Emission Trading and climate change

**Dr Freud** · 22nd Apr 2011, 04:54 PM

The Business Council of Australia declares war on Julia Gillard’s carbon dioxide tax in this letter to the Prime Minister:

It’s astonishing that the BCA should only now - years too later, when Gillard cannot retreat - point out the bleeding obvious about this tax. First. that it’s suicidal for Australia to lead a reluctant world in slashing our emissions and giving up the competitive advantage of cheap coal-fired electricity. Second, that it’s is madness to do something so expensive that will do zero to cut the world’s temperature.
Gillard’s response is just typically petty politics, entirely without substance, pointing out that the Coalition also backs her stupid and unrealistic target of cutting emissions by five percent of 2000 levels by 2020:

JULIA Gillard has challenged big business to declare whether it supports Australia’s bipartisan 5 per cent emission reduction target and a market-based approach to get there…
‘’I would appreciate it if, on behalf of the BCA, you are able to indicate whether or not you support [it]. I would also appreciate your views on whether the BCA agrees that the preferred means of achieving this unconditional target is through using a market mechanism to put a price on carbon.’’

Journalists who have for so long failed to ask the right questions about a mad tax they support, are now badgering the BCA with empty objections. Here’s Michelle Grattan, claiming to detect an international will that simply isn’t there:

Many other countries, however, have already taken action. The BCA has previously acknowledged the bipartisan targets. It supports a market approach.

Paul Kelly reads the real import - that Gillard’s tax is finished, and so is she:

The omens are now unmistakable - the government’s effort to price carbon is a policy that is losing support in the community, within industry, inside the trade union movement and silently within the Labor Party…
Finally, remember that industry has its eyes and its ears open. Beyond this, it can smell the weakness of Gillard Labor, the loss of its authority, the stench of Labor’s vulnerability. It is emboldened because Labor is weak and because Labor is weak it is failing to consult properly with industry.
This is a lethal political atmospheric for Julia Gillard.

Terry McCrann:

The only positive note to take from that, is that this is a government and a Prime Minister in utter self-destruction mode. They are careering to disaster.
Bradley has a simple, very clear answer to the question the PM intended to ask him. No.
Expanded, he might want to say something like: unconditionally reducing our emissions by 5 per cent in a world that is going to increase global emissions by hundreds of times that makes no sense. Indeed, it is pointlessly destructive.
He could then follow through with a question: Why exactly has this government and this PM embarked on an attack on the nation’s prosperity, to no point?
The fact that it is bi-partisan merely demonstrates the yawning gap between the political class and reality - the reality in which the other 22 million Australians live.

Lights are going on all over Canberra. Peter van Onselen:

Labor’s carbon tax is fast becoming the sort of political dead animal you can’t bury fast enough to get rid of the smell. Yet as the days go by in this debate the chances of it even being legislated are looking less likely.
What was assumed to be a first step that couldn’t fail could now be blocked from a variety of directions: the Greens, unhappy with the amount of compensation going to business; one or more of the independents worried community support for climate change action has dissipated; even by sceptics in the government.

Julia’s tax: rejected by voters and unions, and now business says no | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

We're all just counting down now to the demise of another failed Labor Prime Minister!

10 - 9 - 8...

**Dr Freud** · 22nd Apr 2011, 05:02 PM

The worst part is JuLIAR also forces other people to tell her lies!

Prime Minister Julia Gillard claims carbon dioxide is “pollution”:

I would reiterate my call to Tony Abbott today not to continue to play the role of wrecker, but to actually join the multi-party committee, which will work through all options for putting a price on carbon pollution in the national interest.

Really?
I think calling carbon dioxide a “pollutant” is a deliberate falsehood, intended to deceive. Why else is carbon dioxide not listed as a pollutant by the Gillard Government’s own Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities?

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/a...iving_governm/

LIAR, LIAR, LIAR, your [S]pants [/S] detention centres are on FIRE.

**Dr Freud** · 22nd Apr 2011, 05:13 PM

We better dump this tax before we get taxed to take a dump:

Groceries to rise 5 per cent under carbon tax, says lobby group | Herald Sun

Leave our toilet paper alone.

Is this the future for Aussies everywhere?

**Dr Freud** · 22nd Apr 2011, 05:22 PM

The Gillard Government’s target has become so preposterously vast that only a fool or a liar could pretend it’s achievable:

A National Greenhouse Inventory report for the December quarter 2010 shows Australia still has a long way to go to meet its Copenhagen Summit commitment to reduce carbon emissions by 5 per cent of year 2000 levels by 2020.
The nation’s 543 million tonne carbon output, which excludes agricultural emissions, is well above the 475 million tonne cap Australia would have to reach to meet its international obligations.

Consider: we’ve already had governments commit $12 billion to cutting emissions, which nevertheless are still going up, not down.
This means the Gillard Government’s target has blown out from a cut of 5 per cent of emissions 11 years ago to a cut of 12.5 per cent of emissions today.
Meanwhile, the time we’re given ourselves to reach this target has been slashed from 20 years to just nine.
Twice the cut in half the time, when nothing we’ve done so far seems to work. Hands up anyone who still thinks the target can be reached - without massive an unprecedented pain?
Now check how many journalists writing on global warming policy will point out how farcical is this talk of targets.

Gillard’s target blow-out: twice the cut in half the time | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

And they call sceptics the deniers?

**Rod Dyson** · 22nd Apr 2011, 10:08 PM

Originally Posted by Dr Freud

Maybe we could seek asylum in countries that we will still export billions of tonnes of coal and gas to for burning that will still have baseload power:

Awesome huh?

