Archive for the ‘Climate Change’ Category

>Labor’s Carbon Tax is really a redistribution of income scam

>Julia Gillard’s freakish political contortion, the likes of which have probably never before been seen in Australian politics, of breaking an election promise to not introduce a carbon tax, bowing to the radical Greens and then introducing a carbon tax can have no other outcome than increase the size of the Australian deficit and reduce employment.

Let’s assume that the amount raised from power companies by the carbon tax each year is $10 billion.

There are a number of groups that will be especially hurt by an increase in power prices – those at the low end of the income spectrum, trade exposed industries whose position against overseas competition will be damaged and small business, which seems to be a forgotten factor in the conversation so far.

It’s clear that the government can’t compensate all groups affected so let’s assume that they distribute the money to low income earners. Note that they are on record as saying that the money will not simply go into Treasury coffers so let’s also assume that it joins the short list of promises kept by this government since being elected in 2007.

The tax is introduced in 2011 and low income workers rejoice as they see the effects in their bank balances. They then feel the pain when they get their utilities bills but, being conscientious with their money and in no way tempted to buy more grog or smokes or stick it in the pokies or back something to beat Black Caviar*, they pay what they owe. So there’s no impact on them.

Power companies now have an incentive to reduce the amount of CO2 they produce, which is the whole point of the exercise and so they invest in clean technologies that have the effect of reducing CO2 emissions to zero thus fulfilling the government’s ambition.

Can you see the problem?

At this point the government will raise no money at all from taxing so-called ‘carbon pollution’, the cost of power will not be reduced due the investment made by power companies that needs to be paid for meaning that low income households will still need financial support to meet their utilities bills.

So the government now has a $10 billion hole in its budget. Is it going to fill the void by raising taxes or by increasing the deficit? Either way, the impact on employment is negative.

And while all that has been going on our trade exposed industries have been shedding jobs at a terrific rate to countries that are not bound by the onanistic impulses of the climate brigade.

So let’s give all of the money to trade exposed industries instead of low income workers.

The government gets stuck in the same cycle. When the power companies clean up their act the government will need to maintain support for trade exposed industries otherwise there’ll be a massive loss of jobs in a short time frame to overseas competitors. Not a palatable outcome for any politician.

And all the while small business is getting hammered and is shedding jobs.

So here’s Labor’s dirty, little secret. I’m going to shout it at you so that you can take it in.


The government knows this, of course, which is why it’s just a great, big, redistributionist scam but it also knows that its allies in the mainstream media won’t point it out to the voting public any time soon.

The result will be that the tax will be in place before an emissions trading scheme is introduced, which the government expects will continue to provide the revenue it needs.

And bad luck to the people who lose their jobs because of it.

* I don’t live in this world, either, but the good folk who create government budgets surely must.

(Nothing Follows)

>Fox News on global warming

December 21, 2009 4 comments

>Fox News continues to prove why it calls itself fair and balanced in this piece looking at global warming.

(Nothing Follows)

Categories: Climate Change

>Climate Poetry

December 16, 2009 1 comment

>Al Gore really must be right into this whole climate change thing.

After all, what else could inspire someone to turn one’s hand to poetry?

Here’s Al’s climate poem:

One thin September soon
A floating continent disappears
In midnight sun

Vapors rise as
Fever settles on an acid sea
Neptune’s bones dissolve

Snow glides from the mountain
Ice fathers floods for a season
A hard rain comes quickly

Then dirt is parched
Kindling is placed in the forest
For the lightning’s celebration

Unknown creatures
Take their leave, unmourned
Horsemen ready their stirrups

Passion seeks heroes and friends
The bell of the city
On the hill is rung

The shepherd cries
The hour of choosing has arrived
Here are your tools

Oh, bravo! Bravo! The talent! The wonder! Magnificent!

Can you imagine the screeching scorn from the cultural elites if George W Bush had written such drivel?

I think that The Hitchhiker’s Guide To The Galaxy needs to be updated.

I might have a crack at some climate poetry, too…

Tracking brave souls
Data inconvenient
An abacus to use

Water ebbing up and
Down across endless
Stools in the night

Belching cars go
By jingo I say
These graphs are not

Round and round they
Go to the dogs
Stars shine down dimly

Half a degree
One degree
Two degrees upward

All in the Valley of Death
Predicted the Six Hundred
Climate Models

I can no longer continue
A crisis befalls us
Not of climate but of poetry.

