Letter from the experts
Dr. Rajendra Pachauri
Chairman Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
c/o World Meteorological Organization
7bis Avenue de la Paix
C.P. 2300 CH- 1211 Geneva 2,
14 April 2008
Dear Dr. Pachauri and others associated with IPCC
We are writing to you and others associated with the IPCC position – that man’s CO2 is a driver of global warming and climate change – to ask that you now in view of the evidence retract support from the current IPCC position and admit that there is no observational evidence in measured data going back 22,000 years or even millions of years that CO2 levels (whether from man or nature) have driven or are driving world temperatures or climate change.
We ask you and all those whose names are associated with IPCC policy to accept the scientific observations and renounce current IPCC policy. Read it all here
UK Astrophysicist UK
Dr Don Parkes
Prof. Em. Human Ecology
Nobel Peace Prize 1988 (shared)
Article in The Age
Professor Bob Carter, a geologist who studies ancient environments and their climate, and is a science adviser to the Australian Climate Science Coalition writes:
"Wong's climate paper clouded with mistakes."
"The Government's advisory channels are clogged with rent seekers, special pleaders and green activists who have misadvised the minister. Climate Minister Penny Wong published an astonishing green paper in response to what she perceives to be the threat of global warming. The first sentence of the opening section of her paper, entitled "Why we need to act", contains seven scientific errors — almost one error for every two words. Here is the sentence: "Carbon pollution is causing climate change, resulting in higher temperatures, more droughts, rising sea levels and more extreme weather."
"First, the debate is not about carbon, but human carbon dioxide emissions and their potential effect on climate."
"Second, carbon dioxide is not a pollutant but a naturally occurring, beneficial trace gas in the atmosphere."
"Third, that enhanced human carbon dioxide emissions are causing dangerous global warming ("carbon pollution is causing climate change") is an interesting and important hypothesis. Detailed consideration of its truth started with the formation of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 1988. Since then, Western nations have spent more than $50 billion on research into the matter. Despite all the fulminations of the IPCC, 20 years on, the result has been a failure to identify the human climate signal at global (as opposed to local) level."
"Fourth, the specific claim that carbon dioxide emissions are causing temperature increase is intended to convey the impression that the phase of gentle (and entirely unalarming) global warming that occurred during the late 20th century continues today. Nothing could be further from the truth, in that all official measures of global temperature show that it peaked in 1998 and has been declining since at least 2002. And this in the face of an almost 5% increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide since 1998. Spot the problem?"
"Fifth, sixth and seventh, the statement that human carbon dioxide emissions will cause "more droughts, rising sea levels and more extreme weather" is unbridled nonsense. Such confident predictions are derived from unvalidated, unsuccessful computer models that even their proponents agree cannot predict the future. Rather, a model projection represents just one preferred, virtual reality future out of the many millions of alternatives that could have been generated."
Bob Carter concludes, “It is a matter for national alarm that the Government's advisory channels should be clogged with the rent seekers, special pleaders and green activists who have so obviously misadvised Wong on the content of her green paper on climate change … Time for some due diligence, Minister.”
Read it all here
The Chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has called for more research on climate change sensitivity in light of less that expected warming despite accelerating emissions.
Analysis of soon to be released by the American Meteorological Society concludes:
“… only 0.5 degrees centigrade of man-made warming by the year 2100 and warming over the last century cannot be explained by human greenhouse gas emission alone but instead might require a mostly natural explanation.’
The Proposed Road Ahead
Weds 29 July 2008: Opposition will decide Policy
Weds 3 Sept 2008: Final Garnaut report due
October 2008: Treasury modeling release
December 2008: Release of exposure draft of legislative package
January 2009: Government to set indicative targets mid-term
March 2009: New legislation
July 2010: Proposed ETS start
2013: Petrol excise cut stops
2015: Agriculture to be included
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Letter from the experts
Sunday, July 27, 2008
"In the early days of John Hewson Fight Back tax reforms, most people supported the tax reforms. But most didn’t understand them. In 1993, Paul Keating didn’t neutralise the issue, he obliterated it. He used voters’ lack of understanding about the reforms by convincing them that FightBack would wreak havoc on the family budget by driving prices higher.
