Emission Trading and climate change

Page 339 of 377 FirstFirst ... 239 289 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 ... LastLast
Results 16,901 to 16,950 of 18819
  1. #16901
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Ahem, I doubt very much that South Australians will be voting on any particular single issue, let alone energy/emissions. The general dissatisfaction of the electorate with the LNC Federal Government and the lack of a visible opposition party, or at the very least alternative policies, in SA probably means than the incumbents will romp back in, regardless of any perceived imperfections in their policies or ideology.

    Meanwhile, at least we know that Australia's alpine ski resorts have a future now they can make "snow" in temperatures up to 30 degrees Celsius.
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  2. #16902
    Community Moderator
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Queensland
    Posts
    7,166

    Default

    Risky thinking as they say governments lose elections oppositions don't win them. The last election in QLD was a good demonstration of this as the government had a monumental number of seats but to everyone's surprise they were shown the door.

    Pollsters never picked it who are now getting less reliable.

    I know at this stage it is early days but the shots have been fired in QLD.

  3. #16903
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    This is for Marc:

    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  4. #16904
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bros View Post
    Risky thinking as they say governments lose elections oppositions don't win them.
    I think you've put your finger on it, the LNC opposition in SA is not about to 'win' anything, let alone an election. I know nuthn of QLD poltics...
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  5. #16905
    1K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Logan Qld
    Posts
    1,377

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bros View Post
    Next year we will know what the great unwashed think of emissions and power as both SA and QLD will go to the polls.

    National party in QLD won two elections using power reliability as an issue resulting from strikes and power prices and renewals policy are what current opposition are using against the government promising to build a new base load power station.
    Nov 5 is the hot tip for the Qld election; local member is out campaigning already. One Nation preferences will decide the winner. Labor will use the threat of power privatisation by the LNP and the ghost of Campbell Newman to keep their supporters from jumping ship.

    Power prices may drop off the agenda completely if the circular firing squad known as the Trump administration manages to create a trade war, or even an actual shooting war. The level of their stupidity has not been fully realised yet.

  6. #16906

  7. #16907
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PhilT2 View Post
    Power prices may drop off the agenda completely if the circular firing squad known as the Trump administration manages to create a trade war, or even an actual shooting war. The level of their stupidity has not been fully realised yet.
    There is nothing whatsoever that Trump has done that is out of character yet; and only wishful ignorance (or less likely, actual ignorance) can suggest otherwise. Trump is the same Trump he has always been and very publicly so. There are, or should be, no surprises in his behaviour to anyone who isn't comatose or dead.
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  8. #16908
    2K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    newcastle
    Posts
    2,152

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    There is nothing whatsoever that Trump has done that is out of character yet; and only wishful ignorance (or less likely, actual ignorance) can suggest otherwise. Trump is the same Trump he has always been and very publicly so. There are, or should be, no surprises in his behaviour to anyone who isn't comatose or dead.
    Surely, the point of trump is that he is unpredictable?

    youd think a narcissist would always act in their own interest, but because they live in a fantasy land is unwise to think you have their measure

  9. #16909
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default Emission Trading and climate change

    Quote Originally Posted by Bros View Post
    Next year we will know what the great unwashed think of emissions and power as both SA and QLD will go to the polls.

    National party in QLD won two elections using power reliability as an issue resulting from strikes and power prices and renewals policy are what current opposition are using against the government promising to build a new base load power station.
    And it will still tell us nothing useful...or anything we do not already know.
    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  10. #16910
    1K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Logan Qld
    Posts
    1,377

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pharmaboy2 View Post
    Surely, the point of trump is that he is unpredictable?

    youd think a narcissist would always act in their own interest, but because they live in a fantasy land is unwise to think you have their measure
    It's not just Trump, it's his whole administration. Not only are they the greatest collection of flakey oddballs ever given authority but, like Trump, they lack experience in politics, diplomacy and foreign policy. And Trump is too busy with Twitter to provide leadership. The difference between the Trump administration and a child care centre is at least the child care centre has adult supervision. The constant leaking of confidential information and staff turnover shows how dysfunctional it is.

  11. #16911
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,412

    Default

    The anti-trump Left are the fascists they denounce




    Andrew Bolt, Herald Sun
    January 24, 2017 8:58am


    Imagine if Hillary Clinton had won the election, and it was Trump supporters taking to their streets to insist she was not a legitimate president.

    Imagine Trump supporters cheering when one of their most famous faces told of dreaming of "blowing up the White House". Wouldn't the media damn them as "fascists"?
    So why go soft on Madonna?

    The Left looks increasingly like the fascists they condemn. The intolerance and contempt for democracy is frightening.





    Fear is the foundation of most government.
    John Adams

  12. #16912
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Not surprising that non-right people are becoming more agitated as the twit president continues to stuff up. Even his side of politics won't agree to his dumb healthcare ideas.

    Democracy allows the public to think and say what they want, intolerance and contempt of an idiot president. That is how democracy works.

    What is frightening is not the public's annoyance of the president. It's the behaviour of the president stuffing up the USA.

    Have a look at Venezuela now, to see how democracy can be destroyed in weeks.

    Those who want to ignore the science are increasingly alone. They are on their own shrinking island.


  13. #16913
    Community Moderator
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Queensland
    Posts
    7,166

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PhilT2 View Post
    Nov 5 is the hot tip for the Qld election; local member is out campaigning already.
    A Sunday? Nov 5th a day I remember from the past.

  14. #16914
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    What's Bolt on about? Clinton is front and centre of the US's right-wing neoliberal / neoeconomic establishment. Having a ideology left of extreme right doesn't mean it is left-wing - doh!

    Bolt: "The Left looks increasingly like the fascists they condemn". Ahem, the left is condemning Trump's Administration; for once I might agree with Bolt, fascism does seem to be the closest ideology to describe that.
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  15. #16915
    1K Club Member UseByDate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    South Australia
    Posts
    1,275

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bros View Post
    Risky thinking as they say governments lose elections oppositions don't win them. The last election in QLD was a good demonstration of this as the government had a monumental number of seats but to everyone's surprise they were shown the door.

    Pollsters never picked it who are now getting less reliable.

    I know at this stage it is early days but the shots have been fired in QLD.
    https://youtu.be/9XZ5e5OpF1A?t=859

  16. #16916
    1K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Logan Qld
    Posts
    1,377

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bros View Post
    A Sunday? Nov 5th a day I remember from the past.
    Maybe the 4th then. We'll have the fireworks a day early. Campaigners out in the local streets today so I'd say it's definitely on for this year.

    What makes polling difficult is that some people are not willing to admit that they are going to vote for nutters like One Nation or Cory Bernardi's Conservatives. But their preferences will decide where Qld goes.

  17. #16917
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,412

    Default

    Western climate change alarmists won’t admit they are wrong

    Cooling towers spilling steam: always there in the backdrop.


    When you tell people once too often that the missing extra heat is hiding in the ocean, they will switch over to watch Game of Thrones, where the dialogue is less ridiculous and all the threats come true. The proponents of man-made climate catastrophe asked us for so many leaps of faith that they were bound to run out of credibility in the end.

    Now that they finally seem to be doing so, it could be a good time for those of us who have never been convinced by all those urgent warnings to start warning each other that we might be making a comparably senseless tactical error if we expect the elastic cause of the catastrophists, and all of its exponents, to go away in a hurry.
    I speak as one who knows nothing about the mathematics involved in modelling non-linear systems. But I do know quite a lot about the mass media, and far too much about the abuse of language. So I feel qualified to advise against any triumphalist urge to compare the apparently imminent disintegration of the alarmist cause to the collapse of a house of cards. Devotees of that fond idea haven’t thought hard enough about their metaphor. A house of cards collapses only with a sigh, and when it has finished collapsing all the cards are still there.
    Although the alarmists might finally have to face that they will not get much more of what they want on a policy level, they will surely, on the level of their own employment, go on wanting their salaries and prestige.
    Illustration: Eric Lobbecke