How’d I go?

Al Gore, as they say in The Simpsons, eat my shorts…

(Nothing Follows)

Categories: Climate Change

>These people are crazy

December 4, 2009 6 comments

>Add to the myriad of dire predictions of the consequences of climate change today’s warning that the fish are going to go crazy.

Warmer ocean temperatures caused by global warming could cause sharks and other fish to become more aggressive, according to a new Australian study.

Research conducted by the University of New South Wales found that a slight lift in water temperatures — just two or three degrees — can cause some fish to become up to 30 times more aggressive than they normally would be.

The studies were conducted on young damsel fish, but head researcher Dr Peter Biro told ninemsn “he would be surprised” if sharks did not also undergo a similar transformation in warm water.

“I would imagine it ought to affect sharks … We think it is linked to the metabolism of the fishes — it increases their need to feed,” Dr Biro said.

The research involved putting the damsel fish in varying temperatures of water and placing other fish behind glass to see how they reacted.

Dr Biro said it was “obvious” the warmer water had an effect.

“Some fish would literally charge at the glass,” he said.

“I’m quite confident that if the glass was not there they would have torn the other fish to shreds.”

He predicted the increased aggression caused by climate change would cause some fish populations to dwindle, but it would eventually correct itself.

“I think in the short term we might see some effects,” he said.

“But I think the animals will adapt, they won’t all kill each other.”

The test also exposed previously unknown behavioural traits that exist among the damsel fish species.

While some fish showed extreme aggressive reaction to the warm water, others did not react at all.

The majority of the fish tested appeared to be at least twice as aggressive in the warm water.

How could this test be carried out in anything that remotely resembles reality?

In the event that the oceans do heat up by 2-3C, which they show no signs of doing, then it’ll take decades or, more likely, at least a century, as there’s an enormous amount of heat required to do that.

So how did they undertake this test? Heat water up slowly over a week or two? No wonder the fish become pissed off – they’re too bloody hot.

And what did they conduct this test on? A damsel fish.

This is a damsel fish:

Apparently, after testing on this little feller they expect sharks to get just as grumpy.

I dare them to try it on sharks.

Here’s another point.

Sharks move around between colder and warmer oceans but it doesn’t seem to matter what temperature ocean they’re in to munch up the ocassional human…

(Nothing Follows)

Categories: Climate Change

>NZ climate scientists massage things other than sheep

November 26, 2009 Leave a comment

>NZ climate scientists go to work on the NZ temperature record.



They’ve turned a 0.06C rise per century since 1850 into 0.92C…

Apparently, THAT is science!

Read all about it.

(Nothing Follows)

Categories: Climate Change

>Climategate comments

November 24, 2009 1 comment

>Many people are passing the so-called Climategate scandal off as not being important and not affecting climate science.

The problem with that view is that without confidence in the dendro temperature record climate science is pretty much reduced to localised physics and the ice core record, which, inconveniently, shows warmer Roman and Medieval Warm Periods than present.

The corruption of the HadCRU temperature record is plain to see in the very code that produces the models. We already knew that the NASA GISS temperature record was suspect so it was amusing to see the CRU crowd casting doubt on Hansen’s methodology.

Here are the best examples of just how bad this situation is:

Summary of emails from Bishop Hill.

Willis Eschenbach’s attempt to get information via the FOI.

The comments in the code tell the story:

; Plots 24 yearly maps of calibrated (PCR-infilled or not) MXD reconstructions
; of growing season temperatures. Uses “corrected” MXD – but shouldn’t usually
; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to
; the real temperatures.

And for terrific entertainment:

One might be able to defend one or two emails here and there and I have defended the use of the term ‘trick’ to describe a programming shortcut (though the trick referred to looks dubious) but the overall tone of the emails and code is one of manipulation of both data and scientific journals.

It’s also interesting that all of the people involved seem to be activist environmentalists with email exchanges with Greenpeace, WWF and the NYT’s enviro reporter, Andy Revkin. People in the hard sciences tend to split down the political middle. Perhaps the conservatives go to work for industry and the lefties go and work in theory-land at the universities.

I developed a view quite some time back that climate science seemed to attract mediocre scientists to its ranks. My reasoning is that they are able to undertake research that is not able to be tested in the here and now whereas decent scientists want to see their research create tangible outcomes. Michael Mann and our very own David Karoly are two shining examples of this mediocrity. These scientists have achieved prominence (and funding) far beyond where their abilities should have taken them. Nothing I have read in the emails changes my opinion.