The Coalition will have the chance to tell voters that Labor’s ETS will do the same thing. They cannot do that if they take a ‘me-too, only a little’ later approach to Labor’s climate change policies. As the climate change debate moves beyond empty rhetoric to questions of economic responsibility, it is potentially moving directly onto the home turf of the Coalition’s strength on economic management. But that requires a Coalition willing to make this issue their own, instead of riding piggy back on Labor’s policy."
Read the whole piece here
For the coalition, the ETS issue provides a window of opportunity for the taking, but only if the Libs take a lion-hearted confrontational stand with the aim of maneuving the debate to where Labor is weakest...
‘I congratulate you on your perception, Simmias. No, I am afraid that, from the moral standpoint, it is not the right method to exchange one degree of pleasure or pain or fear for another, like coins of different values. There is only one currency for which all these tokens of ours should be exchanged, and that is wisdom. In fact, it is wisdom that makes possible courage and self-control and integrity and, in a word, true goodness, and the presence or absence of pleasures and fears and other such feelings makes no difference at all; whereas a system of morality which is based on relative emotional values is a mere illusion, a thoroughly vulgar conception which has nothing sound in it and nothing true. The true moral ideal, whether self-control or integrity or courage, is really a kind of purgation from all these emotions, and wisdom itself is a kind of purification.’
–excerpted from Plato’s Pheado ...
I do not think Plato is as conservative as is traditionally thought hence; there is some progressiveness in his writings … but this remains wise nonetheless ….
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Polyamory has gone big time” writes Bill Muehlenberg at Culture Watch.
Social commentator Bill Muehlenberg reports that interest in polyamory - meaning “many loves” and involving concepts such as group love and group marriage - is growing and represents a new stage in the sexual revolution that started in the 1960s when marriage and family were attacked by social engineers and sexual libertines.
(Via The Australian Conservative)
Polyamorists can be traced back to the anti-monogamy movements of the sixties and seventies—from hippie communes, to the support groups that grew up around Robert Rimmer’s 1966 novel “The Harrad Experiment,” to Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh cult likes. Now we are witnessing a modern polyamory movement inspired, amongst other things by the growing gay marriage groups.
I find this disturbing to say the least as unlike the archetypal forms of polygamy, polyamory encompasses an unsettling mixture of sexual combinations.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
There is a growing belief among Liberal powerbrokers that the conservatives can win the next federal election due by 2010, writes Malcolm Colless in The Australian. more >>
Several of Kevin Rudd’s more substantive flaws are highlighted; blemishes that give credence to the argument as well as leadership issues that stand in the way of achieving the goal.
But perhaps more importantly, and aside from Malcolm Colless’s line of reasoning, let us not lose site of the fact that the coalition polled better than the headlines would indicative at the last election, finishing with a credible 47.44% of the two-party vote. In the end, the election outcome being decided in a surprising number of close seats that could have gone either way.
All told, Labor won 83 of the 150 seats in the House of Representatives, the Coalition 65 and independents 2 with not less than nine of labor's 83 seats being won by margins of less than 1.5%.
If the Coalition had got over the line in these the seats it would have been split 74-all; given two conservative independents holding the balance of power this would have most likely gave Howard a fifth term.
Labor's narrow wins included Maxine McKew's victory in Bennelong (1.4%), the Victorian seats of Corangamite (0.85%) Deakin (1.41%), and three seats won by extraordinarily tight margins, Robertson NSW (0.11%), Flynn QLD (0.16%) and Solomon NT (0.19%).
Liberal powerbrokers can take comfort from knowing that with just several hundred extra votes in the right places, the Coalition would have narrowed Labor’s majority to a mere 10 seats and with less than 10,000 additional votes in the correct places, it could have won.
Monday, July 21, 2008
The Age is running an interesting article by Nuclear Scientist and engineer, Leslie Kemeny who argues that if the Government were serious about (i) reducing emissions and (ii) making the largest reductions at the lowest possible cost, it would embrace nuclear power.