    To take a conspicuous if ludicrous case, Australian climate star Tim Flannery will probably not, of his own free will, shrink back to the position conferred by his original metier, as an expert on the extinction of the giant wombat. He is far more likely to go on being, and wishing to be, one of the mass media’s mobile oracles about climate. While that possibility continues, it will go on being danger@ous to stand between him and a television camera. If the giant wombat could have moved at that speed, it would still be with us.
    The mere fact that few of Flannery’s predictions have ever come true need not be enough to discredit him, just as American professor Paul Ehrlich has been left untouched since he predicted that the world would soon run out of copper. In those days, when our current phase of the long discussion about man’s attack on nature was just beginning, he predicted mass death by extreme cold. Lately he predicts mass death by extreme heat. But he has always predicted mass death by extreme something.
    Actually, a more illustrative starting point for the theme of the permanently imminent climatic apocalypse might be taken as August 3, 1971, when The Sydney Morning Herald announced that the Great Barrier Reef would be dead in six months.
    After six months the reef had not died, but it has been going to die almost as soon as that ever since, making it a strangely durable emblem for all those who have wedded themselves to the notion of climate catastrophe.
    The most exalted of all the world’s predictors of reef death, former US president Barack Obama, has still not seen the reef; but he promises to go there one day when it is well again.
    In his acceptance speech at the 2008 Democratic convention, Obama said — and I truly wish that this were an inaccurate paraphrase — that people should vote for him if they wanted to stop the ocean rising. He got elected, and it didn’t rise.
    The notion of a countdown or a tipping point is very dear to both wings of this deaf shouting match, and really is of small use to either. On the catastrophist wing, whose “narrative”, as they might put it, would so often seem to be a synthesised film script left over from the era of surround-sound disaster movies, there is always a countdown to the tipping point.
    When the scientists are the main contributors to the script, the tipping point will be something like the forever forthcoming moment when the Gulf Stream turns upside down or the Antarctic ice sheet comes off its hinges, or any other extreme event which, although it persists in not happening, could happen sooner than we think. (Science correspondents who can write a phrase like “sooner than we think” seldom realise that they might have already lost you with the word “could”.)
    When the politicians join in the writing, the dramatic language declines to the infantile. There are only 50 days (former British PM Gordon Brown) or 100 months (Prince Charles wearing his political hat) left for mankind to “do something” about “the greatest moral challenge … of our generation” (Kevin Rudd, before he arrived at the Copenhagen climate shindig in 2009).
    When he left Copenhagen, Rudd scarcely mentioned the greatest moral challenge again. Perhaps he had deduced, from the confusion prevailing throughout the conference, that the chances of the world ever uniting its efforts to “do something” were very small. Whatever his motives for backing out of the climate chorus, his subsequent career was an early demonstration that to cease being a chorister would be no easy retreat because it would be a clear indication that everything you had said on the subject up to then had been said in either bad faith or @ignorance. It would not be enough merely to fall silent. You would have to travel back in time, run for office in the Czech Republic @instead of Australia, and call yourself Vaclav Klaus.
    Australia, unlike Rudd, has a globally popular role in the @climate movie because it looks the part.
    Common reason might tell you that a country whose contribution to the world’s emissions is only 1.4 per cent can do very little about the biggest moral challenge even if it manages to reduce that contribution to zero; but your eyes tell you that Australia is burning up. On the classic alarmist principle of “just stick your head out of the window and look around you”, Australia always looks like Overwhelming Evidence that the alarmists must be right.
    Climate Change: The Facts 2017 edited by Jennifer Marohasy
    Even now that the global warming scare has completed its transformation into the climate change scare so that any kind of event at either end of the scale of temperature can qualify as a crisis, Australia remains the top area of interest, still up there ahead of even the melting North Pole, @despite the Arctic’s miraculous @capacity to go on producing ice in defiance of all instructions from Al Gore. A C-student to his marrow, and thus never quick to pick up any reading matter at all, Gore has evidently never seen the Life magazine photographs of America’s nuclear submarine Skate surfacing through the North Pole in 1959. The ice up there is often thin, and sometimes vanishes.
    But it comes back, especially when some@one sufficiently illustrious confidently predicts that it will go away for good.
    After 4.5 billion years of changing, the climate that made outback Australia ready for Baz Luhrmann’s viewfinder looked all set to end the world tomorrow. History has already forgotten that the schedule for one of the big drought sequences in his movieAustralia was wrecked by rain, and certainly history will never be reminded by the mass media, which loves a picture that fits the story.
    In this way, the polar bear balancing on the Photoshopped shrinking ice floe will always have a future in show business, and the cooling towers spilling steam will always be up there in the background of the TV picture.
    The full 97 per cent of all satirists who dealt themselves out of the climate subject back at the start look like staying out of it until the end, even if they get satirised in their turn. One could blame them for their pusillanimity, but it would be useless, and perhaps unfair. Nobody will be able plausibly to call actress Emma Thompson dumb for spreading gloom and doom about the climate: she’s too clever and too creative. And anyway, she might be right. Cases like Leonardo DiCaprio and Cate Blanchett are rare enough to be called brave. Otherwise, the consensus of silence from the wits and thespians continues to be impressive.
    If they did wish to speak up for scepticism, however, they wouldn’t find it easy when the people who run the big TV outlets forbid the wrong kind of humour.
    On Saturday Night Live back there in 2007, Will Ferrell, brilliantly pretending to be George W. Bush, was allowed to get every word of the global warming message wrong but he wasn’t allowed to disbelieve it. Just as all branches of the modern media love a picture of something that might be part of the Overwhelming Evidence for climate change even if it is really a picture of something else, they all love a clock ticking down to zero, and if the clock never quite gets there then the motif can be exploited forever.
    A favourite image: polar bear on a shrinking piece of ice.
    But the editors and producers must face the drawback of such perpetual excitement: it gets perpetually less exciting. Numbness sets in, and there is time to think after all. Some of the customers might even start asking where this language of rubber numbers has been heard before.
    It was heard from Swift. In Gulliver’s Travels he populated his flying island of Laputa with scientists busily using rubber numbers to predict dire events. He called these scientists “projectors”. At the basis of all the predictions of the projectors was the prediction that the Earth was in danger from a Great Comet whose tail was “ten hundred thousand and fourteen” miles long. I should concede at this point that a sardonic parody is not necessarily pertinent just because it is funny; and that although it might be unlikely that the Earth will soon be threatened by man-made climate change, it might be less unlikely that the Earth will be threatened eventually by an asteroid, or let it be a Great Comet; after all, the Earth has been hit before.
    That being said, however, we can note that Swift has got the language of artificial crisis exactly right, to the point that we might have trouble deciding whether he invented it or merely copied it from scientific voices surrounding him. James Hansen is a Swiftian figure. Blithely equating trains full of coal to trains full of people on their way to Auschwitz, the Columbia University climatologist is utterly unaware that he has not only turned the stomachs of the informed audience he was out to impress, he has lost their attention.
    Paleoclimatologist Chris Turney, from the University of NSW, who led a ship full of climate change enthusiasts into the Antarctic to see how the ice was doing under the influence of climate change and found it was doing well enough to trap the ship, could have been invented by Swift. (Turney’s subsequent Guardian article, in which he explained how this embarrassment was due only to a quirk of the weather and had nothing to do with a possible mistake about the climate, was a Swiftian lampoon in all respects.)
    Compulsorily retired now from the climate scene, Rajendra Pachauri, formerly chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Clim@ate Change, was a zany straight from Swift, by way of a Bollywood remake of The Party starring the local imitator of Peter Sellers; if Dr Johnson could have thought of Pachauri, Rasselas would be much more entertaining than it is. Finally, and supremely, Flannery could have been invented by Swift after 10 cups of coffee too many with Stella. He wanted to keep her laughing. Swift projected the projectors who now surround us.
    They came out of the grant-hungry fringe of semi-science to infect the heart of the mass media, where a whole generation of commentators taught each other to speak and write a hyperbolic doom-language (“unprecedent@ed”, “irreversible”, et cetera), which you might have thought was sure to doom them in their turn. After all, nobody with an intact pair of ears really listens for long to anyone who talks about “the planet” or “carbon” or “climate denial” or “the science”. But for now — and it could be a long now — the advocates of drastic action are still armed with a theory that no fact doesn’t fit.
    Australian author, journalist and broadcaster Clive James.
    The theory has always been manifestly unfalsifiable, but there are few science pundits in the mass media who could tell Karl Popper from Mary Poppins. More startling than their ignorance, however, is their defiance of logic. You can just about see how a bunch of grant-dependent climate scientists might go on saying that there was never a Medieval Warm Period even after it has been pointed out to them that any old corpse dug up from the permafrost could never have been buried in it. But how can a bunch of supposedly enlightened writers go on saying that? Their answer, if pressed, is usually to say that the question is too elementary to be considered.
    Alarmists have always profited from their insistence that climate change is such a complex issue that no “science denier” can have an opinion about it worth hearing. For most areas of science such an insistence would be true. But this particular area has a knack of raising questions that get more and more complicated in the absence of an answer to the elementary ones. One of those elementary questions is about how man-made carbon dioxide can be a driver of climate change if the global temperature has not gone up by much over the past 20 years but the amount of man-made carbon dioxide has. If we go on to ask a supplementary question — say, how could carbon dioxide raise temperature when the evidence of the ice cores indicates that temperature has always raised carbon dioxide — we will be given complicated answers, but we still haven’t had an answer to the first question, except for the suggestion that the temperature, despite the observations, really has gone up, but that the extra heat is hiding in the ocean.
    It is not necessarily science denial to propose that this long professional habit of postponing an answer to the first and most elementary question is bizarre. American physicist Richard Feynman said that if a fact doesn’t fit the theory, the theory has to go. Feynman was a scientist. Einstein realised that the Michelson-Morley experiment hinted at a possible fact that might not fit Newton’s theory of celestial mechanics. Einstein was a scientist, too. Those of us who are not scientists, but who are sceptical about the validity of this whole issue — who suspect that the alleged problem might be less of a problem than is made out — have plenty of great scientific names to point to for exemplars, and it could even be said that we could point to the whole of science itself. Being resistant to the force of its own inertia is one of the things that science does.
    When the climatologists upgraded their frame of certainty from global warming to climate change, the bet-hedging man@oeuvre was so blatant that some of the sceptics started predicting in their turn: the alarmist cause must surely now collapse, like a house of cards. A tipping point had been reached.
    Unfortunately for the cause of rational critical inquiry, the campaign for immediate action against climate doom reaches a tipping point every few minutes, because the observations, if not the calculations, never cease exposing it as a fantasy.
    I myself, after I observed journalist Andrew Neil on BBC TV wiping the floor with the then secretary for energy and climate change Ed Davey, thought that the British government’s energy policy could not survive, and that the mad work that had begun with the 2008 Climate Change Act of Labour’s Ed Miliband must now surely begin to come undone. Neil’s well-inform@ed list of questions had been a tipping point. But it changed nothing in the short term. It didn’t even change the BBC, which continued uninterrupted with its determination that the alarmist view should not be questioned.
    How did the upmarket mass media get themselves into such a condition of servility? One is reminded of that fine old historian George Grote when he said that he had taken his A History of Greece only to the point where the Greeks failed to realise they were slaves. The BBC’s monotonous plugging of the climate theme in its science documentaries is too obvious to need remarking, but it’s what the science programs never say that really does the damage.