Aussies are not allowed to burn our own cheap resources because it is allegedly killing the Planet.

But we will ship them to other countries to be burned there!

Maybe they use a different atmosphere???

This whole con job is now exposed for the absolute farce and tax grab it has always been.

JuLIAR is relying on Aussies being so afraid and gullible, that they just buy all the emotional blackmail about children and grandchildren having no Planet blah blah blah...

What a crock. Is there still no-one, not one person who can explain how this MASSIVE NEW TAX will cool down the Planet Earth??? No one???

Hehehehe LOl sure got it right here Doc.

BTW you are making up for a day or 2 out?

Good work Sir. Very hard to come back and dispute this logic. Maybe thats why our residents have gone shy?

Personally I now doubt that we will see the Carbon Tax get through the house of reps. Either way Juliar is gone finito can not win an election Carbon Tax or not. The problem with Labor is they are stuck they have no one credible to take her out. Yet they know that she will decimate the ALP with the Carbon Tax.

Grab the popcorn and watch this slow motion train wreck self destructs LOL.

**chrisp** · 23rd Apr 2011, 01:45 AM

For those who like to read something of substance, the CSIRO has published:

"Climate Change: Science and Solutions for Australia"

Readership

This book is an accessible guide to underpin decisions that need to be made in business, in government, and in general to respond to the challenges of climate change. It is an important resource for:

business community leaders
federal, state and local government members
researchers and academics involved or interested in climate change science, adaptation and mitigation
educators and media
general public with an interest in climate change science.

The book can be download from: Climate Change: Science and Solutions for Australia (Publication - General)

**Rod Dyson** · 23rd Apr 2011, 04:51 PM

Originally Posted by chrisp

For those who like to read something of substance, the CSIRO has published:

"Climate Change: Science and Solutions for Australia"

I could possibly bring myself to read it except when the first paragraph on the first chapter contains such an outlandish incorrect bull_hit statement like this:

Overview

Global average temperatures have risen in line with climate model projections for the last 20 years, while global average sea levels are rising near the upper end of the climate model projections.

Seriously, do these freaks want to be taken seriously?

Do you like being brainwashed Chrisp? this publication is beyond a joke.

**Rod Dyson** · 23rd Apr 2011, 05:01 PM

Originally Posted by Rod Dyson

I could possibly bring myself to read it except when the first paragraph on the first chapter contains such an outlandish incorrect bull_hit statement like this:

Seriously, do these freaks want to be taken seriously?

Do you like being brainwashed Chrisp? this publication is beyond a joke.

Here Chrisp if you like listening to so called scientist try these predictions.

Failed Mirth Earth Day predictions

Posted on April 22, 2011 by Anthony Watts

Earth day flag - Image via Wikipedia

Via iHateTheMedia, here are a few of the predictions made on the first Earth Day. Don’t these sound like the predictions today that fail, like the 50 million climate refugees by 2010 followed by the moving of the goalposts to 2020?

“We have about five more years at the outside to do something.”
• Kenneth Watt, ecologist

“Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”
• George Wald, Harvard Biologist

“Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”
• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

“By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.”
• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

“It is already too late to avoid mass starvation.”
• Denis Hayes, chief organizer for Earth Day

“Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”
• Peter Gunter, professor, North Texas State University

“Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”
• Life Magazine, January 1970

“At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”
• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

“Air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.”
• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

“By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, `I am very sorry, there isn’t any.’”
• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

“Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”
• Sen. Gaylord Nelson
and this classic:

“The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”
• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

**Rod Dyson** · 23rd Apr 2011, 05:08 PM

Originally Posted by chrisp

For those who like to read something of substance, the CSIRO has published:

"Climate Change: Science and Solutions for Australia"

The book can be download from: Climate Change: Science and Solutions for Australia (Publication - General)

Chrisp, Climate Scientsits have damaged the reputation of scientists every where by putting out crap like this. They do themselves no favors. It will take years, if ever for people to put their trust in climate scientists again.

The profession ranks lower than a used car salesman.

No I have not read the entire book the first chapter was enough to show me that it is a propaganda piece to have us swallow an unproven theory by trying to put an official stamp on it.

Wow just wow. What has become of a once proud institution.

**Rod Dyson** · 23rd Apr 2011, 07:44 PM

Here is a very apt comment from 'The lack of warming has caused much of the global warming community to cross the line into blatant fraud. Cold is not caused by heat or lack of ice...' | Climate Depot

Robert of Ottawa says:
April 21, 2011 at 9:30 pm
I see twwo groups: The scientist believers who originally thought they had a good theory, and are now so wedded to it that they delude themselves about the facts. Then there are the dishonest who profit, or hope to profit, from what has moved from an errant theory to a downright lie. Included in this group are many scientists who’s funding is dependent on it.

Reply

**Rod Dyson** · 23rd Apr 2011, 08:39 PM

So much for the worry warts concern about permafrost melting and releasing methane.

We keep hearing scare stories about cow farts and peat bogs emitting methane that will destroy the planet.

Methane is responsible for nearly as much global warming as all other non-CO2 greenhouse gases put together. Methane is 23 times more powerful a greenhouse gas than CO2. While atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have risen by about 31% since pre-industrial times, methane concentrations have more than doubled.
http://www.drmcdougall.com/

I tried an experiment on RRTM – the radiative transfer model used in NCAR’s climate and weather models. A 10X increase in methane in the tropics increases downwelling LW radiation by less than one fourth of one percent. A 100X increase in cow farts increases downwelling LW radiation by less than one percent. A 1000X increase in methane increases downwelling LW radiation by a little over one percent.
Now consider water vapor – normal changes in humidity from day to day can easily alter the amount of downwelling longwave radiation by 10%.
Runaway methane is yet another climate superstition being preached by the world’s #1 rated scientist. There just isn’t a lot of methane in the atmosphere. It is a reactive gas with a short residency time.