“Political prejudice stops us from discussing this alternative fuel source. The unseemly haste associated with the implementation of Australia's emission trading scheme seems to be driven more by political aspirations and the pseudo-science of special interest groups than sound environmental concern. On a recent visit to Australia, Jeffrey Sachs, distinguished professor of sustainability from Columbia University, pointed out the futility of a highly politicized debate on emissions trading. He said that the science, technology and economics of any optimal new "clean" energy policy should be properly simulated, studied and understood by all national stakeholders. Sachs endorses nuclear power as the pivotal clean technology.” more >>
I doubt whether Kevin has the courage of Carr and Howes who uttered the forbidden word in June, undoubtedly, most Labor folk won’t buy but the skeptics within, cannot be silenced forever. If we are to have a economically and environmentally sound future we need to plaster the term back on the table. The forbidden term is, nuclear.
See previous post: Embrace Nuclear Energy: No not Howard – Bob Carr
Previous article by Kemeny: Going nuclear: it's the new green
Sunday, July 20, 2008
"Rather than being castigated Telstra should be applauded for showing some grit in an otherwise adverse political environment."
TELSTRA has ended discussions with unions about a new enterprise agreement, after accusing them of knowingly putting forward prohibited content as part of a side agreement thus dramatically escalating its stand off with unions by taking the ”unprecedented” step of canceling enterprise negotiations.
In a move immediately condemned by the ACTU, Telstra announced it had pulled out the talks, accusing unions of putting up ‘’unlawful’’ workplace proposals that, if accepted, would jeopardise Telstra’s broadband plans.
Granted that the present standoff relates to a memorandum of understanding that the ACTU is seeking to attach to the enterprise agreement, (a side accord that the company says it improper under existing workplace laws) however, this matter goes to the heart of a far broader issue.
Is there anything inherently wrong and/or immoral for a company to negotiate directly with its employees? Telstra has argued that employees can earn up to 50 percent more on AWA’s, I would add, those employees whose choice is to do so.
To provide employees - the individuals – the universal right to makes his/her own decision to trade his/her product and enterprise, in order to develop and achieve as much as he/she is not merely capable of, but as far as ambition will carry.
Does Capitalism not demand the best of every being, and will it not reward accordingly? Society is progressively more, asserting that we stand with others - the collective, and that the resisters be unjustly castigated.
Said Ayn Rand, "The man who lets a leader prescribe his course is a wreck being towed to the scrap heap."
A well known highly innovative and successful multinational recognised the value of the individual long ago ...
"Here's to the crazy ones. The misfits.The rebels.The troublemakers.The round pegs in the square holes. The ones who see things differently. They're not fond of rules.And they have no respect for the status quo. You can praise them, disagree with them, quote them,disbelieve them, glorify or vilify them.About the only thing you can't do is ignore them.Because they change things. They invent. They imagine. They heal.They explore. They create. They inspire.They push the human race forward. Maybe they have to be crazy. How else can you stare at an empty canvas and see a work of art?Or sit in silence and hear a song that's never been written?Or gaze at a red planet and see a laboratory on wheels? We make tools for these kinds of people. While some see them as the crazy ones,we see genius. Because the people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world, are the ones who do."
Crazy ones CANNOT thrive and differentiate themselves within a collective bargaining process, I know one such individual who could not; I know him through and through … and through …
It remains to be seen if the Rudd Government adheres to its advertised commitment to neutrality between union and non-union collective agreements, the signs are ominous …
Rather than being castigated Telstra should be applauded for showing some grit in an otherwise adverse political environment. ...
See also: IR's Rearward drive
Thursday, July 17, 2008
“... a complex form of taxation designed to enhance the moral vanity of Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and those who believe Australia can make a difference to human-induced global warming ...”
The sum and substance of Piers Akerman arguement!
THE Rudd Labor Government’s newest program - the Carbon Reliance Abatement Program (CRAP) - makes no sense. It is a complex form of taxation designed to enhance the moral vanity of Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and those who believe Australia can make a difference to human-induced global warming. Even if there were any evidence beyond the IPCC’s faulty modelling to demonstrate that humans are responsible for global warming - which the last decade’s weather would indicate has stalled or even reversed - it should be noted that Australia is responsible for approximately 1.3 per cent of the total anthropogenic global emissions. The 18 nations ranked ahead of Australia (the European Union is shown as one) by CO2 emissions account for 89 per cent of the total. Sydney University’s Professor Tom Hubble explained in 2005:
“Natural climate change, of similar and greater size as that projected for anthropogenic greenhouse warming, has occurred many times during the last million years and as far as we can tell throughout the history of the planet.”