I have also been commenting for a long time that climate scientists will give real scientists a bad name in the public square. Job done.

(Nothing Follows)

Categories: Climate Change

>Climate debt payments will go to world’s most corrupt countries

November 22, 2009 1 comment

>Ironically, if the United Nations has its way then there will be a massive wealth transfer from the light blue shaded countries to the dark blue as payment for so-called ‘climate debt’.

The Central Americans want money:

CENTRAL American nations will demand $US105 billion ($114.2 billion) from industrialised countries for damages caused by global warming, the region’s representatives say.

Central American environment ministers gathered in Guatemala overnight to discuss the so-called “ecological debt” owed to them and to set out a common position ahead of climate talks in Copenhagen next month.

Guatemalan environment minister Luis Ferrate said the $US105 billion ($114.2 billion) price tag was “an estimate” of the damage done by climate change across 16 sectors in Belize, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Panama.

Ferrate minister said the region “had never faced” so much drought, aridity, flooding, and precarious food security.

A formal proposal will be presented in Denmark, officials said.

His Nicaraguan counterpart Juana Arguenal said that Central America would press industrialised countries to reach concrete decisions to reduce “greenhouse” gases at Copenhagen.

“We hope for a deal that is ethical and moral,” she said.

Why wouldn’t the Central American countries be asking for money from Brazil due to that country’s clearing of ‘the lungs of the earth’, The Amazon?

Thieves, the lot of them.

(Nothing Follows)

>The greatest scientific scandal since Piltdown Man will have no impact

November 20, 2009 5 comments

>The information provided yesterday by the hacking of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit is the greatest scientific scandal since Piltdown Man.

Here we have a large number of high profile, interconnected scientists who are actively conspiring to fabricate scientific results that show alarming 20th century warming and reduced warming during the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods.

A number of people are going through the emails including: Andrew Bolt, Steve McIntyre, Anthony Watts and Lucia at The Blackboard so I don’t need to.

This will have no impact – nil, nada, none, zero, zip – on the whole global warming/climate change movement.

The problem is that the mainstream media is too invested in advocating for climate change to even consider undertaking an investigation into the information provided by the hack.

By the end of next week this will all have died down. People like Steve McIntyre might find some data that shows results have been fabricated but he’s done that before and the media has ignored him, which they’ll do again this time.

If the mainstream media does not investigate a situation is which there has been conspiracy, fraud, obstruction of justice, falsification of data, suppression and tampering with evidence and public corruption (as Robert M pointed out at WUWT) then it will be yet another example of the slow decline of Western civilisation.

Here’s an email that I haven’t seen elsewhere, has an Australian reference:

From: “Thomas.R.Karl” To: Phil Jones Subject: Re: FW: retraction request Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 08:21:57 -0400 Cc: Wei-Chyung Wang

Thanks Phil,

We R now responding to a former TV weather forecaster who has got press, He has a web site
of 40 of the USHCN stations showing less than ideal exposure. He claims he can show urban biases and exposure biases.

We are writing a response for our Public Affairs. Not sure how it will play out.

Regards, TOm

Phil Jones said the following on 6/19/2007 4:22 AM:

Wei-Chyung and Tom,

The Climate Audit web site has a new thread on the Jones et al. (1990) paper, with lots of quotes from Keenan. So they may not be going to submit something to Albany. Well may be?!?

Just agreed to review a paper by Ren et al. for JGR. This refers to a paper on urbanization effects in China, which may be in press in J. Climate. I say ‘may be’ as Ren isn’t that clear about this in the text, references and responses to earlier reviews. Have requested JGR get a copy a copy of this in order to do the review.

In the meantime attaching this paper by Ren et al. on urbanization at two sites in China.

Nothing much else to say except:

1. Think I’ve managed to persuade UEA to ignore all further FOIA requests if the people have anything to do with Climate Audit.
2. Had an email from David Jones of BMRC, Melbourne. He said they are ignoring anybody who has dealings with CA, as there are threads on it about Australian sites.
3. CA is in dispute with IPCC (Susan Solomon and Martin Manning) about the availability of the responses to reviewer’s at the various stages of the AR4 drafts. They are most interested here re Ch 6 on paleo.




