proof is there for people to see you dismissed OUT OF HAND what was said because of who the journalist was.


Quote:

Its ridiculous to even try and refute Akermans story, the bloke spends all his time trolling for what he calls "reputable scientists" who are  confusionalists while on the other side of the ledger we have thousands of scientists saying Akerman and all his cronies are wrong. Most of the words in that article are Akermans, a climate confusionalist, how could anybody believe  what he said wasn't a continuation of his campaign to ridicule the climate change crisis.

just one of many.  :D

As for mantra.
I suggest you read her comments on another related topic.  ;D ;D ;D
I told you I read all her comments.


Quote:

Yes we've got to do something, but not support a simplistic spiel which is going to cost Australians billions and will make absolutely no difference to our environment or reduce pollution.

 From this topic.

Quote:

The Federal Government will be raking in an extra $11 billion in taxes - I don't know about the States - and already there is a demand by the coal companies for $10 billion. For what? The government itself doesn't even believe in what they're saying.

from this topic

Quote:

Maybe those who aren't advocating one scenario or the other are those who are prepared to change their views when there is proof that taxing us through the roof will alter the climate. The wealthy will still keep using as much energy as they need for their comfort, but there will be many more people suffer as a result of this. In NSW alone there are about 180,000 people who can't afford electricity - which is disgraceful. In NSW coal fired power stations aren't regulated for emissions, and we know that above a certain level, CO2 causes heavy pollution - yet we are being forced to pay 20% more for our energy - for what - so the power stations can chug along unrestricted with unsafe levels of emissions and continue to increase their profits. How will this alter the climate for the better? You have even said yourself Muso this new goal to change the climate has nothing to do with the environment which means we are being misled.

from another topic.

Oh and theres a comment on the UN as well but I'm not looking for that one for you...  you can do that yourself.

As for your comment...  I've already pointed out to you b4 we don't always disagree, but hey...   you are incapable of mutual courtesy.

I'm sure if we go through all of mantra's posts we'll find one where she says" its a joke" but we'll never find one where you admit you're wrong.

So now I'm supposed to speak like mantra am I?

ROTFLMAO

The only thing we'll never see if you losing your hateful negative obsession with me apparently.  You are pathetic.  BTW that's a fact too.

You're sooooooooo funny trying to pull rabbits out of hats boof, the truth is the reason I said mantra never said it and someone else did is because it's true.


Quote:

What we need is a real ETS where companies have to move to real GREEN power to get any money. Forget about this brown coal or clean coal stuff, thats a joke.

I SAID IT.

Oh dear...

do you have copyright on that phrase Skipeee..
I think you will find I said it too.
I think you will find I was merely commenting on what mantra was saying and using my own turn of phrase.
I think you will find I didn't quote mantra verbatim or claim she used the term, "its a joke".

Stop wasting everyones time.   :D :D :D

Oh and as for your quote...  guess what?  I agree with you too...  it's a joke.   :D

Do you think perhaps I don't read everything you say because most of it is bile and crap and I'm sick of it?  hmmmm?

Back on topic-


Quote:

Climate change and jobs top priorities: RuddPhillip Coorey July 30, 2009 - 11:08AM Kevin Rudd has launched Labor’s national conference with a pledge to create 50,000 green jobs or training opportunities, at a cost of $100 million. In a speech that focused heavily on employment and nation building, the Prime Minister said 30,000 apprenticeships would have an environmental component made part of their training from January 1. He took a swipe at climate change scpetics and others who claim an emissions trading scheme would be a job destroyer. ‘‘The climate change sceptics constantly scaremonger about the possible loss of jobs through the transition to a lower carbon economy," he said. ‘‘But they constantly fail to talk about the new clean energy jobs of the future, which will arise from the introduction of the carbon pollution reduction scheme, the renewable energy target and energy efficiency measures in the future.’’ The plan also includes a 10,000-member national Green Jobs Corps, whereby long-term young jobless will take part in six months of training and work experience. There will be an additional 4000 training places for insulation installers and 6000 jobs from environmental sustainability programs in priority local economies. Mr Rudd told delegates his Government planned to continue the Labor tradition of nation-building. ‘‘This is the tradition of which we are so proud. And this is the tradition which now shapes the future we would craft for Australia,’’ he said. The Prime Minister received a standing ovation when he entered the Darling Harbour convention centre but there was no music or other fanfare. The conference is being kept deliberately low-key in deference to the economic downturn.