**Rod Dyson** · 23rd Apr 2011, 08:44 PM

Trust a climate scientist? Yeah right. 'The lack of warming has caused much of the global warming community to cross the line into blatant fraud. Cold is not caused by heat or lack of ice...' | Climate Depot

Climate Models Predicted A Dry Climate Before They Predicted A Wet Climate

Posted on April 23, 2011 by stevengoddard
Climate models are simply amazing at retroactively predicting whatever the weather is at the present time.

2007 – Projections of climate change caused by human activities conducted by 19 different climate modeling groups around the world, using different climate models, show widespread agreement that southwestern North America, and the subtropics in general, are heading toward a climate even more arid than it is today.
http://www.ens-newswire.com/
2011 – A panel of scientists has said that climate change was behind this years heavy snow and extreme storms that struck much of the planet. As temperatures continue to rise, affecting weather patterns, they are also warning that spring could come early, bringing with it devastating floods. The researchers say it has led to more moisture in the air is likely to bring about extraordinary flooding across huge areas when deep snow-pack melts and heavy rain falls as spring arrives.

**Dr Freud** · 24th Apr 2011, 03:14 AM

Originally Posted by Rod Dyson

BTW you are making up for a day or 2 out?

Yeh, been busy, but trying to keep up with this unravelling debacle.

Originally Posted by Rod Dyson

Good work Sir. Very hard to come back and dispute this logic. Maybe thats why our residents have gone shy?

Yes, their silence is as good as surrender I guess. Unless they are brave enough to hold fast to this titanic failure as it sinks??? I don't think we'll get many takers.

Gotta admire the true grit of Chrisp though, last man standing, on an eight count.

Originally Posted by Rod Dyson

Personally I now doubt that we will see the Carbon Tax get through the house of reps. Either way Juliar is gone finito can not win an election Carbon Tax or not. The problem with Labor is they are stuck they have no one credible to take her out. Yet they know that she will decimate the ALP with the Carbon Tax.

Grab the popcorn and watch this slow motion train wreck self destructs LOL.

It will be fun to watch.

It's just a shame they are dragging the country down with them.

**Rod Dyson** · 24th Apr 2011, 06:21 PM

Very Funny

YouTube - Green Fakers from Irony Curtain at iOwnTheWorld.com

**Dr Freud** · 24th Apr 2011, 09:50 PM

Originally Posted by chrisp

For those who like to read something of substance, the CSIRO has published:

"Climate Change: Science and Solutions for Australia"

The book can be download from: Climate Change: Science and Solutions for Australia (Publication - General)

This drivel is laughable.

The damage these bozo's are doing to the reputation of the CSIRO is unforgiveable.

The only lip service they pay to attribution is a reference to the useless IPCC AR4 report. ( I guess it at least gives them some deniability when this myth goes belly up).

What a JOKE!

**Dr Freud** · 24th Apr 2011, 10:39 PM

The Prime Minister told attendees the Australian government would commit $10 million towards an environmental program.

The money will go to the Global Green Growth Institute, which South Korea established last year to support the development of environmentally friendly growth strategies in developing countries.

The announcement was met with applause.

Gillard talks up trade ties in Seoul - ABC News

You'd applaud too if someone gave you $10 million for absolutely no reason!

That's more of our taxpayer dollars wasted.

Still enjoying paying your taxes? Still looking forward to paying your BIG NEW TAX?

Gee, I wonder why we are racking up huge deficits and have debts of $200 billion dollars with nothing to show from it.

**Dr Freud** · 24th Apr 2011, 10:45 PM

Anthony Cox:

(Climate Change Minister Greg) Combet boasts that ”Every dollar raised by the carbon price will be dedicated to supporting households with any price impacts, and supporting businesses through the transition to a clean energy economy.”
This is impossible. Under the “Fast Start Finance” commitment from Cancun, which Combet announced, $599 million will be given to the IPCC under Australia’s combating AGW obligations. This $599 million is on top of the commitment made by Australia at Cancun to give 10% of revenue raised from a carbon tax to the IPCC. Then there will be the bureaucratic expansion to run the tax, checking compliance and eligibility criteria; these administration costs apparently run at 50% for the Australian government.

JoNova presents this table from the United Nations-associated Fast Start Programsite:

Some questions:

- Why is the Gillard Government handing over so much money?
- How much more does it intend to give to United Nations’ programs on global warming?
- What steps has the Government taken to ensure the money is not wasted, as so much UN funding is?
- By how much will the world’s temperature fall as a consequence of all this spending?
- Is some of this spending properly described as a bribe to get countries to sign up to a UN deal on emissions?
- Is any of this spending to be paid for by the carbon dioxide tax?
- How much of this funding on warming projects has been diverted from aid programs meant to help the poor?

How we shipped off $599 million to the United Nations’ warmists | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

JuLIAR is excelling at her trade.

How many times can she LIE to Aussies with a straight face.

She is basically stealing our Aussie taxpayer dollars under a false pretence to redistribute it to who knows what countries???

We're not far off treason charges based on her current form.

**Rod Dyson** · 24th Apr 2011, 11:01 PM

Originally Posted by Dr Freud

JuLIAR is excelling at her trade.

How many times can she LIE to Aussies with a straight face.

She is basically stealing our Aussie taxpayer dollars under a false pretence to redistribute it to who knows what countries???

We're not far off treason charges based on her current form.