    Even the news programs get “smoothed” to ensure that nothing interferes with the constant business of protecting the climate change theme’s dogmatic status.
    To take a simple but telling example: when Sigmar Gabriel, Germany’s Vice-Chancellor and man in charge of the Energiewende (energy transition), talked rings around Greenpeace hecklers with nothing on their minds but renouncing coal, or told executives of the renewable energy companies that they could no longer take unlimited subsidies for granted, these instructive moments could be seen on German TV but were not excerpted and subtitled for British TV even briefly, despite Gabriel’s accomplishments as a natural TV star, and despite the fact he himself was no sceptic.
    Wrong message: easier to leave him out. And if American climate scientist Judith Curry appears before a US Senate com@mittee and manages to defend her anti-alarmist position against concentrated harassment from a senator whose only qualification for the discussion is that he can impugn her integrity with a rhetorical contempt of which she is too polite to be capable? Leave it to YouTube. In this way, the BBC has spent 10 years unplugged from a vital part of the global intellectual discussion, with an increasing air of provincialism as the inevitable result. As the UK now begins the long process of exiting the EU, we can reflect that the departing nation’s most important broadcasting institution has been behaving, for several years, as if its true aim were to reproduce the thought control that prevailed in the Soviet Union.
    As for the print media, it’s no mystery why the upmarket newspapers do an even more thorough job than the downmarket newspapers of suppressing any dissenting opinion on the climate.
    In Britain, The Telegraph sensibly gives a column to the diligently sceptical Christopher Booker, and Matt Rid@ley has recently been able to get a few rational articles into The Times, but a more usual arrangement is exemplified by my own newspaper, The Guardian, which entrusts all aspects of the subject to George Monbiot, who once informed his green readership that there was only one reason I could presume to disagree with him, and them: I was an old man, soon to be dead, and thus with no concern for the future of “the planet”.
    I would have damned his impertinence, but it would have been like getting annoyed with a wheelbarrow full of freshly cut grass.
    These byline names are stars committed to their opinion, but what’s missing from the posh press is the non-star name committed to the job of building a fact file and extracting a reasoned article from it. Further down the market, when The Daily Mailput its no-frills newshound David Rose on the case after Climategate, his admirable competence immediately got him labelled as a “climate change denier”: one of the first people to be awarded that badge of honour.
    The other tactic used to discredit him was the standard one of calling his paper a disreputable publication. It might be — having been a victim of its prurience myself, I have no inclination to revere it — but it hasn’t forgotten what objective reporting is supposed to be. Most of the British papers have, and the reason is no mystery.
    They can’t afford to remember. The print media, with notable exceptions, is on its way down the drain. With almost no personnel left to do the writing, the urge at editorial level is to give all the science stuff to one bloke. The print edition of The Independent bored its way out of business when its resident climate nag was allowed to write half the paper.
    In its last year, when the doomwatch journalists were threatened by the climate industry with a newly revised consensus opinion that a mere 2C increase in world temperature might be not only acceptable but likely, The Independent’s chap retaliated by writing stories about how the real likelihood was an increase of 5C, and in a kind of frenzied crescendo he wrote a whole front page saying that the global temperature was “on track” for an increase of 6C. Not long after, the Indy’s print edition closed down.
    At The New York Times, Andrew Revkin, star colour-piece writer on the climate beat, makes the whole subject no less predictable than his prose style: a cruel restriction.
    In Australia, the Fairfax papers, which by now have almost as few writers as readers, reprint Revkin’s summaries as if they were the voice of authority, and will probably go on doing so until the waters close overhead. On the ABC, house science pundit Robyn Williams famously predicted that the rising of the waters “could” amount to 100m in the next century. But not even he predicted that it could happen next week. At The Sydney Morning Herald, it could happen next week. The only remaining journalists could look out of the window and see fish.
    Bending its efforts to sensationalise the news on a scale previously unknown even in its scrappy history, the mass media has helped to consolidate a pernicious myth. But it could not have done this so thoroughly without the accident that it is the main source of information and opinion for people in the academic world and in the scientific institutions. Few of those people have been reading the sceptical blogs: they have no time. If I myself had not been so ill during the relevant time span, I might not have been reading it either, and might have remained confined within the misinformation system where any assertion of forthcoming disaster counts as evidence.
    The effect of this mountainous accumulation of sanctified alarmism on the academic world is another subject. Some of the universities deserve to be closed down, but I expect they will muddle through, if only because the liberal spirit, when it regains its strength, is likely to be less vengeful than the dogmatists were when they ruled. Finding that the power of inertia blesses their security as once it blessed their influence, the enthusiasts might have the sense to throttle back on their certitude, huddle under the blanket cover provided by the concept of “post-normal science”, and wait in comfort to be forgotten.
    As for the learned societies and professional institutions, it was never a puzzle that so many of them became instruments of obfuscation instead of enlightenment. Totalitarianism takes over a state at the moment when the ruling party is taken over by its secretariat; the tipping point is when Stalin, with his lists of names, offers to stay late after the meeting and take care of business.
    The same vulnerability applies to any learned institution. Rule by bureaucracy favours mediocrity, and in no time at all you are in a world where the British Met Office’s (former) chief scientist Julia Slingo is a figure of authority and Curry is fighting to breathe.
    On a smaller scale of influential prestige, Nicholas Stern lends the Royal Society the honour of his presence. For those of us who regard him as a vocalised stuffed shirt, it is no use saying that his confident pronouncements about the future are only those of an economist. Klaus was only an economist when he tried to remind us that Malthusian clairvoyance is invariably a harbinger of totalitarianism. But Klaus was a true figure of authority. Alas, true figures of authority are in short supply, and tend not to have much influence when they get to speak.
    All too often, this is because they care more about science than about the media. As recently as 2015, after a full 10 years of nightly proof that this particular scientific dispute was a media event before it was anything, Freeman Dyson was persuaded to go on television. He was up there just long enough to say that the small proportion of carbon dioxide that was man-made could only add to the world’s supply of plant food. The world’s mass media outlets ignored the footage, mainly because they didn’t know who he was.
    I might not have known either if I hadn’t spent, in these past few years, enough time in hospitals to have it proved to me on a personal basis that real science is as indispensable for modern medicine as cheap power. Among his many achievements, to none of which he has ever cared about drawing attention, Dyson designed the TRIGA reactor. The TRIGA @ensures that the world’s hospitals get a reliable supply of isotopes.
    Dyson served science. Except for the few holdouts who go on fighting to defend the objective @nature of truth, most of the climate scientists who get famous are serving themselves.
    There was a time when the journalists could have pointed out the difference, but now they have no idea. Instead, they are so celebrity-conscious that they would supply Flannery with a new clown suit if he wore out the one he is wearing now.
    A bad era for science has been a worse one for the mass media, the field in which, despite the usual blunders and misjudgments, I was once proud to earn my living. But I have spent too much time, in these past few years, being ashamed of my profession: hence the note of anger which, I can now see, has crept into this essay even though I was determined to keep it out. As my retirement changed to illness and then to dotage, I would have preferred to sit back and write poems than to be known for taking a position in what is, despite the colossal scale of its foolish waste, a very petty quarrel.
    But it was time to stand up and fight, if only because so many of the advocates, though they must know by now that they are professing a belief they no longer hold, will continue to profess it anyway.
    Back in the day, when I was starting off in journalism — on The Sydney Morning Herald, as it happens — the one thing we all learned early from our veteran colleagues was never to improve the truth for the sake of the story. If they caught us doing so, it was the end of the world.
    But here we are, and the world hasn’t ended after all. Though some governments might not yet have fully returned to the principle of evidence-based policy, most of them have learned to be wary of policy-based evidence. They have learned to spot it coming, not because the real virtues of critical inquiry have been well argued by scientists but because the false claims of abracadabra have been asserted too often by people who, though they might have started out as scientists of a kind, have found their true purpose in life as ideologists.
    Modern history since World War II has shown us that it is unwise to predict what will happen to ideologists after their citadel of power has been brought low. It was feared that the remaining Nazis would fight on, as werewolves. Actually, only a few days had to pass before there were no Nazis to be found anywhere except in Argentina, boring one another to death at the world’s worst dinner parties.
    After the collapse of the Soviet Union, on the other hand, when it was thought that no apologists for Marxist collectivism could possibly keep their credibility in the universities of the West, they not only failed to lose heart, they gained strength.
    Some critics would say that the climate change fad itself is an offshoot of this @lingering revolutionary animus against liberal democracy, and that the true purpose of the climatologists is to bring about a world government that will ensure what no less a philanthropist than Robert Mugabe calls “climate justice”, in which capitalism is replaced by something more altruistic.
    I prefer to blame mankind’s inherent capacity for raising opportunism to a principle: the enabling condition for fascism in all its varieties, and often an imperative mindset among high-end frauds.
    On behalf of the UN, Maurice Strong, the first man to raise big money for climate justice, found slightly under a million dollars of it sticking to his fingers, and hid out in China for the rest of his life — a clear sign of his guilty knowledge that he had pinched it.
    Later operators lack even the guilt. They just collect the money, like the Prime Minister of Tuvalu, who has probably guessed by now that the sea isn’t going to rise by so much as an inch; but he still wants, for his supposedly threatened atoll, a share of the free cash, and especially because the question has changed. It used to be: how will we cope when the disaster comes? The question now is: how will we cope if it does not?
    There is no need to entertain @visions of a vast, old-style army of disoccupied experts retreating through the snow, eating first their horses and finally each other. But there could be quite a lot of previously well-subsidised people left standing around while they vaguely wonder why nobody is listening to them any more. Way back in 2011, one of the Climategate scientists, Britain’s Tommy Wils, with an engagingly honest caution rare among prophets, speculated in an email about what people outside their network might do to them if climate change turned out to be a bunch of natural variations: “Kill us, probably.” But there has been too much talk of mass death already, and anyway most of the alarmists are the kind of people for whom it is a sufficiently fatal punishment simply to be ignored.
    Nowadays I write with aching slowness, and by the time I had finished assembling the previous paragraph, the US had changed presidents. What difference this transition will make to the speed with which the climate change meme collapses is yet to be seen, but my own guess is that it was already almost gone anyway: a comforting view to take if you don’t like the idea of a posturing zany like Donald Trump changing the world.
    Personally, I don’t even like the idea of Trump changing a light bulb, but we ought to remember that this dimwitted period in the history of the West began with exactly that: a change of light bulbs. Suddenly, 100 watts were too much. For as long as the climate change fad lasted, it always depended on poppycock; and it would surely be unwise to believe that mankind’s capacity to believe in fashionable nonsense could be cured by the disproportionately high cost of a temporary embarrassment. I’m almost sorry that I won’t be here for the ceremonial unveiling of the next threat.
    Almost certainly the opening feast will take place in Paris, with a happy sample of all the world’s young scientists facing the fragrant remains of their first ever plate of foie gras, while vowing that it will not be the last.
    This is an exclusive extract from the essay Mass Death Dies Hard by Clive James in Climate Change: The Facts 2017 edited by Jennifer Marohasy, published next month by the Institute of Public Affairs.
    Fear is the foundation of most government.
    John Adams