Rudd is right about the jobs, although jobs will be lost to the old industries many new jobs will be created with Green industries.

skippy - to a large degree, these are govt. invented jobs.

eg, the insulation installers jobs are due to the govt giving away free insulation to everyone.
the govt is using our taxes to create false jobs.

there are no exports created

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 30^th, 2009 at 1:30pm:

skippy - to a large degree, these are govt. invented jobs. eg, the insulation installers jobs are due to the govt giving away free insulation to everyone. the govt is using our taxes to create false jobs. there are no exports created

Insulation is a great idea sprint, every building should have it.
The gov are just giving that industry a push because in the long term its a quick cheap way of reducing household energy use.

As for exports, if the gov get in there and really embrace a clean GREEN power market we could become world leaders in GREEN technology.

wrote on Jul 30^th, 2009 at 1:56pm:

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 30th, 2009 at 1:30pm: skippy - to a large degree, these are govt. invented jobs. eg, the insulation installers jobs are due to the govt giving away free insulation to everyone. the govt is using our taxes to create false jobs. there are no exports created Insulation is a great idea sprint, every building should have it. The gov are just giving that industry a push because in the long term its a quick cheap way of reducing household energy use. As for exports, if the gov get in there and really embrace a clean GREEN power market we could become world leaders in GREEN technology.

Skippy - Sprintcyclist is right. Do you know there are hundreds of containers containing pink batts down at the docks right now - all from China. We can't fill the demand here. I knew this was going to happen. We are a receptacle for China's junk - insulation is being dumped here and the Government is propping up imports - not building our economy with exports. I wouldn't trust China's insulation batts. Too much of what they export to us is toxic, but Rudd is helping their economy - not ours.

No ,I didn't know there were hundreds of containers on the docks full of batts, who ordered them? I would have thought companies would place orders for stock when they needed it. As for China making the batts, they make everything nowadays, thats been a fact of life for a while now.
As for exports, we stopped doing a lot of stuff here a long time ago, for the most part our exports now are what we dig up.
Australia can't compete with countries like China for manufacturing basic goods, those days are long gone.

skippy - yes insulation is a great idea.
I have insulated a few houses myself, the difference is very good indeed.

In the process of getting my house insulated now, for free.
because i have already paid for it from my taxes.

I have no idea where the current insuation come from.
Given its mass, I'ld imagine locally

Climate Depot Editorial: We would all be doomed if we actually faced climate 'crisis' - Cap-and-trade equals all economic pain for no climate gain  

Science continues to turn against man-made warming fear promoters

Wednesday, May 06, 2009By Marc Morano  –  Climate Depot
The new analysis of Congressional cap-and-trade bill showing the temperature impact to be 'scientifically meaningless' is consistent with many previous studies showing that proposed "solutions" to man-made global warming are nothing more than all economic pain for no climate gain. (See: Analysis: Climate Bill is 'Scientifically Meaningless' – Temp Reduction By 2050 of Only 9/100 of one Degree F )

If we did face a man-made climate catastrophe and the United Nations proposals and Congressional cap-and-trade were our only hope -- we would all be doomed!

Many attempt to tout Congressional or UN carbon trading bills as an "insurance" policy against global warming in case the skeptics are wrong about the science. But a simple question to ask is: Would you purchase fire insurance on your home that had a huge up front premium for virtually no payout if you home burned down? If you answered YES to such an “insurance” policy, then Congress has a deal for you with their cap-and-trade legislation.

This new temperature analysis of Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade climate bill, comes at a time when key House Democrats are now realizing the cost (and futility) of attempting to control the Earth's thermostat. In addition, even the two strongest proponents of man-made global warming fears – NASA's James Hansen and UK's James Lovelock -- are now ridiculing the Congressional cap-and-trade approach as “ineffectual” and “verging on a gigantic scam.” Remember, these are the words of scientists who believe in a looming human caused climate “crisis.”

