https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/andrew-bolt/andrew-bolt-dont-expect-qa-panel-to-get-answers-on-dud-tim-flannery-predictions/news-story/3c7de213e4c74bb616c784ea2362814f

Here is an opportunity to lay boot into a guy behind a lot of public waste yet the ABC won't have 1 sceptic to grill this guy.

This is a sample of his work:

FLANNERY in 2007 said global warming was so baking our Earth that “even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and our river systems”.

Instead, dams for Brisbane, Canberra and Sydney later filled to overflowing.

FLANNERY in 2015 said we’d see severe cyclones “more frequently in the future”. But the very next year, Australia for the first time recorded not one severe cyclone, continuing a pattern over four decades of fewer cyclones.

A paper in the Nature journal said: “Studies project a decrease in the frequency of tropical cyclones towards the end of the 21st century in the southwest Pacific, southern Indian, and Australian regions.”

FLANNERY in 2005 predicted Sydney’s dams could be dry in as little as two years, leaving the city “facing extreme difficulties”. In 2008, he said: “Adelaide … may run out of water by early 2009.” In 2007, he claimed: “In Adelaide, Sydney and Brisbane, water supplies are so low they need desalinated water urgently, possibly in as little as 18 months.”

All three cities — and Melbourne, too — then built hugely expensive

desalination plants, convinced by the likes of Flannery that the rain would not return. All four plants have essentially been mothballed since.

FLANNERY in 2007 urged us to invest in “green” geothermal power — pumping water on to hot rocks underground.

He claimed hot rocks in South Australia “potentially have enough embedded energy in them to run Australia’s economy for the best part of a century”, and “the technology to extract that energy … is relatively straightforward”.

The Rudd government gave $90 million for a test plant in SA’s Cooper Basin, but a well collapsed, the site flooded and the project was abandoned.

I could add more dud predictions, but these are the most important and costly.

AGW one of the greatest hoaxes the oligarchy has ever bestowed upon people to get trillions of dollars up and running on wall street.

The bottom line is they want every man woman and child to pay for the air that they breathe.

Financial slavery under the guise of saving the environment, what other cause can gather so many willing foot soldiers.

Gillard is a traitor to this nation, she should be jailed for life.


Quote:

What a curious way for Julia Gillard to sell a tax - even to businessmen - which we were originally told was needed simply to save the world from disastrous overheating:   "International carbon markets will cover billions of consumers this decade. Ask the bankers at your table whether they want Australia to clip that ticket. We’re going to help them get their share."  Julia Gillard Hmm. That explains why so many bankers are global warming preachers, too. Think of those billions! Those tickets to clip! That share of the dosh! UPDATE Labor winds down yet another of its green schemes that have cost so much to do no good at all: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/is-the-carbon-tax-great-just-ask-the-banker-at-your-table/news-story/64a482a83b718d0b02105d75729c3971

Ajax wrote on Mar 12^th, 2018 at 9:32am:

AGW one of the greatest hoaxes the oligarchy has ever bestowed upon people to get trillions of dollars up and running on wall street. The bottom line is they want every man woman and child to pay for the air that they breathe. Financial slavery under the guise of saving the environment, what other cause can gather so many willing foot soldiers. Gillard is a traitor to this nation, she should be jailed for life. Quote: What a curious way for Julia Gillard to sell a tax - even to businessmen - which we were originally told was needed simply to save the world from disastrous overheating:   "International carbon markets will cover billions of consumers this decade. Ask the bankers at your table whether they want Australia to clip that ticket. We’re going to help them get their share."  Julia Gillard Hmm. That explains why so many bankers are global warming preachers, too. Think of those billions! Those tickets to clip! That share of the dosh! UPDATE Labor winds down yet another of its green schemes that have cost so much to do no good at all: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/is-the-carbon-tax-great-just-ask-the-banker-at-your-table/news-story/64a482a83b718d0b02105d75729c3971

I am a fence sitter on this, show me the evidence and real usefulness of the science then I might believe it. Flannery by his own incompetence has done far more damage to the religion of global warming then any sceptic has done :-)

He is the modern day snake oil salesman and a very unconvincing one at that.

RightSaidFred wrote on Mar 12^th, 2018 at 9:38am:

Ajax wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 9:32am: AGW one of the greatest hoaxes the oligarchy has ever bestowed upon people to get trillions of dollars up and running on wall street. The bottom line is they want every man woman and child to pay for the air that they breathe. Financial slavery under the guise of saving the environment, what other cause can gather so many willing foot soldiers. Gillard is a traitor to this nation, she should be jailed for life. Quote: What a curious way for Julia Gillard to sell a tax - even to businessmen - which we were originally told was needed simply to save the world from disastrous overheating:   "International carbon markets will cover billions of consumers this decade. Ask the bankers at your table whether they want Australia to clip that ticket. We’re going to help them get their share."  Julia Gillard Hmm. That explains why so many bankers are global warming preachers, too. Think of those billions! Those tickets to clip! That share of the dosh! UPDATE Labor winds down yet another of its green schemes that have cost so much to do no good at all: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/is-the-carbon-tax-great-just-ask-the-banker-at-your-table/news-story/64a482a83b718d0b02105d75729c3971 I am a fence sitter on this, show me the evidence and real usefulness of the science then I might believe it. Flannery by his own incompetence has done far more damage to the religion of global warming then any sceptic has done :-) He is the modern day snake oil salesman and a very unconvincing one at that.