  18. #16918
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,412

    Default

    This is the best part
    Personally, I don’t even like the idea of Trump changing a light bulb, but we ought to remember that this dimwitted period in the history of the West began with exactly that: a change of light bulbs. Suddenly, 100 watts were too much. For as long as the climate change fad lasted, it always depended on poppycock; and it would surely be unwise to believe that mankind’s capacity to believe in fashionable nonsense could be cured by the disproportionately high cost of a temporary embarrassment. I’m almost sorry that I won’t be here for the ceremonial unveiling of the next threat.
    Fear is the foundation of most government.
    John Adams

  19. #16919
    1K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Logan Qld
    Posts
    1,377

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    This is the best part
    Seriously? That's the best part? Is there anything apart from ad homs is this book? Is there anything new is this edition that wasn't in the 2014 version? What does Ian Plimer have to say? I have his book "Heaven and Earth" and the errors in it are well documented. If his contribution in this book are as badly researched then I can see myself saving the $40/copy to spend on more useful things, like polish for the chrome on the towball on the kingswood.

  20. #16920
    Community Moderator
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Queensland
    Posts
    7,166

  21. #16921
    Community Moderator phild01's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Sydney, north
    Posts
    15,620

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bros View Post
    Geeze, the Financial Review could do with a proof reader!

  22. #16922
    Community Moderator
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Queensland
    Posts
    7,166

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by phild01 View Post
    Geeze, the Financial Review could do with a proof reader!
    Used to be a prestige paper once but since they have taken the chainsaw to the journalists their quality has slipped.

  23. #16923
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    The AFR shows SA's electricity price as 47.13¢ per kilowatt hour, yet my bill shows after the July price rises that I am being charged 38.00¢ per kilowatt hour. I'm not on any special deal because I export solar and as a result can't access any discount plans with my supplier. The AFR has overstated electricity costs in SA by 24% and much more for people on contracts. Take that into account and the AFR's premise falls flat on its face, just more ballyhooing about nothing!
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  24. #16924
    Community Moderator
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Queensland
    Posts
    7,166

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    The AFR shows SA's electricity price as 47.13¢ per kilowatt hour, yet my bill shows after the July price rises that I am being charged 38.00¢ per kilowatt hour. I'm not on any special deal because I export solar and as a result can't access any discount plans with my supplier. The AFR has overstated electricity costs in SA by 24% and much more for people on contracts. Take that into account and the AFR's premise falls flat on its face, just more ballyhooing about nothing!
    The Queensland price is wildly wrong as well.

    I got got this from a Facebook link a mate sent me that was sent around by Glenn Kelly (I think that is his name) who is a Lib politician.

  25. #16925
    Community Moderator phild01's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Sydney, north
    Posts
    15,620

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    .. the AFR's premise falls flat on its face, just more ballyhooing about nothing!
    The quoted price seems consistent with the highest hour charge for those who have time of day metering.
    Even as high as 54 cents where I am.

    https://www.agl.com.au/-/media/AGLData/DistributorData/PDFs/PriceFactSheet_AGL367195SR.pdf

  26. #16926
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default Emission Trading and climate change

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    Western climate change alarmists won’t admit they are wrong

    Cooling towers spilling steam: always there in the backdrop.


    When you tell people once too often that the missing extra heat is hiding in the ocean, they will switch over to watch Game of Thrones, where the dialogue is less ridiculous and all the threats come true. The proponents of man-made climate catastrophe asked us for so many leaps of faith that they were bound to run out of credibility in the end.

    Now that they finally seem to be doing so, it could be a good time for those of us who have never been convinced by all those urgent warnings to start warning each other that we might be making a comparably senseless tactical error if we expect the elastic cause of the catastrophists, and all of its exponents, to go away in a hurry.
    I speak as one who knows nothing about the mathematics involved in modelling non-linear systems. But I do know quite a lot about the mass media, and far too much about the abuse of language. So I feel qualified to advise against any triumphalist urge to compare the apparently imminent disintegration of the alarmist cause to the collapse of a house of cards. Devotees of that fond idea haven’t thought hard enough about their metaphor. A house of cards collapses only with a sigh, and when it has finished collapsing all the cards are still there.
    Although the alarmists might finally have to face that they will not get much more of what they want on a policy level, they will surely, on the level of their own employment, go on wanting their salaries and prestige.
    Illustration: Eric Lobbecke