Current polling data reveals that the American people “get it” when it comes to man-made global warming fears. Given the wealth of recent polling data showing Americans are growing increasingly skeptical, it is hard to believe any Congressmen or Senators are hearing any clamour from voters to "act" to "solve" global warming. In fact, the opposite is true, voters are rebelling against the unfounded climate fears and the so-called "solutions" in growing numbers. (See: Gallup survey found global warming ranked dead last in the U.S. among ENVIRONMENTAL issues & Gallup Poll Editor: Gore has 'Failed' -- 'The public is just not that concerned' about global warming & Zobgy Poll: Only 30% of Americans support cap-and-trade -- 57% oppose & "Gallup Poll: Record-High 41% of Americans Now Say Global Warming is Exaggerated" - March 11, 2009
& Rasmussen Poll found Only 34% Now Blame Humans for Global Warming - 'Lowest finding yet' -- 'reversal from a year ago!' )

'Most significant revenue generating proposal of our time'

Despite the American people's rejection of warming fears and climate taxes, Congress may persist in pushing them for other non-scientific reasons. Hint, hint. See: Dem. Senator calls cap-and-trade 'the most significant revenue-generating proposal of our time'

Americans are becoming aware that the debate is not "over" as more than 700 prominent international scientists publicly dissenting, including many who are reversing their views on climate fears and declaring themselves skeptical. Americans are becoming aware that there has been no significant global warming since 1995, no warming since 1998 and global cooling for the past few years.

Skeptical scientists generally rally around several key points.
1) The Earth is currently well within natural climate variability.
2) Almost all climate fear is generated by unproven computer model predictions.
3) An abundance of peer-reviewed studies continue to debunk rising CO2 fears and,
4) "Consensus" has been manufactured for political, not scientific purposes.

In addition, there has been “no evidence for accelerated sea-level” according to the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute. and failure of the oceans to warm, and Antarctic ice continues to grow. Even the poster child of the warming fear campaign, the Arctic is not cooperating . (See: April 'Arctic sea ice extent within expected range of natural variability' -- ice grew by 'more than the size of Texas over last two years' & UK Met Office: Arctic Ice Changes 'Could Easily be Due to Natural Fluctuations in the Weather' & 'These are good times to be a climate skeptic' - 'Global sea ice extent presently above long-term average' )

Enough is enough with these idiotic right wing denialist think tank editorials grendel.
This board is supposed to be on environmentalism, and your nutty obsession belongs more rightfully in Fringe, in fact it would be a good place for it, with Tallo moderating.
Sort of a good example of the lunatic looking after the asylum.

So as denialism has really nothing to do with environmentalism, and is just a tool used to confuse decent people who are actually after honest answers, I intend to make a new thread here for your denialist propaganda, into which all your cut and paste idiocy can be contained.

When Muso comes back you can see if he wants to change that, but while he is away, we do not have anyone who can reliably keep up with pointing out the loony lies of the denialists, with scientific answers, and I do not want to waste my time addressing loony conspirinut garbage all the time.

It's no more idiotic and denialist than the stuff you post...  only I'm usually too courteous to ridicule and name-call baselessly or religiously like you lot.

So how about you point out the lies eh?

Oh not able to huh?

That's right because the information on the American legislation etc is actually pretty right.

After all this is about Emissions Bills...

Turnbull has come up with a revised ETS to extend the number of free permits and boost compensation to the coal industry.

The Greens aren't supporting either scheme, nor are the Nationals who have threatened to break away from the Libs if they go ahead and allow this scheme to be passed.

Turnbull will give in only if a double dissolution is threatened - so if Rudd gives into the Libs first - it will just confirm what we already know and that this bill is all about giving into the demands of the multinationals. It will also prove that the major parties are working in cahoots with each other.

Well if we believe Kevin he's not going to call an election on this.
Ok...  
That leaves us with Kevin and Malcolm  coming to some cobbled together compromise.
Neither the Nats or the Greens will accept this either.

BTW, both the ALP/LIB solutions  :D do not solve the problem. It taxes us and harms our lifestyle we'll all be looking to find ways to pay the increased bills and more expensive food and petrol etc.

What will happen to people finding it hard now who knows?

There are only a few solutions, real solutions to this.
1/  Plant more trees. Trees as with all plant life use "natural" CO2 like we do Oxygen...  they need it to live. They take carbon out of the atmosphere.  Hence CO2 levels would diminish naturally.  We need better urban planning and more GREEN SPACES.  We need corridors of GREEN linking communities and spreading out throughout the state etc. This requires a big rethink, but not one that is onerous to the average person.
2/  We need Government and Business to get on board the renewable resources and alternative energy technology bandwagon.  There are technologies available and some just around the corner which just need a little time and more investment.    

These are real solutions. Not some politically motivated rubbish that doesn't solve the "problem".  I can think of lots of reasons to lower CO2 emissions and none are based on the farcical unproven alarmist CO2 scare-campaign.