This is of no consequence to Environment Minister Penny Wong, who launched the Rudd Government’s Green Paper on emission trading yesterday and recommitted Labor to reducing Australia’s emissions by 60 per cent by 2050 - that is, cutting by slightly more than half our 1.3 per cent contribution of the globe’s emissions. May we ask for what purpose, and at what price to the nation, are we to endure this? more >>
(Via The Australian Conservative)
Weird, wonderful, and scary, that's the direction Australian federal politics is taking. An obsessed labor party lead by an equally obsessed leader, underpinned by unions with the greens holding the balance of power in the senate, all hell bent on propagating misconceptions, myths and fabrications to access billions from the corporate sector.
Gleaming economic legacy now threatened by leftist consensus …
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Carbon Dioxide: "They call pollution we call it life"
For those viewing this post via feed, please visit site to view the accompanying video clip, click here ...
Kevin Rudd has cunningly revealed a new name for the Emissions Trading Scheme - it's now called the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.
Re-naming this essential plant food as “pollution” makes Rudd sound more moral with his plan to choke our standard of living.
What a shameless spinner. Have you seen anything like this guy in federal politics?
(Via Andrew Bolt)
Since when is Carbon dioxide a pollutant?
One of the best-kept secrets in the global warming debate is that the plant life of Planet Earth would benefit greatly from a higher level of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere. You read that correctly. Flowers, trees, and food crops love carbon dioxide, and the more they get of it, the more they love it. Carbon dioxide is the basic raw material that plants use in photosynthesis to convert solar energy into food, fiber, and other forms of biomass. Voluminous scientific evidence shows that if CO2 were to rise above its current ambient level of 360 parts per million, most plants would grow faster and larger because of more efficient photosynthesis and a reduction in water loss. There would also be many other benefits for plants, among them greater resistance to temperature extremes and other forms of stress, better growth at low light intensities, improved root/top ratios, less injury from air pollutants, and more nutrients in the soil as a result of more extensive nitrogen fixation.
"... carving out a resilient persona at some political expense instead of continually using the power of mere suggestion for political gain, takes courage ... "
Luke Stickels in writing for newmatilda.com poses am interesting article featuring the opinions of two politically dissimilar individuals, and found at least one common view on the Rudd government.
"Eight months in the Rudd Government is fielding similar criticism from both ends of the political spectrum. Luke Stickels talks to Ed Coper from GetUp! and Noel McCoy from the Young Libs.
"Kevin Rudd doesn't care about disenfranchised majorities. Or does he. Does he? You'll have to excuse me - John Howard dominated my entire adult political life, and since the Ruddslide, I have to admit to feeling a little disorientated."
"Eight frenetic months into Australia's new allegedly progressive era, I went looking for appraisals of what we can expect from the new Government, based on what we've seen so far. You wouldn't expect figures as disparate as Ed Coper, Campaign Coordinator of prominent activist group GetUp!, and Noel McCoy, President of the National Young Liberal Party, to agree on much - would you?"
Incidentally, Get up, is the action group that champions progressiveness in Australian politics...
Continues McCoy, "Obviously I've got my partisan view," but I don't feel they've achieved that much. They've touted a lot - they signed the Kyoto Protocol, made the apology to stolen generations. These are announcements, they're symbolic and important to people, but they don't have much impact. My position on Kevin Rudd is that he's pretty flaky, and his Government is too."
"Political parties and institutional politics have too often failed to inspire people or offer meaningful opportunities for participation, yet despite years of economic good times, many Australians remain deeply concerned about the political direction of our country. It has not been a good decade for Australia's progressives - those of us who share a commitment to the values of social justice, cultural diversity, ecological sustainability and economic fairness."