................... 8-)

Ajax wrote on Mar 12^th, 2018 at 9:32am:

AGW one of the greatest hoaxes the oligarchy has ever bestowed upon people to get trillions of dollars up and running on wall street. The bottom line is they want every man woman and child to pay for the air that they breathe. Financial slavery under the guise of saving the environment, what other cause can gather so many willing foot soldiers. Gillard is a traitor to this nation, she should be jailed for life. Quote: What a curious way for Julia Gillard to sell a tax - even to businessmen - which we were originally told was needed simply to save the world from disastrous overheating:   "International carbon markets will cover billions of consumers this decade. Ask the bankers at your table whether they want Australia to clip that ticket. We’re going to help them get their share."  Julia Gillard Hmm. That explains why so many bankers are global warming preachers, too. Think of those billions! Those tickets to clip! That share of the dosh! UPDATE Labor winds down yet another of its green schemes that have cost so much to do no good at all: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/is-the-carbon-tax-great-just-ask-the-banker-at-your-table/news-story/64a482a83b718d0b02105d75729c3971

Should've just been honest and forthright and magnanimous and said:-  "We're not copping enough revenue out of our current business model* for exporting resources such as coal, so we're going to apply a small tariff...we now realise, as Grappler has been saying for years, that our business model is flawed and fatally so, and we need to address this inequity of funding massive profits for offshore corporations at the expense of the Australian taxpayer....."


*flogging off the nation to offshore enterprises (inc), who not only return little to zero tax to this nation as a result, but also ask for subsidies (loans by another name) and direct loans, thus leaving them only liable for royalties that go to the states ..

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Mar 12^th, 2018 at 9:51am:

Ajax wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 9:32am: AGW one of the greatest hoaxes the oligarchy has ever bestowed upon people to get trillions of dollars up and running on wall street. The bottom line is they want every man woman and child to pay for the air that they breathe. Financial slavery under the guise of saving the environment, what other cause can gather so many willing foot soldiers. Gillard is a traitor to this nation, she should be jailed for life. Quote: What a curious way for Julia Gillard to sell a tax - even to businessmen - which we were originally told was needed simply to save the world from disastrous overheating:   "International carbon markets will cover billions of consumers this decade. Ask the bankers at your table whether they want Australia to clip that ticket. We’re going to help them get their share."  Julia Gillard Hmm. That explains why so many bankers are global warming preachers, too. Think of those billions! Those tickets to clip! That share of the dosh! UPDATE Labor winds down yet another of its green schemes that have cost so much to do no good at all: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/is-the-carbon-tax-great-just-ask-the-banker-at-your-table/news-story/64a482a83b718d0b02105d75729c3971 Should've just been honest and forthright and magnanimous and said:-  "We're not copping enough revenue out of our current business model* for exporting resources such as coal, so we're going to apply a small tariff...we now realise, as Grappler has been saying for years, that our business model is flawed and fatally so, and we need to address this inequity of funding massive profits for offshore corporations at the expense of the Australian taxpayer....." *flogging off the nation to offshore enterprises (inc), who not only return little to zero tax to this nation as a result, but also ask for subsidies (loans by another name) and direct loans, thus leaving them only liable for royalties that go to the states ..

.................. 8-)

One reason the dams dont stay full is not the lack of rain butthe lack of groundwater (thanks coke cola)

Spot

There is a consensus among economists that putting a price on GHG emissions is the cheapest way to reduce them.

freediver wrote on Mar 12^th, 2018 at 10:20am:

There is a consensus among economists that putting a price on GHG emissions is the cheapest way to reduce them.

When people like Flannery and yourself are involved in that consensus it disappears in a puff of lack of credibility.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 12^th, 2018 at 10:17am:

One reason the dams dont stay full is not the lack of rain butthe lack of groundwater (thanks coke cola) Spot

But they are full.
What annoys me is most muppets think climates follow yearly seasonal patterns.

freediver wrote on Mar 12^th, 2018 at 10:20am:

There is a consensus among economists that putting a price on GHG emissions is the cheapest way to reduce them.

There's also a consensus that says there is a correlation between the amount of atmospheric CO2 and the global mean average temperature.

The only problem is the evidence comes from a computer model and you know what they say about computers right...!!!

We could clean our energy supply without spending billions or trillions on wall street.

1. Bag Filters
2. Electrostatic precipitators
3. Scrubbing
4. Gas instead of coal fired

We could clean up the soot the Nox the Sox that comes from combustion.

CO2 can be emitted into the atmosphere I don't see any problems with that.

RightSaidFred wrote on Mar 12^th, 2018 at 9:02am:

Here is an opportunity to lay boot into a guy behind a lot of public waste yet the ABC won't have 1 sceptic to grill this guy.

There is no doubt that Tim Flannery said some things that he probably regrets now. His back ground is in mammalogy (the evolution of mammals) but he has studied the literature on climate science and does have a good grasp of the concepts.

He's probably quite bemused that off-the-cuff comments he made 13 years ago are still being used by conservative commentators to try and discredit him.

Andrew Bolt however has no background in science and the nonsense that he publishes can be easily dismissed. More importantly, trying to discredit Tim Flannery has no effect on the reality of human induced global warming.

I think a good ole Flannery bash is relevant. Timbo is the Australian epitome of climate hysteria. If his arguments at the time were a bit more measured, he wouldn't be getting haunted by them.

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 12^th, 2018 at 12:49pm:

I think a good ole Flannery bash is relevant.

You don't remember Miranda Divine or Andrew Bolt's last one?

You must have a very short memory, Homo. They only rewrite this column at least once a month. Any time Flannery gives a talk or writes a book or goes on the tele, there's this story.

It's a board favourite. There's always a thread on it. Oh - and if Leonardo DiCaprio comes to town, expect the column on how many carbon miles he's clocking up.