    To take a conspicuous if ludicrous case, Australian climate star Tim Flannery will probably not, of his own free will, shrink back to the position conferred by his original metier, as an expert on the extinction of the giant wombat. He is far more likely to go on being, and wishing to be, one of the mass media’s mobile oracles about climate. While that possibility continues, it will go on being danger@ous to stand between him and a television camera. If the giant wombat could have moved at that speed, it would still be with us.
    The mere fact that few of Flannery’s predictions have ever come true need not be enough to discredit him, just as American professor Paul Ehrlich has been left untouched since he predicted that the world would soon run out of copper. In those days, when our current phase of the long discussion about man’s attack on nature was just beginning, he predicted mass death by extreme cold. Lately he predicts mass death by extreme heat. But he has always predicted mass death by extreme something.
    Actually, a more illustrative starting point for the theme of the permanently imminent climatic apocalypse might be taken as August 3, 1971, when The Sydney Morning Herald announced that the Great Barrier Reef would be dead in six months.
    After six months the reef had not died, but it has been going to die almost as soon as that ever since, making it a strangely durable emblem for all those who have wedded themselves to the notion of climate catastrophe.
    The most exalted of all the world’s predictors of reef death, former US president Barack Obama, has still not seen the reef; but he promises to go there one day when it is well again.
    In his acceptance speech at the 2008 Democratic convention, Obama said — and I truly wish that this were an inaccurate paraphrase — that people should vote for him if they wanted to stop the ocean rising. He got elected, and it didn’t rise.
    The notion of a countdown or a tipping point is very dear to both wings of this deaf shouting match, and really is of small use to either. On the catastrophist wing, whose “narrative”, as they might put it, would so often seem to be a synthesised film script left over from the era of surround-sound disaster movies, there is always a countdown to the tipping point.
    When the scientists are the main contributors to the script, the tipping point will be something like the forever forthcoming moment when the Gulf Stream turns upside down or the Antarctic ice sheet comes off its hinges, or any other extreme event which, although it persists in not happening, could happen sooner than we think. (Science correspondents who can write a phrase like “sooner than we think” seldom realise that they might have already lost you with the word “could”.)
    When the politicians join in the writing, the dramatic language declines to the infantile. There are only 50 days (former British PM Gordon Brown) or 100 months (Prince Charles wearing his political hat) left for mankind to “do something” about “the greatest moral challenge … of our generation” (Kevin Rudd, before he arrived at the Copenhagen climate shindig in 2009).
    When he left Copenhagen, Rudd scarcely mentioned the greatest moral challenge again. Perhaps he had deduced, from the confusion prevailing throughout the conference, that the chances of the world ever uniting its efforts to “do something” were very small. Whatever his motives for backing out of the climate chorus, his subsequent career was an early demonstration that to cease being a chorister would be no easy retreat because it would be a clear indication that everything you had said on the subject up to then had been said in either bad faith or @ignorance. It would not be enough merely to fall silent. You would have to travel back in time, run for office in the Czech Republic @instead of Australia, and call yourself Vaclav Klaus.
    Australia, unlike Rudd, has a globally popular role in the @climate movie because it looks the part.
    Common reason might tell you that a country whose contribution to the world’s emissions is only 1.4 per cent can do very little about the biggest moral challenge even if it manages to reduce that contribution to zero; but your eyes tell you that Australia is burning up. On the classic alarmist principle of “just stick your head out of the window and look around you”, Australia always looks like Overwhelming Evidence that the alarmists must be right.
    Climate Change: The Facts 2017 edited by Jennifer Marohasy
    Even now that the global warming scare has completed its transformation into the climate change scare so that any kind of event at either end of the scale of temperature can qualify as a crisis, Australia remains the top area of interest, still up there ahead of even the melting North Pole, @despite the Arctic’s miraculous @capacity to go on producing ice in defiance of all instructions from Al Gore. A C-student to his marrow, and thus never quick to pick up any reading matter at all, Gore has evidently never seen the Life magazine photographs of America’s nuclear submarine Skate surfacing through the North Pole in 1959. The ice up there is often thin, and sometimes vanishes.
    But it comes back, especially when some@one sufficiently illustrious confidently predicts that it will go away for good.
    After 4.5 billion years of changing, the climate that made outback Australia ready for Baz Luhrmann’s viewfinder looked all set to end the world tomorrow. History has already forgotten that the schedule for one of the big drought sequences in his movieAustralia was wrecked by rain, and certainly history will never be reminded by the mass media, which loves a picture that fits the story.
    In this way, the polar bear balancing on the Photoshopped shrinking ice floe will always have a future in show business, and the cooling towers spilling steam will always be up there in the background of the TV picture.
    The full 97 per cent of all satirists who dealt themselves out of the climate subject back at the start look like staying out of it until the end, even if they get satirised in their turn. One could blame them for their pusillanimity, but it would be useless, and perhaps unfair. Nobody will be able plausibly to call actress Emma Thompson dumb for spreading gloom and doom about the climate: she’s too clever and too creative. And anyway, she might be right. Cases like Leonardo DiCaprio and Cate Blanchett are rare enough to be called brave. Otherwise, the consensus of silence from the wits and thespians continues to be impressive.
    If they did wish to speak up for scepticism, however, they wouldn’t find it easy when the people who run the big TV outlets forbid the wrong kind of humour.
    On Saturday Night Live back there in 2007, Will Ferrell, brilliantly pretending to be George W. Bush, was allowed to get every word of the global warming message wrong but he wasn’t allowed to disbelieve it. Just as all branches of the modern media love a picture of something that might be part of the Overwhelming Evidence for climate change even if it is really a picture of something else, they all love a clock ticking down to zero, and if the clock never quite gets there then the motif can be exploited forever.
    A favourite image: polar bear on a shrinking piece of ice.
    But the editors and producers must face the drawback of such perpetual excitement: it gets perpetually less exciting. Numbness sets in, and there is time to think after all. Some of the customers might even start asking where this language of rubber numbers has been heard before.
    It was heard from Swift. In Gulliver’s Travels he populated his flying island of Laputa with scientists busily using rubber numbers to predict dire events. He called these scientists “projectors”. At the basis of all the predictions of the projectors was the prediction that the Earth was in danger from a Great Comet whose tail was “ten hundred thousand and fourteen” miles long. I should concede at this point that a sardonic parody is not necessarily pertinent just because it is funny; and that although it might be unlikely that the Earth will soon be threatened by man-made climate change, it might be less unlikely that the Earth will be threatened eventually by an asteroid, or let it be a Great Comet; after all, the Earth has been hit before.
    That being said, however, we can note that Swift has got the language of artificial crisis exactly right, to the point that we might have trouble deciding whether he invented it or merely copied it from scientific voices surrounding him. James Hansen is a Swiftian figure. Blithely equating trains full of coal to trains full of people on their way to Auschwitz, the Columbia University climatologist is utterly unaware that he has not only turned the stomachs of the informed audience he was out to impress, he has lost their attention.
    Paleoclimatologist Chris Turney, from the University of NSW, who led a ship full of climate change enthusiasts into the Antarctic to see how the ice was doing under the influence of climate change and found it was doing well enough to trap the ship, could have been invented by Swift. (Turney’s subsequent Guardian article, in which he explained how this embarrassment was due only to a quirk of the weather and had nothing to do with a possible mistake about the climate, was a Swiftian lampoon in all respects.)
    Compulsorily retired now from the climate scene, Rajendra Pachauri, formerly chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Clim@ate Change, was a zany straight from Swift, by way of a Bollywood remake of The Party starring the local imitator of Peter Sellers; if Dr Johnson could have thought of Pachauri, Rasselas would be much more entertaining than it is. Finally, and supremely, Flannery could have been invented by Swift after 10 cups of coffee too many with Stella. He wanted to keep her laughing. Swift projected the projectors who now surround us.
    They came out of the grant-hungry fringe of semi-science to infect the heart of the mass media, where a whole generation of commentators taught each other to speak and write a hyperbolic doom-language (“unprecedent@ed”, “irreversible”, et cetera), which you might have thought was sure to doom them in their turn. After all, nobody with an intact pair of ears really listens for long to anyone who talks about “the planet” or “carbon” or “climate denial” or “the science”. But for now — and it could be a long now — the advocates of drastic action are still armed with a theory that no fact doesn’t fit.
    Australian author, journalist and broadcaster Clive James.
    The theory has always been manifestly unfalsifiable, but there are few science pundits in the mass media who could tell Karl Popper from Mary Poppins. More startling than their ignorance, however, is their defiance of logic. You can just about see how a bunch of grant-dependent climate scientists might go on saying that there was never a Medieval Warm Period even after it has been pointed out to them that any old corpse dug up from the permafrost could never have been buried in it. But how can a bunch of supposedly enlightened writers go on saying that? Their answer, if pressed, is usually to say that the question is too elementary to be considered.
    Alarmists have always profited from their insistence that climate change is such a complex issue that no “science denier” can have an opinion about it worth hearing. For most areas of science such an insistence would be true. But this particular area has a knack of raising questions that get more and more complicated in the absence of an answer to the elementary ones. One of those elementary questions is about how man-made carbon dioxide can be a driver of climate change if the global temperature has not gone up by much over the past 20 years but the amount of man-made carbon dioxide has. If we go on to ask a supplementary question — say, how could carbon dioxide raise temperature when the evidence of the ice cores indicates that temperature has always raised carbon dioxide — we will be given complicated answers, but we still haven’t had an answer to the first question, except for the suggestion that the temperature, despite the observations, really has gone up, but that the extra heat is hiding in the ocean.
    It is not necessarily science denial to propose that this long professional habit of postponing an answer to the first and most elementary question is bizarre. American physicist Richard Feynman said that if a fact doesn’t fit the theory, the theory has to go. Feynman was a scientist. Einstein realised that the Michelson-Morley experiment hinted at a possible fact that might not fit Newton’s theory of celestial mechanics. Einstein was a scientist, too. Those of us who are not scientists, but who are sceptical about the validity of this whole issue — who suspect that the alleged problem might be less of a problem than is made out — have plenty of great scientific names to point to for exemplars, and it could even be said that we could point to the whole of science itself. Being resistant to the force of its own inertia is one of the things that science does.
    When the climatologists upgraded their frame of certainty from global warming to climate change, the bet-hedging man@oeuvre was so blatant that some of the sceptics started predicting in their turn: the alarmist cause must surely now collapse, like a house of cards. A tipping point had been reached.
    Unfortunately for the cause of rational critical inquiry, the campaign for immediate action against climate doom reaches a tipping point every few minutes, because the observations, if not the calculations, never cease exposing it as a fantasy.
    I myself, after I observed journalist Andrew Neil on BBC TV wiping the floor with the then secretary for energy and climate change Ed Davey, thought that the British government’s energy policy could not survive, and that the mad work that had begun with the 2008 Climate Change Act of Labour’s Ed Miliband must now surely begin to come undone. Neil’s well-inform@ed list of questions had been a tipping point. But it changed nothing in the short term. It didn’t even change the BBC, which continued uninterrupted with its determination that the alarmist view should not be questioned.
    How did the upmarket mass media get themselves into such a condition of servility? One is reminded of that fine old historian George Grote when he said that he had taken his A History of Greece only to the point where the Greeks failed to realise they were slaves. The BBC’s monotonous plugging of the climate theme in its science documentaries is too obvious to need remarking, but it’s what the science programs never say that really does the damage.