Yes Doc even Laurie Oaks is saying shes gone. Now thats something!

**Dr Freud** · 24th Apr 2011, 11:10 PM

Media Releases

14th April 2011

Barley Australia Opposes the Proposed Carbon Tax

PDF Version

CARBON TAX WILL HURT AUSTRALIAN FARMERS.

Barley Australia Ltd, Australia’s peak body for barley, has expressed its concern at the Labor Government’s intention to impose a carbon tax on the agricultural industry.

This tax will hurt Australia’s agriculture overall, which is one of the country’s key industry sectors. A carbon tax will have real and significant impact on the barley industry in particular, along with the all other areas of agricultural production.

The Australian barley industry accounts for around 8 million tonnes of grain in a normal year, of which some 4 million tonnes are exported. The malting barley segment in particular is a major “value-adding” industry in Australia, with around 1,000,000 tonnes of malting barley converted to malt. Of this, around 600,000 tonnes of malt is exported into the Asian regions, with earnings of approximately $300,000,000.

Malting barley and energy are the major cost inputs in the production of malt, so any tax which raises these costs substantially threatens our ability to compete with malt supplied into Asia from Europe, China, and Canada.

A carbon tax will impact on farm inputs, especially energy, with the resultant increases in farm costs affecting the export value of malt, with knock-on effects on jobs, the demand for malt and the demand for barley.

The government has in part acknowledged the problems that such a tax will have on agricultural production and has amended its Carbon Farming Initiative, but the government must now address the broader issues of the carbon tax on the farming community generally.

Australia’s farmers are world-renowned as leaders in high quality, efficient and sustainable food and fibre production. The Australia barley and malting industry has worked extremely hard over the past decades to establish itself as a reliable and competitive supplier of barley to a range of key markets from the Middle East to all countries of Asia.

A punitive tax on carbon emissions, which will not be imposed on our competitors in China, Europe and North America, will definitely have an adverse effect on the market dynamics of this commodity and place Australian exports at risk.

Media releases

This TAX is a disaster for this country, for absolutely ZERO environmental gain.

Everyone now knows this, so why is JuLIAR still peddling this tripe???

To pay back the deficits and debts maybe?

**Dr Freud** · 24th Apr 2011, 11:40 PM

BUSINESS and consumer confidence is fraying at the edges, worn down by higher petrol prices, interest rate rises and uncertainty.

As the Gillard government's popularity plummets, consumers and businesses are bracing for a tough federal budget next month, concerned about the implications of a carbon tax and wary of the next moves from the minority government in Canberra.

"What is coming out of Canberra is scary," RCG chairman Ivan Hammerschlag said.
RCG owns the Athlete's Foot and Shoe Superstore chains. "Carbon tax, flood levy, green policies: all this has made consumers very worried and nervous," Mr Hammerschlag said.

And small business is also becoming increasingly frustrated with the Gillard government.
According to the April MYOB Business Monitor, released this week, fewer than a quarter of small business owners would vote for the Gillard government if an election was held soon.

Mr Reed said small business felt the government had "lost touch with the real demographics of Australian business".

Speaking at a lunch of the Financial Services Council in Sydney this week, Macquarie Group head of banking and financial service Peter Maher reminded his audience that it was just on a year since the Rudd government surprised the mining industry with its mineral resources tax, which had had a direct hit on broader business and consumer confidence.

"We saw the direct impact of public policy: creating some ... loss of confidence which had a massive impact on our industry," he said.

For business, the immediate political issue has been the carbon tax. Business criticism of the proposed tax has accelerated in recent weeks.

Business leaders are prepared to be far more critical of the tax and are demanding a more direct role in the decision-making process, with their stronger comments helping to fuel more concern at the consumer level.

Ms Hutchinson said she had returned last weekend from two weeks overseas and had seen a distinct increase in the preparedness of business to criticise the proposed carbon tax.
"Two weeks ago I would have been in the minority of people in business speaking up publicly against the carbon tax," she said.

"Today, we have a situation where everyone is talking about a carbon tax."

Ms Hutchinson said that, as Australia's was a small economy, the imposition of a carbon tax would have a minimal impact on global carbon emissions.

"I really worry where all this is going," she said.

She said the Australian manufacturing industry had already lost about 100,000 jobs over the past few years and could not afford the burden of a carbon tax. "I don't believe we can afford to take on a carbon tax at this stage," she said.

Mr Newman described the proposed carbon tax as "lunacy".

CEOs step up Canberra attacks, as they brace for tough budget | The Australian

All these businesses and more will suffer.

But strange how the financial derivative traders and big banks are rubbing their hands with glee over all their commissions due out of this money go round!

**Dr Freud** · 24th Apr 2011, 11:53 PM

A CARBON tax is likely to drive up council expenses and rates, according to the local government association.

“There is no doubt a carbon tax will have a cost impact for councils,” Municipal Association of Victoria president Bill McArthur said last week.

“If the carbon price is set at $25 per tonne, rate increases in excess of 3 per cent are likely.”

WEIGH IN: Carbon tax to lift council rates, governing body says - Council - News - Northcote Leader

All these cost rises will be passed from everywhere onto you!

Remember now, that's the starting price. Just wait till it starts ramping up...

**Dr Freud** · 25th Apr 2011, 12:05 AM

IF claims of climate calamity over periods as short as five years can be so wrong, what hope is there of securing widespread public support for expensive action to stop problems predicted to occur in 100 years?

This question is at the heart of the credibility crisis engulfing a UN climate change organisation that is distancing itself from earlier support for predictions that the world would be awash with climate refugees by last year.