So hypocritical of him to use cars and planes, you see.

Al Gore? He once attended a dinner where they served an endangered fish. He has the nerve to catch planes too. Sometimes, he even has things printed on paper - made from trees of all things.

How can we believe a thing these people say?

The_Barnacle wrote on Mar 12^th, 2018 at 12:43pm:

RightSaidFred wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 9:02am: Here is an opportunity to lay boot into a guy behind a lot of public waste yet the ABC won't have 1 sceptic to grill this guy. There is no doubt that Tim Flannery said some things that he probably regrets now. His back ground is in mammalogy (the evolution of mammals) but he has studied the literature on climate science and does have a good grasp of the concepts. He's probably quite bemused that off-the-cuff comments he made 13 years ago are still being used by conservative commentators to try and discredit him. Andrew Bolt however has no background in science and the nonsense that he publishes can be easily dismissed. More importantly, trying to discredit Tim Flannery has no effect on the reality of human induced global warming.

Bolt is just a journalist Flannery is just a money seeking grub.

Mattyfisk wrote on Mar 12^th, 2018 at 1:00pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 12:49pm: I think a good ole Flannery bash is relevant. You don't remember Miranda Divine or Andrew Bolt's last one? You must have a very short memory, Homo. They only rewrite this column at least once a month. Any time Flannery gives a talk or writes a book or goes on the tele, there's this story. It's a board favourite. There's always a thread on it. Oh - and if Leonardo DiCaprio comes to town, expect the column on how many carbon miles he's clocking up. So hypocritical of him to use cars and planes, you see. Al Gore? He once attended a dinner where they served an endangered fish. He has the nerve to catch planes too. Sometimes, he even has things printed on paper - made from trees of all things. How can we believe a thing these people say?

Ever checked his electrical bill...?

Could run Melbourne for a year.

RightSaidFred wrote on Mar 12^th, 2018 at 1:07pm:

The_Barnacle wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 12:43pm: RightSaidFred wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 9:02am: Here is an opportunity to lay boot into a guy behind a lot of public waste yet the ABC won't have 1 sceptic to grill this guy. There is no doubt that Tim Flannery said some things that he probably regrets now. His back ground is in mammalogy (the evolution of mammals) but he has studied the literature on climate science and does have a good grasp of the concepts. He's probably quite bemused that off-the-cuff comments he made 13 years ago are still being used by conservative commentators to try and discredit him. Andrew Bolt however has no background in science and the nonsense that he publishes can be easily dismissed. More importantly, trying to discredit Tim Flannery has no effect on the reality of human induced global warming. Bolt is just a journalist Flannery is just a money seeking grub.

A professor money-seeking grub.

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 12^th, 2018 at 12:49pm:

I think a good ole Flannery bash is relevant. Timbo is the Australian epitome of climate hysteria. If his arguments at the time were a bit more measured, he wouldn't be getting haunted by them.

Absolutely, even the smarter disciples of the climate change cult even distance themselves from this lunatic :-)

RightSaidFred wrote on Mar 12^th, 2018 at 1:11pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 12:49pm: I think a good ole Flannery bash is relevant. Timbo is the Australian epitome of climate hysteria. If his arguments at the time were a bit more measured, he wouldn't be getting haunted by them. Absolutely, even the smarter disciples of the climate change cult even distance themselves from this lunatic :-)

The guy thought he was god and could predict our future weather. What a tosser.

Ajax wrote on Mar 12^th, 2018 at 1:09pm:

Mattyfisk wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 1:00pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 12:49pm: I think a good ole Flannery bash is relevant. You don't remember Miranda Divine or Andrew Bolt's last one? You must have a very short memory, Homo. They only rewrite this column at least once a month. Any time Flannery gives a talk or writes a book or goes on the tele, there's this story. It's a board favourite. There's always a thread on it. Oh - and if Leonardo DiCaprio comes to town, expect the column on how many carbon miles he's clocking up. So hypocritical of him to use cars and planes, you see. Al Gore? He once attended a dinner where they served an endangered fish. He has the nerve to catch planes too. Sometimes, he even has things printed on paper - made from trees of all things. How can we believe a thing these people say? Ever checked his electrical bill...? Could run Melbourne for a year.

Reminds me of Al Gore he owns 7 mansions all with fire places as well as his private jet he flies around the world preaching his BS.

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 12^th, 2018 at 1:13pm:

RightSaidFred wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 1:11pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 12:49pm: I think a good ole Flannery bash is relevant. Timbo is the Australian epitome of climate hysteria. If his arguments at the time were a bit more measured, he wouldn't be getting haunted by them. Absolutely, even the smarter disciples of the climate change cult even distance themselves from this lunatic :-) The guy thought he was god and could predict our future weather. What a tosser.

That is the rub, science goes through phases, discovery and/or hypothesis .... theory .... then experimentation .... then trials  .... then full use. As far as I can tell they are still trying to iron out the theory.

Einstein was an absolute genius his theory of relativity was only proven long after he was dead he was a real scientist ...... Flannery is just a grub !

RightSaidFred wrote on Mar 12^th, 2018 at 1:14pm:

Ajax wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 1:09pm: Mattyfisk wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 1:00pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 12:49pm: I think a good ole Flannery bash is relevant. You don't remember Miranda Divine or Andrew Bolt's last one? You must have a very short memory, Homo. They only rewrite this column at least once a month. Any time Flannery gives a talk or writes a book or goes on the tele, there's this story. It's a board favourite. There's always a thread on it. Oh - and if Leonardo DiCaprio comes to town, expect the column on how many carbon miles he's clocking up. So hypocritical of him to use cars and planes, you see. Al Gore? He once attended a dinner where they served an endangered fish. He has the nerve to catch planes too. Sometimes, he even has things printed on paper - made from trees of all things. How can we believe a thing these people say? Ever checked his electrical bill...? Could run Melbourne for a year. Reminds me of Al Gore he owns 7 mansions all with fire places as well as his private jet he flies around the world preaching his BS.

Don't forget all those condominiums he bought up at half price on the San Francisco peninsula after the owners saw an inconvenient truth........the fools...... ::)

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 12^th, 2018 at 1:13pm:

RightSaidFred wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 1:11pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 12:49pm: I think a good ole Flannery bash is relevant. Timbo is the Australian epitome of climate hysteria. If his arguments at the time were a bit more measured, he wouldn't be getting haunted by them. Absolutely, even the smarter disciples of the climate change cult even distance themselves from this lunatic :-) The guy thought he was god and could predict our future weather. What a tosser.

Scientists. What a nerve.

Ajax wrote on Mar 12^th, 2018 at 1:25pm:

RightSaidFred wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 1:14pm: Ajax wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 1:09pm: Mattyfisk wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 1:00pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 12:49pm: I think a good ole Flannery bash is relevant. You don't remember Miranda Divine or Andrew Bolt's last one? You must have a very short memory, Homo. They only rewrite this column at least once a month. Any time Flannery gives a talk or writes a book or goes on the tele, there's this story. It's a board favourite. There's always a thread on it. Oh - and if Leonardo DiCaprio comes to town, expect the column on how many carbon miles he's clocking up. So hypocritical of him to use cars and planes, you see. Al Gore? He once attended a dinner where they served an endangered fish. He has the nerve to catch planes too. Sometimes, he even has things printed on paper - made from trees of all things. How can we believe a thing these people say? Ever checked his electrical bill...? Could run Melbourne for a year. Reminds me of Al Gore he owns 7 mansions all with fire places as well as his private jet he flies around the world preaching his BS. Don't forget all those condominiums he bought up at half price on the San Francisco peninsula after the owners saw an inconvenient truth........the fools...... ::)

You see? You could write Andrew Bolt's column yourself, Ajax.

Get Homo to help you.

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 12^th, 2018 at 1:13pm:

The guy thought he was god and could predict our future weather. What a tosser.

Does that mean Jane Bunn is a God too?

Wow, who would have thought that weather forecasters were Gods. I bet the Bureau of Meteorology are pretty chuffed

RightSaidFred wrote on Mar 12^th, 2018 at 1:20pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 1:13pm: RightSaidFred wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 1:11pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 12:49pm: I think a good ole Flannery bash is relevant. Timbo is the Australian epitome of climate hysteria. If his arguments at the time were a bit more measured, he wouldn't be getting haunted by them. Absolutely, even the smarter disciples of the climate change cult even distance themselves from this lunatic :-) The guy thought he was god and could predict our future weather. What a tosser. That is the rub, science goes through phases, discovery and/or hypothesis .... theory .... then experimentation .... then trials  .... then full use. As far as I can tell they are still trying to iron out the theory. Einstein was an absolute genius his theory of relativity was only proven long after he was dead he was a real scientist ...... Flannery is just a grub !

Quote:

1990 IPCC computer models = 2.78°C warming by the end of this century Empirical data the last 27 years = 1.01°C warming by the end of this century.

https://preview.ibb.co/gijeyS/m14.pnghttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5v8habYTfHU

Cate Bland-Chick won't give up her private jet. Don't worry about my AC usage, Catie.

The_Barnacle wrote on Mar 12^th, 2018 at 1:32pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 1:13pm: The guy thought he was god and could predict our future weather. What a tosser. Does that mean Jane Bunn is a God too? Wow, who would have thought that weather forecasters were Gods. I bet the Bureau of Meteorology are pretty chuffed

Their too busy with the bitcoins to take any notice....!!!

Mattyfisk wrote on Mar 12^th, 2018 at 1:31pm:

Ajax wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 1:25pm: RightSaidFred wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 1:14pm: Ajax wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 1:09pm: Mattyfisk wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 1:00pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 12:49pm: I think a good ole Flannery bash is relevant. You don't remember Miranda Divine or Andrew Bolt's last one? You must have a very short memory, Homo. They only rewrite this column at least once a month. Any time Flannery gives a talk or writes a book or goes on the tele, there's this story. It's a board favourite. There's always a thread on it. Oh - and if Leonardo DiCaprio comes to town, expect the column on how many carbon miles he's clocking up. So hypocritical of him to use cars and planes, you see. Al Gore? He once attended a dinner where they served an endangered fish. He has the nerve to catch planes too. Sometimes, he even has things printed on paper - made from trees of all things. How can we believe a thing these people say? Ever checked his electrical bill...? Could run Melbourne for a year. Reminds me of Al Gore he owns 7 mansions all with fire places as well as his private jet he flies around the world preaching his BS. Don't forget all those condominiums he bought up at half price on the San Francisco peninsula after the owners saw an inconvenient truth........the fools...... ::) You see? You could write Andrew Bolt's column yourself, Ajax. Get Homo to help you.

And you can be the editor......?!?!

Ala Emma Alberici...............LOL

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 12^th, 2018 at 1:13pm:

The guy thought he was god and could predict our future weather. What a tosser.

And here is a perfect example.
You've just made an off-the-cuff comment which is pretty ridiculous. After all, the Bureau of Meteorology were specifically set up to predict our future weather.

How would you feel if in 13 years time some shock jock hack like Andrew Bolt was continuing to quote you?