"It's more than your predictable rivalry though. Coper, says, "[Rolling] out viable strategies is not just an issue of the Coalition still controlling the Senate. We've seen [things that are] politically and practically easy ticked off." Press reporters, too, are losing patience with what The Age columnist, Paul Daley, calls "a Government that behaves like it's still in an election campaign".
"Labor is only now appreciating the difficulties of being in government," says Coper. "There's a broad base of interests in Australia and you can't please everyone all the time." more >>
Indeed, as Paul Daley pointed out in an Age piece recently, “In politics nothing is more important than the narrative. It can be a fairytale. But it has to be about the future. Policy reviews are one thing. But there's a discernible caucus disquiet that Rudd is yet to consolidate his Government with a captivating plan for forward-looking institutional and structural change. Instead, Labor miles ahead in the polls, is cruising from election-style announcement to announcement. The Opposition calls it "thought bubble politics".
Some may simply refer to it as short-term attention diverting tactics that reveal little about the true nature of Rudd and co. Besides Kevin Rudd has yet to display strong leadership, for example, he has not yet clearly articulates the true cost, the solution of you will, of an ETS on “working families,” those he called upon to put him in the top job. This will constitute one of Rudd’s many litmus tests, carving out a resilient persona at some political expense instead of continually using the power of mere suggestion for political gain, takes courage, little wonder some describe it as, “a Government that behaves like it's still in an election campaign". The gloss may yet begin peeling …
Monday, July 14, 2008
Alexander Downer has officially stepped down as an MP and called on the Liberal Party to stand by its “true beliefs.
Speaking on Sky News, he added:
"I think they should stand by their true beliefs, first of all in individual freedom and not being supporters of the nanny state, dictating to everybody how they should live their lives” …
“It's very much become the way of Labor today, they're into every single aspect of your life, telling you whether you should be fat or thin, whether you should be fit or unfit, whether you should have four drinks or three” ...
“I mean, what sort of society is that?"
Our former Foreign Minister will now focus on his business consultancy company and become the United Nations' special envoy for Cyprus.
"I will be working toward helping the Cyprus saga, working as an envoy to try and resolve that long-standing issue," Mr Downer told News Limited.
View BBC link here
See also: Howard sings the praises of 'best ever' foreign minister, Downer
See our earlier post about Alexander Downer here
We wish him well …
A considerable dip in ratings has ensured a victory for the virtue of morality – the Ten Network has announced that it will axe the reality show after 1316 episodes.
Often referred to as the bane of conservatives and arbiters of better taste, the show that John Howard fittingly described as ‘atrocious’ and ‘stupid’ will finally end following next Monday’s screening.
Progressives can accuse critics of such programs of pushing a media censorship agenda as well as conservative proselytizing all they wish, Big Brothers licentious content is well documented but back of this were very legitimate concerns about what television viewers consume. Inappropriate material - excessive sexual conduct and referencing in addition to foul language - has all but polluted free to air television between 7-9PM.
Most Australians believe that morality is slipping and there is little doubt that the media is one of the greatest contributing factors, that the Ten Network has finally shut the doors on BG is welcome news.
Friday, July 11, 2008
... it is high time the debate switches its focus on the negative impact a carbon-constrained economy will have on ordinary Australians ..."
Opposition Leader Brendan Nelson is correct; we should not bow to the ‘religious crusade’ that is fast becoming climate change. Furthermore, if we are going to embrace, an emission-trading scheme (ETS), 2012 remains a far more realistic start date that Labors 2010 proposal moreover, Australia should not begin emissions trading if other nations do not agree to same.
Meanwhile, as Treasurer Swan smugly accuses the Liberals of being unclear on the issue - Malcolm Turnbull has argued for an unconditional 2012 commencement – this is immaterial when contrasted with Labors overstating the dangers of climate change to a naive and hence susceptible population that does not understand the macro and micro economic consequences of what is proposed.
