Resisting Climate Hysteria

[sails]

Expensive ripoff (imo) as per modelling by the Centre for International Economics consultancy.

AUSTRALIA faces a $30 billion hit to growth by 2018 if domestic carbon prices remain higher than the European price, according to new economic modelling that will add to business pressure to bring the $23 starting price closer to Europe’s $10.

The modelling, by the Centre for International Economics consultancy, warns that keeping the $23 fixed price regime and the floor price of $15 a tonne - key elements of the current package - will have almost twice the impact on economic growth by 2018 as allowing the Australian price to track international prices.

Read more: Carbon tax about to cost us $30b

 

[mexican]

I wonder Sails...... if Flannery and Roy are going to make Two men and a tinny Part2!
Very much doubt it!!

 

[Julia]

Expensive ripoff (imo) as per modelling by the Centre for International Economics consultancy.

I think the government would actually earn some brownie points by admitting that they set the price too high and making an appropriate adjustment.
Easy enough to explain it away on the basis of altered global interest in following suit with carbon pricing. But no, they'd rather cause unnecessary decline for business and the electorate.

 

[medicowallet]

I think the government would actually earn some brownie points by admitting that they set the price too high and making an appropriate adjustment.
Easy enough to explain it away on the basis of altered global interest in following suit with carbon pricing. But no, they'd rather cause unnecessary decline for business and the electorate.

I think you've hit the nail on the head.

It would give Liberals much less firepower.
Show that Labor is starting to listen with Ms Gillard's tenth resurrection.
Show that Labor is looking after the economy and that the Greens are not controlling the agenda.

 

[sails]

I think the government would actually earn some brownie points by admitting that they set the price too high and making an appropriate adjustment.
Easy enough to explain it away on the basis of altered global interest in following suit with carbon pricing. But no, they'd rather cause unnecessary decline for business and the electorate.

Swan has apparently flatly refused to lower the price presumably because it would be too much loss of revenue for the government. Seems to prove again that this tax is all about money and little, if anything, to do with the environment.

Wayne Swan, asked yesterday whether the government would reopen the carbon package after Professor McKibbin's call for a $10-a-tonne price, said: "No."

Read more: Cut carbon price to $10, Labor told

 

[wayneL]

Warmists have truly entered the twilight zone now.

Eugenics anyone?

Plus opinion manipulation via drugs?

Holy sheeeit!

http://www.theatlantic.com/technolo...uman-body-could-combat-climate-change/253981/

 

[Logique]

I think the government would actually earn some brownie points by admitting that they set the price too high and making an appropriate adjustment...

Never get this past the Greens, to whom the whole point is the keep winding the tax upward, until all the coal burning plants shut down, and the steel mills are running on solar cells and wind power.

 

[basilio]

CSIRO and BOM have just released the latest review of climate observations.

Greenhouse gases are continuing to rise steeply and we are on track for large increases in temperature and changing rainfall patterns across Australia. Green house gases are at their highest level for 800,000 years.

http://www.theage.com.au/environment/greenhouse-gases-on-rise-after-lull-20120313-1uyhi.html

Of course they could be hopelessly wrong couldn't they ?

 

[basilio]

Earlier this year the wall Street Journal published a couple of Op Eds by 16 scientists and engineers on Climate Change. It was another calculated effort at muddying the waters and denial and distortion. It was particularly interesting to see how the graphs they used to deny climate change did not include the error bars that are part of every, single scientific paper.

The Real Climate website picked apart their statement and showed just how deliberately dishonest the writers were in their presentation.

And the signatories are the cream of the group arguing against global warming.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/02/bickmore-on-the-wsj-response/#more-11066

 

[basilio]

Pentagon leads charge for renewable energy

Its been brought up a few times but bears repeating. The Pentagon is making big changes in how it meets its energy needs. They are also aware of the risks of climate change and the international turmoil that will create.

http://www.truth-out.org/japan-pentagon-and-future-renewable-energy-battle-lines-form/1331072292

 

[explod]

They are also aware of the risks of climate change and the international turmoil that will create.

But woddathaygunnado with wayneL?

Bring up the water cart and all hands to the hoses.

 

[wayneL]

But woddathaygunnado with wayneL?

Bring up the water cart and all hands to the hoses.

I have no idea what you mean by that mr plod. But I will continue to look at the available evidence on balance and come to the best conclusion i can. I have read nothing that will shake me from my stated position Which is markedly different to the position which you Disingenuously assign to me.

Perhaps that water hose would be more effectively directed to thosesuch as yourself who are incapable Of comprehending simple english Or on balance the full range of bona fide and unadjusted scientific data

 

[OzWaveGuy]

CSIRO and BOM have just released the latest review of climate observations.

Perhaps the alarmists here could also provide a link to the CSIRO paper that proves through observed evidence of man's 3% CO2 emissions is driving this temperature change? The article the Basilio entity refers to simply states the obvious - temperature changes, yet weaves in CO2 as the absolute cause without proof.

Another way to read the article: Eliminating man's CO2 implies that without Co2, the temperature wouldn't change at all - laughable. I guess that's why the IPCC needed to change the historical temperature history between AR1 and AR3 by introducing the discredited hockey stick.

If there's no CSIRO paper, perhaps Basilio could refer us all to an elite scientist instead?

 

[MrBurns]

Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are now higher than at any time in the last 800,000 years, while the last decade in Australia was the warmest on record, CSIRO scientists say.

I think the data from 800,000 years ago was corrupted by Fred Flintsone because he was after a Govt grant.

 

[Knobby22]

I think the data from 800,000 years ago was corrupted by Fred Flintsone because he was after a Govt grant.

...and who said dinosaurs don't still walk the earth.

 

[explod]

... Or on balance the full range of bona fide and unadjusted scientific data

And you can

 

[wayneL]

And you can?

Despite your heinous lack of punctuation, I suspect that your post is interrogative.

1/ I am confident of my English comprehension skills

2/ Equally, I am confident of balance in interpreting opposing arguments.

You do not indicate the basis of your query, but on either count, the answer is yes.

 

[OzWaveGuy]

Perhaps the alarmists here could also provide a link to the CSIRO paper that proves through observed evidence of man's 3% CO2 emissions is driving this temperature change? The article the Basilio entity refers to simply states the obvious - temperature changes, yet weaves in CO2 as the absolute cause without proof.

Another way to read the article: Eliminating man's CO2 implies that without Co2, the temperature wouldn't change at all - laughable. I guess that's why the IPCC needed to change the historical temperature history between AR1 and AR3 by introducing the discredited hockey stick.

If there's no CSIRO paper, perhaps Basilio could refer us all to an elite scientist instead?

Basilio - you'll need to point us in the direction of an elitist scientists since the CSIRO are covering themselves on CO2 evidence

Is CSIRO involved with CO2 separation research?

Currently CSIRO is not actively involved in CO2 separation research. CSIRO's focus in this area is on carbon sequestration.

While we're on topic with the CSIRO, I wonder if there are any specific legal conditions or disclaimers on their site...

Always check the information

Information at this site:

is general information provided as part of CSIRO's statutory role in the dissemination of information relating to scientific and technical matters
is not professional, scientific, medical, technical or expert advice
is subject to the usual uncertainties of advanced scientific and technical research
may not be accurate, current or complete
is subject to change without notice
should never be relied on as the basis for doing or failing to do something.​

The usual "we can say whatever we like and change it whenever we want" clause.

Gotta love the "is not professional, scientific, medical, technical or expert advice". Until the individual departments (esp on climate change) take personal responsibility on what they publish, expect ever more propaganda, although the tables are slowly turning. Time for a pay rise Basilo? Your alarmist services may be further needed.

 

[Knobby22]

Information at this site:

is general information provided as part of CSIRO's statutory role in the dissemination of information relating to scientific and technical matters
is not professional, scientific, medical, technical or expert advice
is subject to the usual uncertainties of advanced scientific and technical research
may not be accurate, current or complete
is subject to change without notice
should never be relied on as the basis for doing or failing to do something.[/INDENT]

Lawyer speak, they have their noses everywhere, god I hate them.
With them and marketing, its like we all live in a Dilbert cartoon.

 

[dbeyat45]

Cooling maybe ..... ?

From the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics .... a long paper, lots of graphs and discussion.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682612000417

The long sunspot cycle 23 predicts a significant temperature decrease in cycle 24

Abstract

Relations between the length of a sunspot cycle and the average temperature in the same and the next cycle are calculated for a number of meteorological stations in Norway and in the North Atlantic region. No significant trend is found between the length of a cycle and the average temperature in the same cycle, but a significant negative trend is found between the length of a cycle and the temperature in the next cycle. This provides a tool to predict an average temperature decrease of at least View the MathML source from solar cycle 23 to solar cycle 24 for the stations and areas analyzed. We find for the Norwegian local stations investigated that 25–56% of the temperature increase the last 150 years may be attributed to the Sun. For 3 North Atlantic stations we get 63–72% solar contribution. This points to the Atlantic currents as reinforcing a solar signal.


Researchers:

Jan-Erik Solheima, a (janesol@online.no)
Kjell Stordahlb, b (Kjell.Stordahl@telenor.com)
Ole Humlum, c d (Ole.Humlum@geo.uio.no)

a. Department of Physics and Technology, University of Tromsø, N-9037, Tromsø, Norway
b. Telenor Norway, Fornebu, Norway
c. Department of Geosciences, University of Oslo, Norway
d. Department of Geology, University Centre in Svalbard (UNIS), Longyearbyen, Svalbard, Norway

Received 22 June 2011. Revised 2 February 2012. Accepted 7 February 2012. Available online 16 February 2012.​

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jastp.2012.02.008