    Even the news programs get “smoothed” to ensure that nothing interferes with the constant business of protecting the climate change theme’s dogmatic status.
    To take a simple but telling example: when Sigmar Gabriel, Germany’s Vice-Chancellor and man in charge of the Energiewende (energy transition), talked rings around Greenpeace hecklers with nothing on their minds but renouncing coal, or told executives of the renewable energy companies that they could no longer take unlimited subsidies for granted, these instructive moments could be seen on German TV but were not excerpted and subtitled for British TV even briefly, despite Gabriel’s accomplishments as a natural TV star, and despite the fact he himself was no sceptic.
    Wrong message: easier to leave him out. And if American climate scientist Judith Curry appears before a US Senate com@mittee and manages to defend her anti-alarmist position against concentrated harassment from a senator whose only qualification for the discussion is that he can impugn her integrity with a rhetorical contempt of which she is too polite to be capable? Leave it to YouTube. In this way, the BBC has spent 10 years unplugged from a vital part of the global intellectual discussion, with an increasing air of provincialism as the inevitable result. As the UK now begins the long process of exiting the EU, we can reflect that the departing nation’s most important broadcasting institution has been behaving, for several years, as if its true aim were to reproduce the thought control that prevailed in the Soviet Union.
    As for the print media, it’s no mystery why the upmarket newspapers do an even more thorough job than the downmarket newspapers of suppressing any dissenting opinion on the climate.
    In Britain, The Telegraph sensibly gives a column to the diligently sceptical Christopher Booker, and Matt Rid@ley has recently been able to get a few rational articles into The Times, but a more usual arrangement is exemplified by my own newspaper, The Guardian, which entrusts all aspects of the subject to George Monbiot, who once informed his green readership that there was only one reason I could presume to disagree with him, and them: I was an old man, soon to be dead, and thus with no concern for the future of “the planet”.
    I would have damned his impertinence, but it would have been like getting annoyed with a wheelbarrow full of freshly cut grass.
    These byline names are stars committed to their opinion, but what’s missing from the posh press is the non-star name committed to the job of building a fact file and extracting a reasoned article from it. Further down the market, when The Daily Mailput its no-frills newshound David Rose on the case after Climategate, his admirable competence immediately got him labelled as a “climate change denier”: one of the first people to be awarded that badge of honour.
    The other tactic used to discredit him was the standard one of calling his paper a disreputable publication. It might be — having been a victim of its prurience myself, I have no inclination to revere it — but it hasn’t forgotten what objective reporting is supposed to be. Most of the British papers have, and the reason is no mystery.
    They can’t afford to remember. The print media, with notable exceptions, is on its way down the drain. With almost no personnel left to do the writing, the urge at editorial level is to give all the science stuff to one bloke. The print edition of The Independent bored its way out of business when its resident climate nag was allowed to write half the paper.
    In its last year, when the doomwatch journalists were threatened by the climate industry with a newly revised consensus opinion that a mere 2C increase in world temperature might be not only acceptable but likely, The Independent’s chap retaliated by writing stories about how the real likelihood was an increase of 5C, and in a kind of frenzied crescendo he wrote a whole front page saying that the global temperature was “on track” for an increase of 6C. Not long after, the Indy’s print edition closed down.
    At The New York Times, Andrew Revkin, star colour-piece writer on the climate beat, makes the whole subject no less predictable than his prose style: a cruel restriction.
    In Australia, the Fairfax papers, which by now have almost as few writers as readers, reprint Revkin’s summaries as if they were the voice of authority, and will probably go on doing so until the waters close overhead. On the ABC, house science pundit Robyn Williams famously predicted that the rising of the waters “could” amount to 100m in the next century. But not even he predicted that it could happen next week. At The Sydney Morning Herald, it could happen next week. The only remaining journalists could look out of the window and see fish.
    Bending its efforts to sensationalise the news on a scale previously unknown even in its scrappy history, the mass media has helped to consolidate a pernicious myth. But it could not have done this so thoroughly without the accident that it is the main source of information and opinion for people in the academic world and in the scientific institutions. Few of those people have been reading the sceptical blogs: they have no time. If I myself had not been so ill during the relevant time span, I might not have been reading it either, and might have remained confined within the misinformation system where any assertion of forthcoming disaster counts as evidence.
    The effect of this mountainous accumulation of sanctified alarmism on the academic world is another subject. Some of the universities deserve to be closed down, but I expect they will muddle through, if only because the liberal spirit, when it regains its strength, is likely to be less vengeful than the dogmatists were when they ruled. Finding that the power of inertia blesses their security as once it blessed their influence, the enthusiasts might have the sense to throttle back on their certitude, huddle under the blanket cover provided by the concept of “post-normal science”, and wait in comfort to be forgotten.
    As for the learned societies and professional institutions, it was never a puzzle that so many of them became instruments of obfuscation instead of enlightenment. Totalitarianism takes over a state at the moment when the ruling party is taken over by its secretariat; the tipping point is when Stalin, with his lists of names, offers to stay late after the meeting and take care of business.
    The same vulnerability applies to any learned institution. Rule by bureaucracy favours mediocrity, and in no time at all you are in a world where the British Met Office’s (former) chief scientist Julia Slingo is a figure of authority and Curry is fighting to breathe.
    On a smaller scale of influential prestige, Nicholas Stern lends the Royal Society the honour of his presence. For those of us who regard him as a vocalised stuffed shirt, it is no use saying that his confident pronouncements about the future are only those of an economist. Klaus was only an economist when he tried to remind us that Malthusian clairvoyance is invariably a harbinger of totalitarianism. But Klaus was a true figure of authority. Alas, true figures of authority are in short supply, and tend not to have much influence when they get to speak.
    All too often, this is because they care more about science than about the media. As recently as 2015, after a full 10 years of nightly proof that this particular scientific dispute was a media event before it was anything, Freeman Dyson was persuaded to go on television. He was up there just long enough to say that the small proportion of carbon dioxide that was man-made could only add to the world’s supply of plant food. The world’s mass media outlets ignored the footage, mainly because they didn’t know who he was.
    I might not have known either if I hadn’t spent, in these past few years, enough time in hospitals to have it proved to me on a personal basis that real science is as indispensable for modern medicine as cheap power. Among his many achievements, to none of which he has ever cared about drawing attention, Dyson designed the TRIGA reactor. The TRIGA @ensures that the world’s hospitals get a reliable supply of isotopes.
    Dyson served science. Except for the few holdouts who go on fighting to defend the objective @nature of truth, most of the climate scientists who get famous are serving themselves.
    There was a time when the journalists could have pointed out the difference, but now they have no idea. Instead, they are so celebrity-conscious that they would supply Flannery with a new clown suit if he wore out the one he is wearing now.
    A bad era for science has been a worse one for the mass media, the field in which, despite the usual blunders and misjudgments, I was once proud to earn my living. But I have spent too much time, in these past few years, being ashamed of my profession: hence the note of anger which, I can now see, has crept into this essay even though I was determined to keep it out. As my retirement changed to illness and then to dotage, I would have preferred to sit back and write poems than to be known for taking a position in what is, despite the colossal scale of its foolish waste, a very petty quarrel.
    But it was time to stand up and fight, if only because so many of the advocates, though they must know by now that they are professing a belief they no longer hold, will continue to profess it anyway.
    Back in the day, when I was starting off in journalism — on The Sydney Morning Herald, as it happens — the one thing we all learned early from our veteran colleagues was never to improve the truth for the sake of the story. If they caught us doing so, it was the end of the world.
    But here we are, and the world hasn’t ended after all. Though some governments might not yet have fully returned to the principle of evidence-based policy, most of them have learned to be wary of policy-based evidence. They have learned to spot it coming, not because the real virtues of critical inquiry have been well argued by scientists but because the false claims of abracadabra have been asserted too often by people who, though they might have started out as scientists of a kind, have found their true purpose in life as ideologists.
    Modern history since World War II has shown us that it is unwise to predict what will happen to ideologists after their citadel of power has been brought low. It was feared that the remaining Nazis would fight on, as werewolves. Actually, only a few days had to pass before there were no Nazis to be found anywhere except in Argentina, boring one another to death at the world’s worst dinner parties.
    After the collapse of the Soviet Union, on the other hand, when it was thought that no apologists for Marxist collectivism could possibly keep their credibility in the universities of the West, they not only failed to lose heart, they gained strength.
    Some critics would say that the climate change fad itself is an offshoot of this @lingering revolutionary animus against liberal democracy, and that the true purpose of the climatologists is to bring about a world government that will ensure what no less a philanthropist than Robert Mugabe calls “climate justice”, in which capitalism is replaced by something more altruistic.
    I prefer to blame mankind’s inherent capacity for raising opportunism to a principle: the enabling condition for fascism in all its varieties, and often an imperative mindset among high-end frauds.
    On behalf of the UN, Maurice Strong, the first man to raise big money for climate justice, found slightly under a million dollars of it sticking to his fingers, and hid out in China for the rest of his life — a clear sign of his guilty knowledge that he had pinched it.
    Later operators lack even the guilt. They just collect the money, like the Prime Minister of Tuvalu, who has probably guessed by now that the sea isn’t going to rise by so much as an inch; but he still wants, for his supposedly threatened atoll, a share of the free cash, and especially because the question has changed. It used to be: how will we cope when the disaster comes? The question now is: how will we cope if it does not?
    There is no need to entertain @visions of a vast, old-style army of disoccupied experts retreating through the snow, eating first their horses and finally each other. But there could be quite a lot of previously well-subsidised people left standing around while they vaguely wonder why nobody is listening to them any more. Way back in 2011, one of the Climategate scientists, Britain’s Tommy Wils, with an engagingly honest caution rare among prophets, speculated in an email about what people outside their network might do to them if climate change turned out to be a bunch of natural variations: “Kill us, probably.” But there has been too much talk of mass death already, and anyway most of the alarmists are the kind of people for whom it is a sufficiently fatal punishment simply to be ignored.
    Nowadays I write with aching slowness, and by the time I had finished assembling the previous paragraph, the US had changed presidents. What difference this transition will make to the speed with which the climate change meme collapses is yet to be seen, but my own guess is that it was already almost gone anyway: a comforting view to take if you don’t like the idea of a posturing zany like Donald Trump changing the world.
    Personally, I don’t even like the idea of Trump changing a light bulb, but we ought to remember that this dimwitted period in the history of the West began with exactly that: a change of light bulbs. Suddenly, 100 watts were too much. For as long as the climate change fad lasted, it always depended on poppycock; and it would surely be unwise to believe that mankind’s capacity to believe in fashionable nonsense could be cured by the disproportionately high cost of a temporary embarrassment. I’m almost sorry that I won’t be here for the ceremonial unveiling of the next threat.
    Almost certainly the opening feast will take place in Paris, with a happy sample of all the world’s young scientists facing the fragrant remains of their first ever plate of foie gras, while vowing that it will not be the last.
    This is an exclusive extract from the essay Mass Death Dies Hard by Clive James in Climate Change: The Facts 2017 edited by Jennifer Marohasy, published next month by the Institute of Public Affairs.
    Tapatalk saves me...and blanks all of the cut and paste out to make it unreadable. How cool is that? Maybe it's a conspiracy...
    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  27. #16927
    2K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    newcastle
    Posts
    2,152