The_Barnacle wrote on Mar 12^th, 2018 at 1:44pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 1:13pm: The guy thought he was god and could predict our future weather. What a tosser. And here is a perfect example. You've just made an off-the-cuff comment which is pretty ridiculous. After all, the Bureau of Meteorology were specifically set up to predict our future weather. How would you feel if in 13 years time some shock jock hack like Andrew Bolt was continuing to quote you?

Dude this guy isn't talking about the result of a grand final here.

His saying its the end of the world....FFS.....!!!

https://image.ibb.co/kKyEyS/Al_Gore_Prophet.png

The_Barnacle wrote on Mar 12^th, 2018 at 1:44pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 1:13pm: The guy thought he was god and could predict our future weather. What a tosser. And here is a perfect example. You've just made an off-the-cuff comment which is pretty ridiculous. After all, the Bureau of Meteorology were specifically set up to predict our future weather. How would you feel if in 13 years time some shock jock hack like Andrew Bolt was continuing to quote you?

So where is the apology from Flannery ?

RightSaidFred wrote on Mar 12^th, 2018 at 10:23am:

freediver wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 10:20am: There is a consensus among economists that putting a price on GHG emissions is the cheapest way to reduce them. When people like Flannery and yourself are involved in that consensus it disappears in a puff of lack of credibility.

It remains the single biggest combined statement from economists in world history. But by all means, keep clutching for reasons to reject it.


Ajax wrote on Mar 12^th, 2018 at 10:33am:

freediver wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 10:20am: There is a consensus among economists that putting a price on GHG emissions is the cheapest way to reduce them. There's also a consensus that says there is a correlation between the amount of atmospheric CO2 and the global mean average temperature. The only problem is the evidence comes from a computer model and you know what they say about computers right...!!! We could clean our energy supply without spending billions or trillions on wall street. 1. Bag Filters 2. Electrostatic precipitators 3. Scrubbing 4. Gas instead of coal fired We could clean up the soot the Nox the Sox that comes from combustion. CO2 can be emitted into the atmosphere I don't see any problems with that.

There are millions of ways to do it. A price on GHG emissions chooses all the cheapest ones.

freediver wrote on Mar 12^th, 2018 at 2:46pm:

RightSaidFred wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 10:23am: freediver wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 10:20am: There is a consensus among economists that putting a price on GHG emissions is the cheapest way to reduce them. When people like Flannery and yourself are involved in that consensus it disappears in a puff of lack of credibility. It remains the single biggest combined statement from economists in world history. But by all means, keep clutching for reasons to reject it. Ajax wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 10:33am: freediver wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 10:20am: There is a consensus among economists that putting a price on GHG emissions is the cheapest way to reduce them. There's also a consensus that says there is a correlation between the amount of atmospheric CO2 and the global mean average temperature. The only problem is the evidence comes from a computer model and you know what they say about computers right...!!! We could clean our energy supply without spending billions or trillions on wall street. 1. Bag Filters 2. Electrostatic precipitators 3. Scrubbing 4. Gas instead of coal fired We could clean up the soot the Nox the Sox that comes from combustion. CO2 can be emitted into the atmosphere I don't see any problems with that. There are millions of ways to do it. A price on GHG emissions chooses all the cheapest ones.

And you can believe in all the junk science you like, being part of a cult especially one your interested is, does not make them correct.

freediver wrote on Mar 12^th, 2018 at 2:46pm:

Ajax wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 10:33am: freediver wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 10:20am: There is a consensus among economists that putting a price on GHG emissions is the cheapest way to reduce them. There's also a consensus that says there is a correlation between the amount of atmospheric CO2 and the global mean average temperature. The only problem is the evidence comes from a computer model and you know what they say about computers right...!!! We could clean our energy supply without spending billions or trillions on wall street. 1. Bag Filters 2. Electrostatic precipitators 3. Scrubbing 4. Gas instead of coal fired We could clean up the soot the Nox the Sox that comes from combustion. CO2 can be emitted into the atmosphere I don't see any problems with that. There are millions of ways to do it. A price on GHG emissions chooses all the cheapest ones.

You mean buying air space over the Maroondah Dam forest or the Amazon forest on wall street Lower Manhattan in New York so you can keep on polluting the atmosphere through the carbon credit scheme.

Is better than retrofitting existing power stations with the equipment mentioned above which reduces pollution straight away.

Sounds as bad as banks creating money out of thin air, just a number on a computer.

Quote:

And you can believe in all the junk science you like, being part of a cult especially one your interested is, does not make them correct.

I was talking about a statement on economics, by about 2000 mainstream economists. Do you have any reason, other than some misinformed wishful thinking, to assume they are wrong? Do you even know what they said?


Quote:

You mean buying air space over the Maroondah Dam forest or the Amazon forest on wall street Lower Manhattan in New York so you can keep on polluting the atmosphere through the carbon credit scheme.

I mean carbon taxes.

RightSaidFred wrote on Mar 12^th, 2018 at 9:38am:

Ajax wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 9:32am: AGW one of the greatest hoaxes the oligarchy has ever bestowed upon people to get trillions of dollars up and running on wall street. The bottom line is they want every man woman and child to pay for the air that they breathe. Financial slavery under the guise of saving the environment, what other cause can gather so many willing foot soldiers. Gillard is a traitor to this nation, she should be jailed for life. Quote: What a curious way for Julia Gillard to sell a tax - even to businessmen - which we were originally told was needed simply to save the world from disastrous overheating:   "International carbon markets will cover billions of consumers this decade. Ask the bankers at your table whether they want Australia to clip that ticket. We’re going to help them get their share."  Julia Gillard Hmm. That explains why so many bankers are global warming preachers, too. Think of those billions! Those tickets to clip! That share of the dosh! UPDATE Labor winds down yet another of its green schemes that have cost so much to do no good at all: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/is-the-carbon-tax-great-just-ask-the-banker-at-your-table/news-story/64a482a83b718d0b02105d75729c3971 I am a fence sitter on this, show me the evidence and real usefulness of the science then I might believe it. Flannery by his own incompetence has done far more damage to the religion of global warming then any sceptic has done :-) He is the modern day snake oil salesman and a very unconvincing one at that.

Flannery is Australias version of Man Bear Pig (Al Gore).

Ajax wrote on Mar 12^th, 2018 at 10:33am:

freediver wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 10:20am: There is a consensus among economists that putting a price on GHG emissions is the cheapest way to reduce them. There's also a consensus that says there is a correlation between the amount of atmospheric CO2 and the global mean average temperature. The only problem is the evidence comes from a computer model and you know what they say about computers right...!!! We could clean our energy supply without spending billions or trillions on wall street. 1. Bag Filters 2. Electrostatic precipitators 3. Scrubbing 4. Gas instead of coal fired We could clean up the soot the Nox the Sox that comes from combustion. CO2 can be emitted into the atmosphere I don't see any problems with that.

If it's "fracked" gas it is worse than coal ... environmentally is a potentially big disaster in the making.

Gas is still a fossil fuel & if the side effects of it's extraction is worse than coal, you achieve nothing.

Mattyfisk wrote on Mar 12^th, 2018 at 1:09pm:

RightSaidFred wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 1:07pm: The_Barnacle wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 12:43pm: RightSaidFred wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 9:02am: Here is an opportunity to lay boot into a guy behind a lot of public waste yet the ABC won't have 1 sceptic to grill this guy. There is no doubt that Tim Flannery said some things that he probably regrets now. His back ground is in mammalogy (the evolution of mammals) but he has studied the literature on climate science and does have a good grasp of the concepts. He's probably quite bemused that off-the-cuff comments he made 13 years ago are still being used by conservative commentators to try and discredit him. Andrew Bolt however has no background in science and the nonsense that he publishes can be easily dismissed. More importantly, trying to discredit Tim Flannery has no effect on the reality of human induced global warming. Bolt is just a journalist Flannery is just a money seeking grub. A professor money-seeking grub.

Like Al Gore ... bought & paid for.

freediver wrote on Mar 12^th, 2018 at 2:46pm:

RightSaidFred wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 10:23am: freediver wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 10:20am: There is a consensus among economists that putting a price on GHG emissions is the cheapest way to reduce them. When people like Flannery and yourself are involved in that consensus it disappears in a puff of lack of credibility. It remains the single biggest combined statement from economists in world history. But by all means, keep clutching for reasons to reject it. Ajax wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 10:33am: freediver wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 10:20am: There is a consensus among economists that putting a price on GHG emissions is the cheapest way to reduce them. There's also a consensus that says there is a correlation between the amount of atmospheric CO2 and the global mean average temperature. The only problem is the evidence comes from a computer model and you know what they say about computers right...!!! We could clean our energy supply without spending billions or trillions on wall street. 1. Bag Filters 2. Electrostatic precipitators 3. Scrubbing 4. Gas instead of coal fired We could clean up the soot the Nox the Sox that comes from combustion. CO2 can be emitted into the atmosphere I don't see any problems with that. There are millions of ways to do it. A price on GHG emissions chooses all the cheapest ones.

So Economists are now Scientists?

There's a lot of bought & paid for economists doing the rounds.

The GFC was a classic example.

The bastards like the bankers should be in jail.

Gnads wrote on Mar 12^th, 2018 at 6:47pm:

Mattyfisk wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 1:09pm: RightSaidFred wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 1:07pm: The_Barnacle wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 12:43pm: RightSaidFred wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 9:02am: Here is an opportunity to lay boot into a guy behind a lot of public waste yet the ABC won't have 1 sceptic to grill this guy. There is no doubt that Tim Flannery said some things that he probably regrets now. His back ground is in mammalogy (the evolution of mammals) but he has studied the literature on climate science and does have a good grasp of the concepts. He's probably quite bemused that off-the-cuff comments he made 13 years ago are still being used by conservative commentators to try and discredit him. Andrew Bolt however has no background in science and the nonsense that he publishes can be easily dismissed. More importantly, trying to discredit Tim Flannery has no effect on the reality of human induced global warming. Bolt is just a journalist Flannery is just a money seeking grub. A professor money-seeking grub. Like Al Gore ... bought & paid for.

No, Gonads, Al Gore's an ex-politician. Tim Flannery's an academic and ex-head of the Climate Council.

They're totally different people.

Mattyfisk wrote on Mar 12^th, 2018 at 6:56pm:

Gnads wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 6:47pm: Mattyfisk wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 1:09pm: RightSaidFred wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 1:07pm: The_Barnacle wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 12:43pm: RightSaidFred wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 9:02am: Here is an opportunity to lay boot into a guy behind a lot of public waste yet the ABC won't have 1 sceptic to grill this guy. There is no doubt that Tim Flannery said some things that he probably regrets now. His back ground is in mammalogy (the evolution of mammals) but he has studied the literature on climate science and does have a good grasp of the concepts. He's probably quite bemused that off-the-cuff comments he made 13 years ago are still being used by conservative commentators to try and discredit him. Andrew Bolt however has no background in science and the nonsense that he publishes can be easily dismissed. More importantly, trying to discredit Tim Flannery has no effect on the reality of human induced global warming. Bolt is just a journalist Flannery is just a money seeking grub. A professor money-seeking grub. Like Al Gore ... bought & paid for. No, Gonads, Al Gore's an ex-politician. Tim Flannery's an academic and ex-head of the Climate Council. They're totally different people.