The overblown environmental refugee prediction joins a long list of overhyped expectations made in the heat of the politically inspired chest-beating that accompanied the release of Al Gore's documentary An Inconvenient Truth.

Observation has always been the ultimate scientific reality check; in this case, the refugee exodus did not happen. Exaggerated claims of sea-level rises, melting ice caps and displaced populations have clearly damaged public confidence in the credibility of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and undermined acceptance of the core scientific concern about unchecked build-up of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Belated recognition of this fact has prompted welcome discussion of the uncertainties of climate science among scientific bodies.

Furphy gives debate needed reality check | The Australian

Finally, the eyes and minds are opening.

And they are seeing through all the LIES.

**chrisp** · 25th Apr 2011, 12:58 AM

Originally Posted by chrisp

For those who like to read something of substance, the CSIRO has published:

"Climate Change: Science and Solutions for Australia"

Readership

This book is an accessible guide to underpin decisions that need to be made in business, in government, and in general to respond to the challenges of climate change. It is an important resource for:

business community leaders
federal, state and local government members
researchers and academics involved or interested in climate change science, adaptation and mitigation
educators and media
general public with an interest in climate change science.

The book can be download from: Climate Change: Science and Solutions for Australia (Publication - General)

Originally Posted by Rod Dyson

I could possibly bring myself to read it except when the first paragraph on the first chapter contains such an outlandish incorrect bull_hit statement like this:

Seriously, do these freaks want to be taken seriously?

Do you like being brainwashed Chrisp? this publication is beyond a joke.

Originally Posted by Rod Dyson

Chrisp, Climate Scientsits have damaged the reputation of scientists every where by putting out crap like this. They do themselves no favors. It will take years, if ever for people to put their trust in climate scientists again.

The profession ranks lower than a used car salesman.

No I have not read the entire book the first chapter was enough to show me that it is a propaganda piece to have us swallow an unproven theory by trying to put an official stamp on it.

Wow just wow. What has become of a once proud institution.

Originally Posted by Dr Freud

This drivel is laughable.

The damage these bozo's are doing to the reputation of the CSIRO is unforgiveable.

The only lip service they pay to attribution is a reference to the useless IPCC AR4 report. ( I guess it at least gives them some deniability when this myth goes belly up).

What a JOKE!

Two comments:

I did say it was an article for those who want some substance - I wasn't thinking of you two.
The CSIRO didn't include die-hard AGW, ACC denialists in the suggested 'readership' list.

**PhilT2** · 25th Apr 2011, 10:42 AM

Don't be too hard on them Chris, it's just that they can barely control their excitement; it's only two more months until the Greens take the balance of power in the senate.

**Rod Dyson** · 25th Apr 2011, 04:42 PM

Originally Posted by PhilT2

Don't be too hard on them Chris, it's just that they can barely control their excitement; it's only two more months until the Greens take the balance of power in the senate.

And you think that is a good thing??

**Rod Dyson** · 25th Apr 2011, 04:47 PM

Originally Posted by chrisp

Two comments:

I did say it was an article for those who want some substance - I wasn't thinking of you two.
The CSIRO didn't include die-hard AGW, ACC denialists in the suggested 'readership' list.

You may like to point us to the area of substance that confirms the AGW theory??

Or any other areas of "substance" as you call it.

The CSIRO have put out a political booklet not a scientific one. Shame on them .

No they only can appeal to the rusted on AGW warmist for everyone else can see through this propaganda

**Rod Dyson** · 25th Apr 2011, 04:55 PM

You warmists are flogging a dead horse.

Paul Sheehan explains why Julia Gillard’s proposed carbon dioxide tax is mad and illegitimate:

1. There is no mandate for the carbon tax. It was expressly singled out by Gillard during the last election as a no-go, which helped save her government.
2. The tax will have almost zero effect on global carbon dioxide emissions.
3. It is a tax on everything, as higher energy costs flow through the economy.
4. It is regressive, harming households and small businesses on tight budgets.
5. It is a massive exercise in tax churning.
6. It does not address the structural inefficiencies in the energy sector.
7. It is a prelude to a emissions trading scheme, a derivatives market.
8. Large-scale carbon trading is inherently vulnerable to fraud, manipulation and speculation, as seen in Europe.
9. It will introduce a new layer of complexity to the economy.
10. It ignores significant energy savings possible without a punitive tax.
11. The federal government has an abysmal record in delivering large-scale interventions.
12. Australia contributes about 1.5 per cent of global carbon emissions and any local measures will be irrelevant without a global carbon tax regime.
13. It will not introduce certainty to energy pricing as promised.
14. Solar and wind power generation are prohibitively expensive and cannot meet baseload power needs.
15. The tax represents a massive transfer of wealth and power to the bureaucratic class which benefits most from a new labyrinth of compliance and compulsion.

**chrisp** · 25th Apr 2011, 08:16 PM

Originally Posted by Rod Dyson

You warmists are flogging a dead horse.

Paul Sheehan explains why Julia Gillard’s proposed carbon dioxide tax is mad and illegitimate:

Hey Rod,

Is this the same Paul Sheehan you are quoting?

Sheehan's columns in the Sydney Morning Herald are generally written from a conservative viewpoint and are noted for their criticism of the "human rights industry" and Australia's Muslim community. Other topics covered by Sheehan include criticism of the Australian legal system's handling of sexual assault cases as well as criticism of the neo-conservative ideology.

Sheehan attracted criticism for writing an article promoting "Miracle Water", without seeking validation from scientific experts.
(from: Paul Sheehan (journalist) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia )

**Rod Dyson** · 25th Apr 2011, 10:42 PM

Originally Posted by chrisp

Hey Rod,

Is this the same Paul Sheehan you are quoting?