Said John Roskam from the Institute of Public Affairs:
Until they started thinking about what the effect of an ETS on the price of petrol would be, most voters thought they'd somehow be immune from the operations of carbon trading. Now they are asking, ‘‘Why didn't anyone tell me?'' Such a misunderstanding is understandable given that during the federal election campaign Kevin Rudd told Australia that implementing an ETS would be easy and painless and would do us good by creating new ‘‘clean'' industries and jobs. Few politicians bother to consider the consequences of signing the Kyoto Protocol. more >>
Political debate on climate change is to be encouraged particularly in light of the growing scientific skepticism; once ETS is put into practice there will be no going back. Mums and Dads of Australia listen up, it is not business that will be paying for ETS but working families and it is high time the debate switches its focus on the negative impact a carbon-constrained economy will have on ordinary Australians.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
"In reality, minimum wage hikes set in motion responses that ultimately hurt those at the bottom of the economic ladder..."
The Hon Julie Bishop MP - "The decision of the Australian Fair Pay Commission (AFPC) today to increase the minimum wage by $21.66 per week appears to strike a sensible balance for Australia’s lowest paid workers, taking into account the cost of living, inflation and employment conditions." more >>
It’s not often that I find myself at odds with the Shadow Minister for Employment, Business and Workplace Relations and Deputy Leader of the Opposition, but Julie Bishop may have got out of the starting blocks too early on this. The Australian Fair Play Commissions 4.1% increase is higher than expected by employers and poses a risk to not only inflation but failing that, to employment levels.
Among those critical of the rise:
The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ACCI), Australia’s largest and most representative business organisation, has described today’s decision by the Australian Fair Pay Commission (AFPC) to increase minimum wages by $21.66 per week (4.2% at the minimum wage level) from October 2008, as economically risky. This minimum wage increase is likely to flow on into price increases. more >>
Chief Executive, Australian Industry Group Heather Ridout added, “The wage rise delivered today by the Australian Fair Pay Commission (AFPC) is on the high side of expectations and will add to the pressures already on business,” Australian Industry Group Chief Executive Heather Ridout said today. more >>
Business SA says the minimum wage increase will inevitably lead to pay rise demands from employees in all sectors. The increase announced by the Fair Pay Commission lifts the minimum wage to $543 a week. Business SA's Peter Vaughan says employers may resort to cutting jobs to find the extra money now needed to pay workers. more >>
As yesterday wore on, consensus amongst experts firmed that the pay hike will ultimately hurt the jobless more so than impact inflation even though there remains a notable risk. more >>
In reality, minimum wage hikes set in motion responses that ultimately hurt those at the bottom of the economic ladder. I know that those who support the wage hikes are compassionate advocates for the underprivileged and weak while those who oppose them are deemed heartless capitalists however, the minimum wage is an inefficient means of assisting low-income workers more exactly; business growth is the source of economic opportunity and advancement for the poor. Reducing taxes, fees, and regulations would do more good than hiking and extending the minimum wage. If Governments are serious about helping the poor, they should put in place policies that assist rather than stifle business.
Wednesday, July 09, 2008
Mr Abbott, now the Opposition spokesman for families and indigenous affairs, says the book will set out a way forward for the Liberal and National parties, and address issues such as the monarchy. "I am looking forward to the opportunity to chronicle my position on the big issues,'' the former federal health minister, said today. The book will be published in 2009 by Melbourne University Publishing (MUP), which will also publish former treasurer Peter Costello's memoirs later this year. more >>
We look forward to Mr. Abbotts views, the book will be released in 2009.
Click here to view list of Tony Abbotts media releases
Click here to visit Tony Abbotts website
Click here to view previous post on Tony Abbott
Ouch! Recall what I wrote in previous post:
“With some touting emission cuts of up to 30% below 1990 levels by 2020 and over 50% by 2050, coupled with the greens now assuming the balance of power in the Senate, what eventual price for a tone of Carbon, $200?”
"The Greens' approach to climate change is straightforward … Australia's emissions have to be 30% below 1990 levels by 2020 and 80% below by 2050.”
Eighty percent! What future price per tone of Carbon now, $260.00?
It’s happening folks!
Monday, July 07, 2008
" ... Astonishing, how hurriedly an issue that lends itself to rationale debate, has been comprehensively hijacked by scaremongering sensationalists ... predictions of climate change are assimilated in the mainstream as if dug out of the old testament ... this reflects the unpalatable truth that ideological undercurrents have surfaced and found a new outlet valve for placing a damper on morally suspect capitalism ..."