One is an arrogant lunatic the other is just arrogant ?

Gnads wrote on Mar 12^th, 2018 at 6:52pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 2:46pm: RightSaidFred wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 10:23am: freediver wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 10:20am: There is a consensus among economists that putting a price on GHG emissions is the cheapest way to reduce them. When people like Flannery and yourself are involved in that consensus it disappears in a puff of lack of credibility. It remains the single biggest combined statement from economists in world history. But by all means, keep clutching for reasons to reject it. Ajax wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 10:33am: freediver wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 10:20am: There is a consensus among economists that putting a price on GHG emissions is the cheapest way to reduce them. There's also a consensus that says there is a correlation between the amount of atmospheric CO2 and the global mean average temperature. The only problem is the evidence comes from a computer model and you know what they say about computers right...!!! We could clean our energy supply without spending billions or trillions on wall street. 1. Bag Filters 2. Electrostatic precipitators 3. Scrubbing 4. Gas instead of coal fired We could clean up the soot the Nox the Sox that comes from combustion. CO2 can be emitted into the atmosphere I don't see any problems with that. There are millions of ways to do it. A price on GHG emissions chooses all the cheapest ones. So Economists are now Scientists? There's a lot of bought & paid for economists doing the rounds. The GFC was a classic example. The bastards like the bankers should be in jail.

If you wanted to know what was the cheapest way to achieve a large scale change in how we obtain goods and services, would you ask a 'scientist' or an economist?

Their advice is not some unfathomable mystery either, that you have to take their word on.

RightSaidFred wrote on Mar 12^th, 2018 at 7:46pm:

Mattyfisk wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 6:56pm: Gnads wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 6:47pm: Mattyfisk wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 1:09pm: RightSaidFred wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 1:07pm: The_Barnacle wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 12:43pm: RightSaidFred wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 9:02am: Here is an opportunity to lay boot into a guy behind a lot of public waste yet the ABC won't have 1 sceptic to grill this guy. There is no doubt that Tim Flannery said some things that he probably regrets now. His back ground is in mammalogy (the evolution of mammals) but he has studied the literature on climate science and does have a good grasp of the concepts. He's probably quite bemused that off-the-cuff comments he made 13 years ago are still being used by conservative commentators to try and discredit him. Andrew Bolt however has no background in science and the nonsense that he publishes can be easily dismissed. More importantly, trying to discredit Tim Flannery has no effect on the reality of human induced global warming. Bolt is just a journalist Flannery is just a money seeking grub. A professor money-seeking grub. Like Al Gore ... bought & paid for. No, Gonads, Al Gore's an ex-politician. Tim Flannery's an academic and ex-head of the Climate Council. They're totally different people. One is an arrogant lunatic the other is just arrogant ?

No one would ever describe Tim Flannery as arrogant, dear.

You?

I don't think he knows who Flannery is, other than what he has read in his CEC pamphlets.

freediver wrote on Mar 12^th, 2018 at 8:19pm:

I don't think he knows who Flannery is, other than what he has read in his CEC pamphlets.

That makes sense.

Do you know who Tim Flannery is, Right? If you watch Q&A tonight, you can find out.

I actually like Tim. I'm reading his book on Watkin Tench. His preface is pertinent and insightful. He f#@ked up with his 'sharks swimming down Pitt St' and 'dams never being full again' comments, though.

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 12^th, 2018 at 10:39pm:

I actually like Tim. I'm reading his book on Watkin Tench. His preface is pertinent and insightful. He f#@ked up with his 'sharks swimming down Pitt St' and 'dams never being full again' comments, though.

Yes that is the point, in the public eye you don't get second chances once you screw up big time beyond that I don't see him as a specialist but a scientist with dysfunctionality issues. There is nothing in the so called science of climate change that would suggest you could make the precise predictions he did.
Its like using Newtonian Physics to predict speed of light events.

Mattyfisk wrote on Mar 12^th, 2018 at 6:56pm:

Gnads wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 6:47pm: Mattyfisk wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 1:09pm: RightSaidFred wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 1:07pm: The_Barnacle wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 12:43pm: RightSaidFred wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 9:02am: Here is an opportunity to lay boot into a guy behind a lot of public waste yet the ABC won't have 1 sceptic to grill this guy. There is no doubt that Tim Flannery said some things that he probably regrets now. His back ground is in mammalogy (the evolution of mammals) but he has studied the literature on climate science and does have a good grasp of the concepts. He's probably quite bemused that off-the-cuff comments he made 13 years ago are still being used by conservative commentators to try and discredit him. Andrew Bolt however has no background in science and the nonsense that he publishes can be easily dismissed. More importantly, trying to discredit Tim Flannery has no effect on the reality of human induced global warming. Bolt is just a journalist Flannery is just a money seeking grub. A professor money-seeking grub. Like Al Gore ... bought & paid for. No, Gonads, Al Gore's an ex-politician. Tim Flannery's an academic and ex-head of the Climate Council. They're totally different people.