LOL hear we go again get into the mesenger forget the message. You try to devalue the message by attacking the man great work, nice to see you try something new.

I think we are all over this method of operation from warmist. It is about time you justify your position by properly addressing the issues. You really make yourself look weak with this.

Give it up man and go for the message.

**chrisp** · 26th Apr 2011, 12:02 AM

Originally Posted by Rod Dyson

LOL hear we go again get into the mesenger forget the message. You try to devalue the message by attacking the man great work, nice to see you try something new.

I think we are all over this method of operation from warmist. It is about time you justify your position by properly addressing the issues. You really make yourself look weak with this.

Give it up man and go for the message.

I'm waiting for you (and your side) to come up with a reputable and scientifically well supported argument in support of your position. All you (and your side) seem to only be able to quote opinions or comments of highly suspect commentators or shock-jocks with political agendas to push.

But, then again, good luck coming up with a compelling scientific argument against AGW - there isn't any! Hint: Are there any - even ONE - reputable scientific bodies denying AGW?

Perhaps it is time that you get with reality.

**PhilT2** · 26th Apr 2011, 12:07 AM

Originally Posted by Rod Dyson

And you think that is a good thing??

It's called democracy mate, that's what people voted for.

**PhilT2** · 26th Apr 2011, 12:12 AM

Originally Posted by Rod Dyson

LOL hear we go again get into the mesenger forget the message. You try to devalue the message by attacking the man great work, nice to see you try something new.

I think we are all over this method of operation from warmist. It is about time you justify your position by properly addressing the issues. You really make yourself look weak with this.

Give it up man and go for the message.

I think you misunderstand what Chris is trying to say. In the past this writer promoted magic water, an idea that had no scientific basis at all. Now he promotes anti-AGW ideas. See the similarity?

**PhilT2** · 26th Apr 2011, 12:15 AM

We now hand over to Doc for the late night infomercials from the liberal party.
Doc?

**chrisp** · 26th Apr 2011, 12:25 AM

Originally Posted by PhilT2

We now hand over to Doc for the late night infomercials from the liberal party.
Doc?

Good analogy! What they both lack in substance and credibility, they try to make up for in repetition and quantity (Warnie on hair loss treatment; Bolt on AGW - does anyone seriously believe them?).

I take Doc's posts just as seriously as I take those late night infomericals - i.e. I just ignore them as I know they are a waste of time.

**Rod Dyson** · 26th Apr 2011, 12:40 AM

Here is a great comment...

4 eyes says:
April 25, 2011 at 2:01 am
Just venting. The engineer in me squirms when the Australian Govt makes its endless condescending (trust us), intolerant (if you don’t agree with us you’re a denier), illogical (the science is settled, we won’t entertain any new facts or theories) and at times childishly immature (we had better do something just in case) statements on AGW. It is both frustrating and embarassing when the Govt refuses to consider either the latest facts (i.e. flat temperatures and possibly a reversal of sea level rise and the enormous implications that a drop in sea level implies) or an alternate hypothesis. They still maintain the outrageously simplistic position that the science is settled. Science has nothing to do with the debate anymore in Australia – it is all politics and the end game will all be about saving face, not saving the country or, more grandiosely, saving the world. The last thing the Australian Govt wants to hear now is that AGW is not a significant issue and not a risk, even if it comes from the IPCC itself. The naivity of the Govt in accepting what they are told without serious question, second opinion or robust PUBLIC debate by a cross-section of the scientists, not the lobbyists and the pollies, is almost criminal. And it is a horrifying scenario for them because they have flatly refused to listen to all qualified opinions – in short they have taken a punt. One thing Bob Carter and co. can do and must do is to make sure their qualified opinions are published widely and then take no prisoners when the facts finally win out. I maintain that any climate focussed professional scientist in Australia including any in the CSIRO who refuses to at least publicly acknowledge that the facts do not strongly support AGW and that there may be other more significant factors driving climate change does so at his or her own risk. Sounds rather unforgiving but most of us in our professional lives have to make a decision on ethical behaviour over self interest. It is now the turn for scientists involved in climate issues.

On this..........

Wrong advice, wrong policy

by Bob Carter, David Evans, Stewart Franks, Bill Kininmonth & Des Moore
From Quadrant Online April 25, 2011
Government misadvised on global warming
On November 10 last year, the government’s Multi-party Climate Change Committee (MCCC) received a summary of the state of global warming science from its sole scientist member, ANU’s Professor Will Steffen. (see Powerpoint presentation here…).
All policy discussion conducted within the committee since has been predicated upon the accuracy of Professor Steffen’s advice, which was that a high risk of human-related dangerous warming exists and that urgent steps need to be taken to curtail carbon dioxide emissions.

Link Australia’s bad carbon policy advice dissected | Watts Up With That?

**Rod Dyson** · 26th Apr 2011, 12:43 AM

Originally Posted by PhilT2

It's called democracy mate, that's what people voted for.

Great. you still didn't answer the question... Do you think its a good thing?

**PhilT2** · 26th Apr 2011, 12:48 AM

We could turn this topic into a cut and paste competition. One side pastes from blogs that support their side, the others counter with cut and pastes from blogs that support them. Nobody has to do any thinking at all. I think when you get to that stage it's called politics.

**Rod Dyson** · 26th Apr 2011, 12:52 AM

Originally Posted by PhilT2

I think you misunderstand what Chris is trying to say. In the past this writer promoted magic water, an idea that had no scientific basis at all. Now he promotes anti-AGW ideas. See the similarity?