No more debate it seems, not that there was any, the science they tell us, is indisputable and overwhelming. We either act or be swamped by nightmare scenarios of doom and apocalypse. Astonishing, how hurriedly an issue that lends itself to rationale debate, has been comprehensively hijacked by scaremongering sensationalists. As the Australians Janet Albrechtsen points out, “ever since Kevin Rudd adopted the Al Gore line that climate change was the greatest moral issue of our time, real debate has become impossible.” Fears about climate change have fuelled mass neurosis; I just wish that the self-interested participants would simply shut up, even for a moment. But they wont, said Ellen Goodman, a Pulitzer Prize winning commentator:
“Let’s just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers.”
Agreed there exists a great body of science to support the doomsday scenarios envisioned by Garnaut, equally however, there is also a great body of science that discredits global warming theories though you would never know it. Contrary to the details colorfully displayed on Gore’s PowerPoint like presentations, NASA has now confirmed that the hottest year in the U.S. was not 1998 but 1934 and that six of the hottest years since the 1880’s predate 1954. And never mind that thousands of robotic devices within out oceans reveal slight cooling over the past five years when purportedly, over 80% of global warming involves the heating of our oceans said, National Public Radio’s Richard Harris. In May, German climatologists reporting in Nature said that global warming is due for a ten-year vacation, perplexedly however; critics, (or should I say, charlatans) assure us with much intellectual poise, that the path to doom would resume some time after 2020; thus what should be the greatest concern. No, not the 2020 prediction but how the predictions of climate change are assimilated in the mainstream as if dug out of the old testament.
You see, that last comment about post 2020 is merely a forecast and in no-way based on even the slightest empirical extrapolations. Accordingly, even if it cools for a decade, even this remains irrefutable evidence of global warming, go figure.
Alas, like religion, just as we do not seek to scientifically validate the existence of God, the hypothesis back of global warming is beyond science, “non falsifiable” said Bret Stephens in the Wall Street Journal.
This reflects the unpalatable truth that ideological undercurrents have surfaced and found a new outlet valve for placing a damper on morally suspect capitalism. The consequences of economic growth, consumerism, and personal, corporate, and national success have triggered climate alarm ism driven by the socialist left, happy to use it as their new found vehicle of choice to herald a new world order. With some touting emission cuts of up to 30% below 1990 levels by 2020 and over 50% by 2050, coupled with the greens now assuming the balance of power in the senate, what eventual price for a tone of Carbon, $200? As it says on the Greens Home page:
"The Greens' approach to climate change is straightforward: use the science to inform action. We know we have to keep global warming to less than 2C, or the impacts become too severe to manage and we risk seeing climate change spiral out of control. That means Australia's emissions have to be 30% below 1990 levels by 2020 and 80% below by 2050. Because our policies are based on this scientific reality … "
Did you get that folks, “Scientific reality,” of the non-falsifiable kind …?
For the most part, big business is backing a broad based emission-trading scheme; do they have any choice? Pity the obligations Australia will place on its own will be radically disproportionate to the global response.
Another concern and one that must, at all costs, be addressed by the Federal Liberals relates to the way money raised by the Government through the sale of emission permits will be distributed back to the community. Given Labor’s definition of “working class” families those earning around $100K and over may have to pick up the real cost; social engineering perhaps.
We have often heard that Australia’s total emissions equate to around 1% of total world emissions but we have not heard that in around 10-15 years Australia’ contributions will be around half that, or 0.5 of a percent. You see China alone has plans to build over 544 NEW coal fired power stations as we speak, check out the BBC source below. How many does Australia have around 35 in total? Oh, and here is another interesting case of utter hypocrisy as pointed out by Andrew Bolt; on the same day that catastrophist Garnaut releases his report, Victorian Premier Brumby proudly announced that his State will host the Grand Prix until 2015. Does anyone hazard to guess the Carbon footprint left by a single GP race?
BBC Source: A coal-dependent future?
Thursday, July 03, 2008
"We won't foot the bill."
In an address to the Committee for the Economic Development of Australia, Mr Gailey said that consumers, households, other businesses, and government should prepare to pay more when business is forced to pass on the additional costs.
He added, “Where costs cannot be passed on and energy efficiencies are not available, business will simply cease to exist if this prevents them from earning an adequate return on their investment. This is a particular risk with trade-exposed, emissions intensive industries."
Was it in May that Kevin Rudd declared that he had done all he physically could to ease the burden on family budgets? Well if the Government has not reached damage control yet, it will soon.
There is common recognition that research leading to existing and future technological solutions holds the key to reducing emissions without restricting economies. This was the theme of the Major Economies Meeting on Energy Security and Climate Change held in Washington last September and attended by representatives from Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Russia, South Korea, South Africa, United Kingdom, the EU, the EC, and the UN. In total, the participating nations represented 85% of the global economy. The gathering effectively initiated a post Kyoto process for agreeing on key elements of the emission problem. The assembly offered an opportunity to discuss the viability of both current and emerging technologies and how best address funding challenges.
See also: Let’s go green
Wednesday, July 02, 2008
Regrettably, Australia is now as secular as any western nation ...
Pope Benedict will soon land in Australia for World Youth Day Sydney 2008. The occasion is the largest youth event in the world and will be held in Sydney from Tuesday 15 to Sunday 20 July 2008.
Organised by the Catholic Church, WYD brings together young people from around the globe to celebrate and learn about their faith on a more regular basis.
Moreover, World Youth Day 2008 will be the largest event Australia has ever hosted. It will attract over 125,000 international visitors, which is more than the 2000 Olympics and will mark the first visit of His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI to Australia.
In preparation for the occasion, in July 2007 the Pontiff sent an advance message to our youth about the power of the Holy Spirit, in addition to the three objectives for the young – namely, recognizing the true identity of the spirit, to learn about the spirits continuous and active presence and, to deepen there understanding of Jesus.
While these are all praiseworthy pursuits, if Pope Benedict departs Australia without addressing the present malaise within the church, then many Catholics will feel cheated.
While there are some five million Australians who call themselves Catholic, only around one fifth of these attend church weekly - a figure that has dropped around ten percent in the last five years alone. Furthermore, the average age of priests is now 60 whereas in 1977, it was 44, and presently, there are just over 100 in training compared to 550 in 1970. Incidentally, the situation within the Australian Anglican Church is worse still.
Regrettably, Australia is now as secular as any Western nation accordingly; secularism must be the pontiff’s fourth objective while in the country. Will the festival and his visit stir Australians out of there secular attitude? Alas, the Pontiffs challenge …
The site contains a number of innovative features:
Policy Forum - every week the MRC will post a new policy topic for discussion. The MRC hopes Liberal Party supporters and members of the general public will go online and make a comment about these policy issues. This week's topic for discussion is Labor's attack on private health insurance.
Foresight - this fortnightly newsletter keeps Australians in touch with the latest developments from the MRC and other policy makers from around the world. People can sign up to receive Foresight, pre-register for upcoming MRC events and purchase scholarly publications via the website. Click here to read more about the sites new features.
From the website
“The Menzies Research Centre works to promote the principles of individual liberty, free speech, competitive enterprise, limited government and democracy.”
The new site has a fresh, cutting edge interface that easy on the eye and, just as easy to navigate.
Tuesday, July 01, 2008
“Let’s just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers.”
Pulitzer Prize winning commentator and writer with Boston Globe
“[T]o me, the question of the environment is more ominous than that of peace and war. We will have regional conflicts and use or force, but world conflicts I do not believe will happen any longer. But the environment, that is a creeping danger. I’m more worried about global warming than I am of any major military conflict.”
Chairman of the International Commission on Weapons of Mass Destructions.
“This new report on global warming, the most frightening yet. In Greenland and Alaska, scientists say, ice is melting at rates that could see many coastal cities- including Boston, Charleston and right here in New York City- completely under water by this October.”
"Because the dimensions of this challenge are so great and they reach so far and ... cross so many of the traditional portfolio delineation within government and between governments we should be at a stage now in this country where climate change is beyond politics"