Grendel wrote on Aug 16^th, 2009 at 10:53am:

Well if we believe Kevin he's not going to call an election on this. Ok...   That leaves us with Kevin and Malcolm  coming to some cobbled together compromise. Neither the Nats or the Greens will accept this either. BTW, both the ALP/LIB solutions  :D do not solve the problem. It taxes us and harms our lifestyle we'll all be looking to find ways to pay the increased bills and more expensive food and petrol etc. What will happen to people finding it hard now who knows? There are only a few solutions, real solutions to this. 1/  Plant more trees. Trees as with all plant life use "natural" CO2 like we do Oxygen...  they need it to live. They take carbon out of the atmosphere.  Hence CO2 levels would diminish naturally.  We need better urban planning and more GREEN SPACES.  We need corridors of GREEN linking communities and spreading out throughout the state etc. This requires a big rethink, but not one that is onerous to the average person. 2/  We need Government and Business to get on board the renewable resources and alternative energy technology bandwagon.  There are technologies available and some just around the corner which just need a little time and more investment.     These are real solutions. Not some politically motivated rubbish that doesn't solve the "problem".  I can think of lots of reasons to lower CO2 emissions and none are based on the farcical unproven alarmist CO2 scare-campaign.

Those points you raised were spot on Grendel. I don't know why people can't see the logic behind this. Just an example - the NSW state government is cutting down all the trees at Homebush Bay to build a car racing facility - yet at the same time has added "green" taxes to our water and electricity.

More and more bushland is eradicated to make room for mining and development and more people. Obviously CO2 levels will increase with this destruction - so we have to pay more for the concrete jungle we're forced to live in.

Maybe our governments should start talking about population control as well. That would make more sense.

Quote:

THE great myth pushed by those that want to close our cheap and reliable coal-fired power stations - the ones that give us power even when the wind isn't blowing - is that it would be all-but costless........ .......In March, another one of the myriad entities feeding off the anti-carbon money teat, ClimateWorks, purported to show we could cut emissions by 25 per cent by 2020; and it would cost us just $1.8 billion a year or a mere 0.1 per cent of 2020 GDP. Nowhere did ClimateWorks ask or far less answer the question of why. What would spending even the modest sum of $1.8 million achieve? As Australia cutting its emissions even by 25 per cent would make four-fifths of five-eighths of very little difference to any global or even local climate outcome. If the planet was going to fry without our cuts, it would still fry with them. And ditto for the Barrier Reef........... ...........ClimateWorks simply ignores the economic impact of the dramatic increase in electricity and gas prices, according to ITS. "Treasury modelling" - yes, I know - indicated, according to ITS, that an emissions cut of just 5 per cent would increase electricity prices by 86 per cent; and ClimateWorks was talking about cuts of five times that. Costlessly. But if you simply ignore the cost, as ClimateWorks did, it presumably 'won't happen'. We get 90 per cent of our electricity from coal-fired power because it, well, works. Wind and solar don't and never will - other than to waste our money and enrich alternative energy main-chancers. Spain which has gone further and deeper into 'alternative energy' than any other country, is learning this brutal reality; it could become the first country to go back to a realistic energy future. Former Telstra chief and born-again rocket scientist Ziggy Switkowski wants us to go nuclear. That's the least worst option to the sensible one - sticking with coal. Nuclear is the only 'alternative' option that would give us reliable power. But what's the point? Spending $200 billion or more to build nuclear power stations simply to close down perfectly good coal ones?

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/business/terry-mccranns-column/for-a-few-bucks-save-the-earth/story-e6frfig6-1225889195187

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 8^th, 2010 at 10:42am:

As Australia cutting its emissions even by 25 per cent would make four-fifths of five-eighths of very little difference to any global or even local climate outcome. If the planet was going to fry without our cuts, it would still fry with them. And ditto for the Barrier Reef...........

I just live this logic. It's like saying "Even if Frank Lowy paid tax 100% tax on on 100% of his income, it would only increase Commonwealth revenue by 0.01%. Therefore, why bother taxing him? Let everyone else pay tax."


Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 8^th, 2010 at 10:42am:

...........ClimateWorks simply ignores the economic impact of the dramatic increase in electricity and gas prices, according to ITS.

That's probably true, but Terry McCrann simply ignores the cost of continuing to burn coal at the rate of 1 tonne per megawatthour: we'll all die.

And here's a newsflash for you Terry: as long as the sun is shining, the wind is blowing somewhere. Yes, we do have more than one turbine, you twat.