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    The AFR shows SA's electricity price as 47.13¢ per kilowatt hour, yet my bill shows after the July price rises that I am being charged 38.00¢ per kilowatt hour. I'm not on any special deal because I export solar and as a result can't access any discount plans with my supplier. The AFR has overstated electricity costs in SA by 24% and much more for people on contracts. Take that into account and the AFR's premise falls flat on its face, just more ballyhooing about nothing!
    there are a huge number of different contracts. TOU tariffs, different supply charges, progressive gross metering with off peak etc etc. presumably they would use tariffs that are comparable across the states, eg Time of use, especially because the biggest users end up on these tariffs (so called smart metering - but not actually smart)

  28. #16928
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Definitely the retail price is becoming ridiculous via the retail sector.

    Looking at the data dashboard monday morning at around 9:20AM today, the power price at the AEMO is between $83.73 to $135.07 per MWh - so 8-13 CENTS per kWh.

    https://www.aemo.com.au/Electricity/...patch-overview

    The history table is available: https://www.aemo.com.au/Electricity/...ge-price-table


    Those who want to ignore the science are increasingly alone. They are on their own shrinking island.


  29. #16929
    Community Moderator
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Queensland
    Posts
    7,166

    Default

    Interesting four corners tonight.

    Recycling companies stockpiling thousands of tonnes of glass as cheap imports leave market in crisis - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

    As kids we could make money from selling long neck bottles back to the softdrink manufacturers. Everyone had the same bottle weather it was beer or softdrink and every small town had their softdrink making plant and the big towns their breweries but we have seen the end of that era.

    We recycle jars to be used for making jam, pickles and chutney but we end up throwing a lot away.

  30. #16930
    1K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Logan Qld
    Posts
    1,377

    Default

    Qld gets a container deposit scheme next year so the number of bottles returned for recycling in this state at least will increase enormously. Maybe we could use them to make optic fibre and give everyone decent internet. Our nbn gets connected this week but it's just crappy old coax from the foxtel cable on the pole. Not expecting anything spectacular

    New galaxy poll out today has Labor marginally ahead of LNP but One Nation on 15%. Depends on how their preferences go but I think they will favour the LNP enough to get them over the line. Maybe a hung parliament with One Nation, Katter or independents holding the balance of power. The matter of Malcolm Roberts' citizenship may come up and if he is found to have been less than truthful it may take a bit of the gloss off Pauline's popularity. The senate will not become smarter if he departs as Hanson's sister will take his place but at least his kooky ideas on climate change will disappear from senate hearings. The combined IQ of One Nation senators will still not exceed single digits.

  31. #16931
    Community Moderator
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Queensland
    Posts
    7,166

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PhilT2 View Post
    Depends on how their preferences go but I think they will favour the LNP enough to get them over the line.
    Extreme right wing of the Liberal party same as Greens the left wing of the Labor party.

    Quote Originally Posted by PhilT2 View Post
    The matter of Malcolm Roberts' citizenship may come up and if he is found to have been less than truthful it may take a bit of the gloss off Pauline's popularity.
    Since when does a politician tell the truth?

  32. #16932
    1K Club Member UseByDate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    South Australia
    Posts
    1,275

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PhilT2 View Post
    Qld gets a container deposit scheme next year so the number of bottles returned for recycling in this state at least will increase enormously. Maybe we could use them to make optic fibre and give everyone decent internet. Our nbn gets connected this week but it's just crappy old coax from the foxtel cable on the pole. Not expecting anything spectacular

    New galaxy poll out today has Labor marginally ahead of LNP but One Nation on 15%. Depends on how their preferences go but I think they will favour the LNP enough to get them over the line. Maybe a hung parliament with One Nation, Katter or independents holding the balance of power. The matter of Malcolm Roberts' citizenship may come up and if he is found to have been less than truthful it may take a bit of the gloss off Pauline's popularity. The senate will not become smarter if he departs as Hanson's sister will take his place but at least his kooky ideas on climate change will disappear from senate hearings. The combined IQ of One Nation senators will still not exceed single digits.
    Her sister may not necessarily become senator. It is possible for Malcolm Roberts to replace Malcolm Roberts according to this article.
    One Nation: Will Pauline Hanson's sister replace Senator Malcolm Roberts if he is disqualified? - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

  33. #16933
    2K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    newcastle
    Posts
    2,152

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bros View Post
    Interesting four corners tonight.

    Recycling companies stockpiling thousands of tonnes of glass as cheap imports leave market in crisis - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

    As kids we could make money from selling long neck bottles back to the softdrink manufacturers. Everyone had the same bottle weather it was beer or softdrink and every small town had their softdrink making plant and the big towns their breweries but we have seen the end of that era.

    We recycle jars to be used for making jam, pickles and chutney but we end up throwing a lot away.
    Recycling is such a crock. One of the big justifications is saving "landfill", which is possibly our least likely to run out of resource. The whole of Australia produced 20m tonnes of landfill last year, while just in the hunter valley, we dug holes enough for 160m tonnes of coal to come out . We aren't going to run out of landfill opportunities in this country.

    at the very least recycling should save more energy than it uses to make new.

    Given its a renovation forum, its salient to note that the big recyclers of demolition waste in NSW, recycle what they can make money out of, and the rest gets put on a train and buried in Queensland. How dumb is that? That's what $240 tonne does to he market place (going up a lot faster than electricity prices, that's for sure)

  34. #16934
    4K Club Member ringtail's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    brisbane
    Posts
    8,266

    Default

    Hopefully we will put a levy back on landfill so you lot can keep your waste all to yourselves

  35. #16935
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pharmaboy2 View Post
    Recycling is such a crock. One of the big justifications is saving "landfill", which is possibly our least likely to run out of resource.
    You've got a point. Potential landfill sites are seemingly endless. So is the ocean - or at least it was once thought as an endless dumping ground. However now there is more mass of plastic refuse in the oceans than there is biomass (i.e. fish, etc) and a typical cubic meter of seawater near coasts contains millions of pieces of microscopic plastic debris. The fish you eat today are ultimately living off the plankton that are living off plastic refuse, and all of the phthalates those plastics contained. Sperm counts in men down 80% from a century ago and infertility rising - anyone wonder why???