No you misunderstand, he is bringing up an issue from the past that the commentator may have been wrong about, (i don't know if he was or wasn't), so you try to imply that because of that he must be wrong about everything.

This makes no logical sense at all. It is so wrong on any level to make assumptions like that and then try to influence others views on what is written, based on that assumption. It's saying because a person was wrong once it means they can never be right. Now who understands what?

**Rod Dyson** · 26th Apr 2011, 12:58 AM

Originally Posted by PhilT2

We could turn this topic into a cut and paste competition. One side pastes from blogs that support their side, the others counter with cut and pastes from blogs that support them. Nobody has to do any thinking at all. I think when you get to that stage it's called politics.

Been there and done that with this argument. Go back and read from the beginning. We will continue to cut and paste relevent information on this topic thank you very much.

If you don't like it, then bury your head in the sand and keep believing the drivel you have been fed on AGW. If not then read what is posted and get enlightened to the real argument.

Like it or not the truth on AGW will come out in the end no matter how you try to bury the dissenting argument.

In fact the more you try to opress it the more it is likely to come back and bite you on the ars-.

So keep it comming we have a lot more to dish up yet.

**chrisp** · 26th Apr 2011, 01:04 AM

Originally Posted by Rod Dyson

Like it or not the truth on AGW will come out in the end

Rod, it is already out. It seems that you don't want to see it.

**Rod Dyson** · 26th Apr 2011, 01:05 AM

Originally Posted by PhilT2

We could turn this topic into a cut and paste competition. One side pastes from blogs that support their side, the others counter with cut and pastes from blogs that support them. Nobody has to do any thinking at all. I think when you get to that stage it's called politics.

You don't know it yet that we are sick to death of semantic arguments put forward by the AGW crowd. We have come a long way since"Inconvenient Truth" You now need to come up with some substance or be laughed out of town. Semantics will not do it for you now. You ran that race and have lost.

**Rod Dyson** · 26th Apr 2011, 01:06 AM

Originally Posted by chrisp

Rod, it is already out. It seems that you don't want to see it.

Yeah right, and what truth may that be? You can shout it all you like..... "the science is settled" "all scientists agree" 'all scientific organisations agree" etc etc Saying it does not make it true buddy.

example

In December, 2008, 103 scientists, including 24 Emeritus Professors, wrote to the Secretary General of the United Nations about what they saw as the unsubstantiated, alarmist projections of warming by the IPCC, concluding that the “approach of curbing CO2 emissions is likely to increase human suffering from future climate change rather than to decrease it – because attempts to drastically cut CO2 emissions will seriously slow development”.

People are awake to this sort of argument now, thank god for the internet.

**PhilT2** · 26th Apr 2011, 01:46 AM

Originally Posted by Rod Dyson

Great. you still didn't answer the question... Do you think its a good thing?

Overall yes, a green senator has replaced Steve Fielding from Family First, but replacing him with anyone would have been a positive step. I've only ever spoken to two green senators Brown and Seiwert, both strike me as realistic sort of people with an understanding of the reality of politics. I worry about the others including the new ones as most are a little too young to have had enough real world experience and the party is short of older mentors for them.

I would prefer that one of the major parties had won a clear majority to govern in its own right. I could have lived with the libs under Turnbull, he has the financial brain to make an ETS work and work well and understands the science. He also supports the disability policy I want for my daughter and people like her. Abbott can't be trusted on the two most important things that influence my vote. environmental and disability policy. So I am happy that the greens are there so that if he gets in next term he hopefully will not have the numbers in the senate to do as he pleases.

Does this mean that I totally trust the greens? No some of their ideas are a little wacky and I've already mentioned their inexperience. But they're still only a minority and hopefully Julia will not cave in to anything stupid. If Shorten happens to replace her one day I'll try not to be too upset. But then I doubt Abbott will lead the libs to the next election. I don't want to see the lib/nats go down the tea party road where stupidity is a virtue.

**Marc** · 26th Apr 2011, 12:53 PM

And here we go again.
What is this great scheme called global warming / climate change / rapid climate change ?
It is a political scheme that uses the green/enviro religious fringe as leverage for their own political purposes.

So what is wrong with yet another pseudo political party? After all we have the free marihuana party, the open borders party, the euthanasia party, what is the harm in a GW party right?
Not much if it was just a harmless waco party to be thrown in with the KKK and free Willie party.

The problem as I see it is that this political movement was masqueraded as a genuine environmental concern and fooled a lot of people in the beginning. This is not the case anymore however the inertia of over 20 years of political pressure, media and the teaching profession have created a monster.
The number of religious fanatics who would support GW "action" at all cost is so large that it has become political poison to oppose them up front. Furthermore the GW movement has created a further incentive for politicians to go with this flow, and it is called money. Very large amounts of it in the form of a TAX with altruistic pretenses.

So who are those that support "action" against this phantom called Global Warming?
Take away politicians who see the opportunity to please the ignorant masses whilst collecting votes and money, take away the usual deranged imbeciles, who are all this supporters?

I classify them in 3 distinct categories:
A) Teachers, professors and assorted scientist who's livelihood pivots around their blind endorsement of anything to do with "climate change".

B) Those who assent in ignorance too busy or lethargic to form an opinion. They go along tolerating bike lines, changing light bulbs with new poisonous one and switch off the lights once a year for the new religious kum ba ya "earth day"

C)Those with an axe to grind. The rich haters, those who don't help themselves, live off the public purse and hate anyone who holds a good position, owns assets, produces goods or services, or is successful in any way shape or form. This fringe dwellers who have night time call back radio phone numbers on their speed dial want something for nothing and think that those who work and produce own them a living. They have worked out long ago that there is an opportunity to bring down the tall poppy through Climate Change hysteria and that some new tits to suck from will emerge as a consequence. In Australia they vote Labour or Green and dream to make the "bastards" pay.

The largest group, the axe grinder type have yet to figure out that when this fad eventualy fizzels out, the swing against them will be so bad that it will kill off even the genuine welfare recipient and make poverty a reality in Australia.
Good luck and remember to thank the Greens for it.

**SilentButDeadly** · 26th Apr 2011, 05:27 PM

I once wrote a scientific paper on the ignorance associated with grinding a good axe whilst struggling with a dope addiction on Welfare......and no Green ever thanked me for it. I feel cheated.

But I thank You, Marc. I thank you. For injecting such refreshingly 'ridiculous' sociological light into this dimly (because of the CFLs) lit tunnel of intellectual excrement......and making me giggle like a drain.

If we do slide off into the deeper murk (be it political, scatological or icthyomythical) then I do hope you'll give me a reassuring cuddle before we go....

**SilentButDeadly** · 26th Apr 2011, 05:38 PM

Here's a question for the Peanut Gallery:

When the Gillard Labor Government takes its last fatal swan dive (yes it can happen more than twice) onto the hatchet block of political butt-pokery that is the Australian democracy.......what will actually change for the better?

Instead of Gillard & Rudd....we'll have Abbot & Turnbull.
We'll still have the Greens.
We'll still have Barnaby Joyce.
We'll still have 5% unemployment.
We'll still have an economy in a comparatively excellent condition to that of our allies.
We'll still have a resources boom.
We'll still have worn out social infrastructure.
We'll still even have Andrew Bolt.

.....so what will actually be better?

C'mon give me a good reason why I should give a poo as to whom by and how this country is run..

**Rod Dyson** · 26th Apr 2011, 07:01 PM

Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly

Here's a question for the Peanut Gallery:

When the Gillard Labor Government takes its last fatal swan dive (yes it can happen more than twice) onto the hatchet block of political butt-pokery that is the Australian democracy.......what will actually change for the better?

Instead of Gillard & Rudd....we'll have Abbot & Turnbull.
We'll still have the Greens.
We'll still have Barnaby Joyce.
We'll still have 5% unemployment.
We'll still have an economy in a comparatively excellent condition to that of our allies.
We'll still have a resources boom.
We'll still have worn out social infrastructure.
We'll still even have Andrew Bolt.

.....so what will actually be better?

C'mon give me a good reason why I should give a poo as to whom by and how this country is run..

Welcome back S&D you just cant stay away.

But to come back with this......... surley you can do better than that. We will have less boat people, more public money, less waste, a brighter future. No carbon tax. Less greens in Government, an even better economy....... need I say more?

Any you claim to have the moral high ground on ignorance vs truth LMAO

**Rod Dyson** · 26th Apr 2011, 07:05 PM

This exposes another great lie by our Pime Liar. What a joke she is.

Hold the accolades on China’s ‘green leap forward’

By Bjorn Lomborg, Wednesday, April 20, 7:50 PM

As the world’s factory floor, China is not an obvious environmental leader. It is beleaguered by severe pollution and generates more carbon emissions than any other nation. Yet many have trumpeted it as an emerging “green giant” for its non-carbon-based energy production and its aggressive promises to cut carbon emissions. New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman described China’s “green leap forward” as “the most important thing to happen” at the end of the first decade of the 21st century.
But the facts do not support this “green” success story.

Link Hold the accolades on China’s ‘green leap forward’ - The Washington Post

Daniel Morgan · 26th Apr 2011, 07:46 PM

Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly

C'mon give me a good reason why I should give a poo as to whom by and how this country is run..

This Do?

**PhilT2** · 26th Apr 2011, 07:48 PM

Originally Posted by Rod Dyson

No you misunderstand, he is bringing up an issue from the past that the commentator may have been wrong about, (i don't know if he was or wasn't), so you try to imply that because of that he must be wrong about everything.

This makes no logical sense at all. It is so wrong on any level to make assumptions like that and then try to influence others views on what is written, based on that assumption. It's saying because a person was wrong once it means they can never be right. Now who understands what?

You missed the point. Sheehan made a claim without having any evidence to support them. Whether he is right or wrong is not the issue, it's making the claim without backing it up that is the issue.

Emission Trading and climate change

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Search Thread

This thing is so ugly, even it's own mother wouldn't love it.

What a LIAR.

This is a cr@p tax.

The farce continues to unravel.

Was busy.

This is pathetic!

It's all about the money.

Yes, your money!!!

Only the shysters want this rort.

How to destroy a country!

Are you getting the idea how this is going to work yet?

NO, the science is not settled.

This Do?

LinkBacks (?)

NSW government

Untitled document

Climate Disruption | Tory Aardvark

Untitled document

Untitled document

Untitled document

Untitled document

Nations Reach Climate Agreement At Cancun Global Warming Summit, Bolivian Government Sulks. â€” Cereplast

Untitled document

PolyMontana

if you dont believe in global warming sign this - Page 12 - Woodwork Forums

Barnaby Joyce - Page 3 - Woodwork Forums

True or False?

So you still don't believe in climate change?

Business Entrepreneurs | Bisnis, Ekonomi, Marketing, Training & Consulting

Rudd wants to give Labor?s CPRS some CPR > The Nationals > Audio/Podcasts

About Climate Audit

Untitled document

Tips & Notes to WUWT Watts Up With That?

if you dont believe in global warming sign this - Page 3 - Woodwork Forums

Amazing Pictures, Pollution in China | ChinaHush

Posting Permissions