UPDATE: Bishop Hill has a terrific summary going…

(Nothing Follows)

Categories: Climate Change

>Well, this should be interesting…

November 19, 2009 Leave a comment

>On such important issues to their agenda the organised left tends to overwhelm online polls, as I’ve demonstrated previously.

Let’s see how this one goes:




Yes:No ratios so far are 1.62, 1.68 and 1.68. I’d expect the final result to be close to that.



Someone has posted what appears to be a heap of emails and other documents from the Hadley Climate Reseach Unit that would be, if true, should be the end of climate science as we know it.

I predict the following:

  • most of the information will be shown to be true;
  • the mainstream media will give this almost no coverage;
  • there will be small, inconsequential discrepencies found that will be used to discredit the entire document set; and
  • it will have no impact on the climate debate, which, ironically, has very little to do with the actual climate.

(Nothing Follows)

Categories: Australia, Climate Change

>Lying pieces of crap scientists tell more climate lies

November 16, 2009 Leave a comment

>These people really piss me off.


The scientists who keep making predictions of doom and gloom about the fate of the Great Barrier Reef unless Australia unilaterally slashes its economic wrists.

Why do they have any credibility at all when every, single one of their previous predictions about the reef have been hopelessly wrong?

THE Great Barrier Reef has only a 50 per cent chance of survival if global CO2 emissions are not reduced at least 25 per cent by 2020, a coalition of Australia’s top reef and climate scientists said today.

The 13 scientists said even deeper cuts of up to 90 per cent by 2050 would necessary if the reef was to survive future coral bleaching and coral death caused by rising ocean temperatures.

90 percent. How would they know? It’s impossible for them to know that. Impossible.

“We’ve seen the evidence with our own eyes. Climate change is already impacting the Great Barrier Reef,” Terry Hughes, director of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies at James Cook University, said in a briefing to MPs.

Bullcrap. There is no evidence that the Great Barrier Reef is being impacted by anything remotely resembling the negative affects of climate change – affects, it should be noted, that won’t actually be noticeable for 40-50 years and that’s ONLY if the predictions of the hitherto useless IPCC climate models are correct.

Australia is one of the world’s biggest CO2 emitters per capita, but has only pledged to cut its emissions by five per cent from 2000 levels by 2020. The Government said it would go further with a 25 per cent cut, if a tough international climate agreement is reached at UN climate talks in Copenhagen in December, but this is looking increasingly unlikely with legally binding targets now off the agenda.

Why bring out the per capita statement when it’s immaterial to the argument? China ADDS Australia’s output every 3-4 months. We can cut our emissions by 100% and have zero effect.

“This is our Great Barrier Reef. If Australia doesn’t show leadership by reducing emissions to save the reef, who will?” asked scientist Ken Baldwin.

Why would any country – and I assume they mean India, China, Brazil and Russia etc – take any notice of Australia ‘showing leadership’ when Europe has had a carbon trading scheme for a number of years, thus ‘showing leadership’, that NO COUNTRY HAS TAKEN ANY NOTICE OF??? These people are truly zealots.

But the Government is struggling to have a hostile Senate pass its planned emissions trading scheme. A final vote is expected next week.

The World Heritage-protected Great Barrier Reef sprawls for more than 345,000 square km off Australia’s east coast and can be seen from space. The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has concluded that the Great Barrier Reef could be “functionally extinct” within decades, with deadly coral bleaching likely to be an annual occurrence by 2030.

Bleaching occurs when the tiny plant-like coral organisms die, often because of higher temperatures, and leave behind only a white limestone reef skeleton.

Predictions of bleaching have the same record as climate models – nil, nada, zero, zilch, none.

The Australian scientists said more than 100 nations had endorsed a goal of limiting average global warming to no more than two degrees Celsius above pre-industrial temperatures, but even that rise would endanger coral reefs.

They said global warming was already threatening the economic value of the Great Barrier Reef which contributes $5.4 billion to the economy each year from fishing, recreation and tourism.

Are they saying that if we pass an ETS that it will protect the $5.4 billion? Making travel, accommodation, food and everything else will somehow protect this income? Have they done a projection on what the revenue will fall to if an ETS is implemented? If not then why not? It should be easy for them given they calculated that we need to cut emissions by 90% by 2050.

These people are seriously the pits and an embarrassment to real scientists.

(Nothing Follows)

Categories: Australia, Climate Change