::) You think?

freediver wrote on Mar 12^th, 2018 at 8:15pm:

Gnads wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 6:52pm: freediver wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 2:46pm: RightSaidFred wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 10:23am: freediver wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 10:20am: There is a consensus among economists that putting a price on GHG emissions is the cheapest way to reduce them. When people like Flannery and yourself are involved in that consensus it disappears in a puff of lack of credibility. It remains the single biggest combined statement from economists in world history. But by all means, keep clutching for reasons to reject it. Ajax wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 10:33am: freediver wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 10:20am: There is a consensus among economists that putting a price on GHG emissions is the cheapest way to reduce them. There's also a consensus that says there is a correlation between the amount of atmospheric CO2 and the global mean average temperature. The only problem is the evidence comes from a computer model and you know what they say about computers right...!!! We could clean our energy supply without spending billions or trillions on wall street. 1. Bag Filters 2. Electrostatic precipitators 3. Scrubbing 4. Gas instead of coal fired We could clean up the soot the Nox the Sox that comes from combustion. CO2 can be emitted into the atmosphere I don't see any problems with that. There are millions of ways to do it. A price on GHG emissions chooses all the cheapest ones. So Economists are now Scientists? There's a lot of bought & paid for economists doing the rounds. The GFC was a classic example. The bastards like the bankers should be in jail. If you wanted to know what was the cheapest way to achieve a large scale change in how we obtain goods and services, would you ask a 'scientist' or an economist? Their advice is not some unfathomable mystery either, that you have to take their word on.

So you can put a measurement for price on a a colourless odorless gas in our atmosphere as a commodity?

It's carbon dioxide .... not "carbon". Carbon is a solid.

And as I said economics is full of smoke & mirrors BS artists.

Like the banks making money out of nothing or taking out insurance on a product they sell that's bound to fail.

The world is full of trickery.

So the only people here rejecting carbon taxes also reject conventional economics?

We have already had a carbon tax. It is easy to do. The administrative burden is actually lower than with most taxes.

freediver wrote on Mar 13^th, 2018 at 9:08am:

So the only people here rejecting carbon taxes also reject conventional economics? We have already had a carbon tax. It is easy to do. The administrative burden is actually lower than with most taxes.

It's a carbon dioxide tax.

It's BS tax.

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 12^th, 2018 at 10:39pm:

I actually like Tim. I'm reading his book on Watkin Tench. His preface is pertinent and insightful. He f#@ked up with his 'sharks swimming down Pitt St' and 'dams never being full again' comments, though.

Sounds interesting. You'll like him even more, Homo. Tim wants to cut immigration.

freediver wrote on Mar 12^th, 2018 at 6:33pm:

Quote: You mean buying air space over the Maroondah Dam forest or the Amazon forest on wall street Lower Manhattan in New York so you can keep on polluting the atmosphere through the carbon credit scheme. I mean carbon taxes.

So do I.

Like I said how can buying up air space on wall street through the carbon credit scheme while you keep on polluting the atmosphere indefinitely be better or cheaper for that matter than sticking a filter on the end of those processes to manage the  pollution.

Read between the lines if we are at a point of no return, if we are about to change the Earth so much that we'll become extinct, if AGW is that deadly do you think its the best option to keep on polluting indefinitely as long as you pay, and we will be paying for quite some time it wont be an overnight thing.

There is your answer the oligarchy want to tax us plebs on the FREE AIR that we all breathe while they set up another trillion dollar market on wall street that doesn't need to be there in the first place.

They (the oligarchy) love printing money out of thin air ala ETS schemes right around the world.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vS1l2X_G9Q

The oligarchy must think that us plebs must be dumb cants.

Ajax wrote on Mar 13^th, 2018 at 4:54pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 6:33pm: Quote: You mean buying air space over the Maroondah Dam forest or the Amazon forest on wall street Lower Manhattan in New York so you can keep on polluting the atmosphere through the carbon credit scheme. I mean carbon taxes. So do I. Like I said how can buying up air space on wall street through the carbon credit scheme while you keep on polluting the atmosphere indefinitely be better or cheaper for that matter than sticking a filter on the end of those processes to manage the  pollution. Read between the lines if we are at a point of no return, if we are about to change the Earth so much that we'll become extinct, if AGW is that deadly do you think its the best option to keep on polluting indefinitely as long as you pay, and we will be paying for quite some time it wont be an overnight thing. There is your answer the oligarchy want to tax us plebs on the FREE AIR that we all breathe while they set up another trillion dollar market on wall street that doesn't need to be there in the first place. They (the oligarchy) love printing money out of thin air ala ETS schemes right around the world. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vS1l2X_G9Q The oligarchy must think that us plebs must be dumb cants.

You say carbon taxes. You mean something else.

freediver wrote on Mar 13^th, 2018 at 5:34pm:

Ajax wrote on Mar 13th, 2018 at 4:54pm: freediver wrote on Mar 12th, 2018 at 6:33pm: Quote: You mean buying air space over the Maroondah Dam forest or the Amazon forest on wall street Lower Manhattan in New York so you can keep on polluting the atmosphere through the carbon credit scheme. I mean carbon taxes. So do I. Like I said how can buying up air space on wall street through the carbon credit scheme while you keep on polluting the atmosphere indefinitely be better or cheaper for that matter than sticking a filter on the end of those processes to manage the  pollution. Read between the lines if we are at a point of no return, if we are about to change the Earth so much that we'll become extinct, if AGW is that deadly do you think its the best option to keep on polluting indefinitely as long as you pay, and we will be paying for quite some time it wont be an overnight thing. There is your answer the oligarchy want to tax us plebs on the FREE AIR that we all breathe while they set up another trillion dollar market on wall street that doesn't need to be there in the first place. They (the oligarchy) love printing money out of thin air ala ETS schemes right around the world. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vS1l2X_G9Q The oligarchy must think that us plebs must be dumb cants. You say carbon taxes. You mean something else.

Carbon credits are issued from carbon sinks.....!!!!

In other words we're buying up the air space above forests.

Carbon credits are nothing to do with carbon tax schemes. They are from cap and trade schemes. Even there, you are inventing your own definition.