    But actually you are wrong that the reason for recycling is avoiding landfill. In fact recycling is at the far end of the list of things that will mitigate climate change: Refuse, Reduce, Reuse, Repurpose, and as a last resort: Recycle.
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  36. #16936
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ringtail View Post
    Hopefully we will put a levy back on landfill so you lot can keep your waste all to yourselves
    The largest proportion of most Council's rates is the levee for waste disposal, but apparently that isn't much of a disincentive. I remember a time when households were entitled to a single 45 litre rubbish bin per week, not like today's collection of typically 3 x 240 litre rubbish, recycling and green waste bins.
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  37. #16937
    Community Moderator phild01's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Sydney, north
    Posts
    15,620

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ringtail View Post
    Hopefully we will put a levy back on landfill so you lot can keep your waste all to yourselves
    Maybe NSW needs to remove their levy. Bit like the prohibition era, and a kick start to organised waste Mafia style!

  38. #16938
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    In addition to the "world's biggest" (129MWh) lithium ion battery being built in South Australia by Tesla and Neoen as a rapid supply/demand response solution, a trial will start in South Australia next year to produce hydrogen gas from excess renewable (wind and solar) energy to be stored and distributed through existing natural gas infrastructure, which can accept 10% or more hydrogen without modification.

    Tesla to supply world's biggest battery for SA, but what is it and how will it work? - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

    Hydrogen to be injected into Adelaide's gas grid in 'power-to-gas' trial - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

    In other developments, the CSIRO has developed a new method of separating hydrogen from ammonia which will allow the transportation of hydrogen in ammonia at an energy density greater than that of liquid hydrogen, but without any of the problems of storing liquid hydrogen. This development opens the door to a new energy export industry based on hydrogen from renewable energy.

    Renewable hydrogen could fuel Australia's next export boom after CSIRO breakthrough - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  39. #16939
    Community Moderator
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Queensland
    Posts
    7,166

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    In other developments, the CSIRO has developed a new method of separating hydrogen from ammonia which will allow the transportation of hydrogen in ammonia at an energy density greater than that of liquid hydrogen, but without any of the problems of storing liquid hydrogen. This development opens the door to a new energy export industry based on hydrogen from renewable energy.

    Renewable hydrogen could fuel Australia's next export boom after CSIRO breakthrough - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
    Nearly every night I see on TV breakthrough is cancer cures but these breakthroughs seen to fade away.

    I now get the feeling breakthrough reports are just part of getting more funding for projects.

  40. #16940
    The Master's Apprentice Bedford's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Yarra Valley Vic oz
    Posts
    8,178

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bros View Post
    I now get the feeling breakthrough reports are just part of getting more funding for projects.
    Never been any different.........
    Posted by John2b, And no, BEVs are not going to save the planet, which doesn't need saving anyway.

  41. #16941
    1K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Logan Qld
    Posts
    1,377

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bros View Post
    Nearly every night I see on TV breakthrough is cancer cures but these breakthroughs seen to fade away.

    I now get the feeling breakthrough reports are just part of getting more funding for projects.
    Usually there is a big difference in what the scientists say about their work and what the media reports. Auntie is nowhere near as bad as the Murdoch rags but the tendency to talk things up is still there. And while we may have a great invention there is no guarantees there will not be a better one later or that there will be buyers for it.

    The scientist in this story is realistic and dampens down the reporters enthusiasm a few times. He ends by saying it will depend on finding investors and markets. I can't find any extravagant claims in his report.

  42. #16942
    2K Club Member chrisp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,815

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bros View Post
    Nearly every night I see on TV breakthrough is cancer cures but these breakthroughs seen to fade away.
    Most technological developments happen in small steps. It is very very rare of a game-changing breakthrough to happen.

    Picking up on your analogy, cancer won't be cured over night by a breakthrough but by a large number of small improvements in our knowledge on how to prevent and cure particular cancers. The survival rate is progressively (and slowly) improving. A quick google search turns up some figures - the 5-year survival rate for cancer in Australia has improved from 48% in the mid-1980s to 68% in 2009 to 2013 (figures from "The Courier", 30 March 2017).

    I could speculate that much of the improvement in cancer survival would have been due to education, prevention and early diagnosis as well as treatment. Cigarette anyone?

    Similar changes happen in other areas too. Just look at the fuel efficiency and performance improvements (along with reductions in the tailpipe pollution) in our cars over the decades. Again, these changes didn't happen over night but progressively bit by bit.

    And are the news stories for funding? Maybe. Publicly is important for all fields competing for grants. It's sort of sad that public good research is subject to such competition but it is part of the rigorous checks and balances of the system.
    There is no middle ground between facts and fallacies - argumentum ad temperantiam

  43. #16943
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    More interesting facts and figures about hydrogen vehicles and how they could interact with, store energy for and even power the electricity grid:

    Regenerative Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles to advance Hydrogen Fuel Cell Technology | Hydrogen Cars Now
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  44. #16944
    Community Moderator phild01's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Sydney, north
    Posts
    15,620

    Default

    I keep saying it, hydrogen!

  45. #16945
    1K Club Member UseByDate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    South Australia
    Posts
    1,275

    Default

    Worth a look. If you have 50 mins spare, watch the videos.

    Toyota vs Tesla: Can hydrogen fuel-cell cars compete with EVs? : RenewEconomy

  46. #16946
    Community Moderator
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Queensland
    Posts
    7,166

    Default

    Hydrogen car not new.

    No Cookies | The Courier Mail

  47. #16947
    1K Club Member UseByDate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    South Australia
    Posts
    1,275

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bros View Post
    Hydrogen car not new.

    No Cookies | The Courier Mail
    "never you mind about that" Joh Bjelke-Petersen

  48. #16948
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,412

    Default

    Global warming activist and assorted agitators have never been about the "environment"
    They have always seen this as a back door for their marxist cause.

    U.N. Official Admits Global Warming Agenda Is Really About Destroying Capitalism

    by Tyler Durden
    Feb 3, 2017 6:57 PM
    Submitted by Martin Armstrong via ArmstrongEconomics.com,
    A shocking statement was made by a United Nations official Christiana Figueres at a news conference in Brussels.


    Figueres admitted that the Global Warming conspiracy set by the U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, of which she is the executive secretary, has a goal not of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity, but to destroy capitalism. She said very casually:
    “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.”
    She even restated that goal ensuring it was not a mistake:
    “This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history.”
    I was invited to a major political dinner in Washington with the former Chairman of Temple University since I advised the University with respect to its portfolio. We were seated at one of those round tables with ten people. Because we were invited from a university, they placed us with the heads of the various environmental groups. They assumed they were in friendly company and began speaking freely. Dick Fox, my friend, began to lead them on to get the truth behind their movement. Lo and behold, they too admitted it was not about the environment, but to reduce population growth. Dick then asked them, “Whose grandchild are we trying to prevent from being born? Your’s or mine?
    All of these movements seem to have a hidden agenda that the press helps to misrepresent all the time. One must wonder, at what point will the press realize they are destroying their own future?
    Investors.com reminds Figueres that the only economic model in the last 150 years that has ever worked at all is capitalism. The evidence is prima facie: From a feudal order that lasted a thousand years, produced zero growth and kept workdays long and lifespans short, the countries that have embraced free-market capitalism have enjoyed a system in which output has increased 70-fold, work days have been halved and lifespans doubled.



    Fear is the foundation of most government.
    John Adams

  49. #16949
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    Global warming activist and assorted agitators have never been about the "environment"
    They have always seen this as a back door for their marxist cause.
    Your post is absolute rubbish, Marc. There are hundreds of thousands of science professionals worldwide who work in private, corporate, educational and/or government organisations in first world countries, third world countries, socialist countries, capitalist countries, dictatorships, democracies, etc, who do care about the effects of climate change on the environment, yet they do not agree about how climate change should be mitigated. No one person speaks for them all. Just how stupid do you think your friends and colleagues in this forum must be if they are to accept your ridiculous conspiracy theory?
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  50. #16950
    2K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    newcastle
    Posts
    2,152

    Default

    Bloody hell, it's not rocket science, and itsnot the death of capitalism.

    its just capitalism has to now take into account all costs - this includes undesireable outputs, ie pollution. You used to be free to pump all sorts of particulates into the air as well, but regulations have stopped most of that and will also stop the free for all on burning fossil fuels.

    What the left like to also add ( see greens et al) is that the blame is also with economic expansionism and that we must constrain generally. Well, this is a philosophical position of the left green movement- they aren't even close to power pretty much anywhere in the world and aren't getting closer. They ave that position because they have Marxist heritage and have co opted that belief system with the one that we are running out of all resources and we shouldn't use more than is replaceable.

    Marc, don't mix up the leftist "watermelons" as you call them, with rationalists concerned about global warming and our long term future as a result

Page 339 of 377 FirstFirst ... 239 289 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •