Labor's carbon tax lie

[noco]

Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/user/TheAlexJonesChannel?blend=1&ob=5#p/u/6/Epw5Tpo4j2I

Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/user/TheAlexJonesChannel?blend=1&ob=5#p/u/5/YdgKFqrtM-s

An overseas take on the Aussie Carbon Tax.

kavla, thanks for those youtubes. What an eye opener in respect to the opposition being displayed. It so good to note a majority of people around the world have had enough of the lies on climate change and are doing something about it.

One of the things that is always missing from any of Gillards sell on the carbon(dioxide) tax,oops sorry Julia, carbon price,is the 10% of all collections from the 500 polluters will go directly to the UN Climate Change committee of which Kevin Rudd is a member and appointed by none other than Ban Ki-Moon UN Secretary General.

 

[ghotib]

From that source:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100110321/australia-commits-suicide/
"...What must be particularly galling to all the Australians (the majority) bitterly opposed to this lunatic measure is the unutterable feebleness of the arguments the [Gillard minority govt] Coalition is using to justify it.

Here, for example, is its Chief Scientist Ian Chubb in action:

"With respect to this cooling stuff, I have seen the claim, but the evidence that I have seen is that the last decade has been the warmest decade that we have ever had on this planet, so I do not know what this cooling stuff means.”

Let's just run that one by you again, in case you thought you'd been overdoing the Cane toad juice. The man who came up with that scientifically inaccurate, historically ignorant, Greenpeace-like enviro-hysteria drivel is AUSTRALIA'S CHIEF SCIENTIST..."

Maybe James Delingpole has realised that Australia's Chief Scientist is more competent to assess primary scientific evidence that a self-described "interpreter of interpretations". Next thing we know James Delingpole will be realising that he's been misinterpreting and misleading his readers for years. Let's hope he can repair some of the damage.

 

[sails]

Maybe James Delingpole has realised that Australia's Chief Scientist is more competent to assess primary scientific evidence that a self-described "interpreter of interpretations". Next thing we know James Delingpole will be realising that he's been misinterpreting and misleading his readers for years. Let's hope he can repair some of the damage.

Ghoti, Delingpole and others like him are far more believable and make more sense than the every changing AGW story.

Flannery predicted no more serious rain due to AGW, but when the rains came (as they always do), we find Gillard calling AGW "Climate Change" and now ALL severe weather, wet or dry, is all the fault of AGW. Flannery's forecasts of doom didn't eventuate, why should anyone believe the AGW story now that it's conveniently changed?

Funding is another big hurdle for AGW credibility, imo. Scientists need to support themselves and it seems that AGW funding has been easy to get. I can post links if you like. Funding should be provided for AGW sceptics too, imo.

 

[Smurf1976]

Flannery predicted no more serious rain due to AGW

That's what I thought but I seem to be having trouble finding a definite quote relating to it despite various searching attempts. Anyone got any useful links?

 

[sails]

That's what I thought but I seem to be having trouble finding a definite quote relating to it despite various searching attempts. Anyone got any useful links?

Smurf, there's not much around as I suspect it's an embarrassment to the AGW and carbon tax cause. But here's a couple of articles - first one by Andrew Bolt. I understand the desal plants in various states were built at great tax payer expense based on these dire warnings:

So before we buy a great green tax from Flannery, whose real expertise is actually in mammology, it may pay to check his record. Ready?

In 2005, Flannery predicted Sydney's dams could be dry in as little as two years because global warming was drying up the rains, leaving the city "facing extreme difficulties with water".

Check Sydney's dam levels today: 73 per cent. Hmm. Not a good start.

In 2008, Flannery said: "The water problem is so severe for Adelaide that it may run out of water by early 2009."

Check Adelaide's water storage levels today: 77 per cent.

In 2007, Flannery predicted cities such as Brisbane would never again have dam-filling rains, as global warming had caused "a 20 per cent decrease in rainfall in some areas" and made the soil too hot, "so even the rain that falls isn't actually going to fill our dams and river systems ... ".

Check the Murray-Darling system today: in flood. Check Brisbane's dam levels: 100 per cent full.

Read more: It pays to check out Tim Flannery's predictions about climate change

and

PROFESSOR Tim Flannery, who infamously suggested sea levels could rise by eight storeys, could find himself in deep water if only a portion of his dire prediction is realised.

The Daily Telegraph can reveal the controversial environmentalist owns a large, low-lying waterfront home on the Hawkesbury River, a remote getaway which only has water access.

Read more:Prof Tim Flannery's waterside getaway

Flannery seems to be pretty quiet these days - perhaps enjoying his waterfront property...

 

[ghotib]

Ghoti, Delingpole and others like him are far more believable and make more sense than the every changing AGW story.

Flannery predicted no more serious rain due to AGW, but when the rains came (as they always do), we find Gillard calling AGW "Climate Change" and now ALL severe weather, wet or dry, is all the fault of AGW. Flannery's forecasts of doom didn't eventuate, why should anyone believe the AGW story now that it's conveniently changed?

Funding is another big hurdle for AGW credibility, imo. Scientists need to support themselves and it seems that AGW funding has been easy to get. I can post links if you like. Funding should be provided for AGW sceptics too, imo.

I've never been able to track down the reported Flannery prediction either, but as a Climate Commissioner he is on record in the "Critical Decade" released earlier this year http://climatecommission.gov.au/topics/the-critical-decade/. I see nothing in there remotely like "no serious rain". I see this summary, followed by about 6 pages discussing uncertainties, mechanisms, and attributions:

– Observations since 1970 show a drying trend in most of eastern Australia and in southwest Western Australia but a wetting trend for much of the western half of the continent.

– Given the high degree of natural variability of Australia’s rainfall, attributing observed changes to climate change is difficult. There is no clear trend, either in observations or model projections, for how the major mode of variability, ENSO, is responding to climate change. Evidence points to a possible climate change link to observed changes in the behaviour of the Southern Annular Mode (SAM) and the Indian Ocean Dipole (IOD).

– Improvements in understanding of the climatic processes that influence rainfall suggest a connection to climate change in the observed drying trend in southeast Australia, especially in spring. In southwest Western Australia, climate change is likely to have made a significant contribution to the observed reduction in rainfall.

– The consensus on projected changes in rainfall for the end of this century is (i) high for southwest Western Australia, where almost all models project continuing dry conditions; (ii) moderate for southeast and eastern Australia, where a majority of models project a reduction; and (iii) low across northern Australia. There is a high degree of uncertainty in the projections in (ii) and (iii), however.

– Rainfall is the main driver of runoff, which is the direct link to water availability. Hydrological modelling indicates that water availability will likely decline in southwest Western Australia, and in southeast Australia, with less confidence in projections of the latter. There is considerable uncertainty in the projections of amounts and seasonality of changes in runoff.

In my experience, the AGW story told by columnists such as Delingpole and Bolt has very little relationship to the AGW story told by scientists. That story is indeed alarming, but it's also fascinating, coherent, rich in details, and IMO beautiful. It's the story of our planet.

Ghoti

 

[sails]

I've never been able to track down the reported Flannery prediction either, but as a Climate Commissioner he is on record in the "Critical Decade" released earlier this year http://climatecommission.gov.au/topics/the-critical-decade/. I see nothing in there remotely like "no serious rain". I see this summary, followed by about 6 pages discussing uncertainties, mechanisms, and attributions:

In my experience, the AGW story told by columnists such as Delingpole and Bolt has very little relationship to the AGW story told by scientists. That story is indeed alarming, but it's also fascinating, coherent, rich in details, and IMO beautiful. It's the story of our planet.

Ghoti

Why hasn't the article from Bolt been corrected if it contains incorrect information? Only recently, one of the papers incorrectly reported Tony Abbott. While they didn't take the article down, they posted Abbott's comments underneath. Surely Flannery would have wanted this corrected if it has been reported incorrectly? It's been around for a while now.

And what about this by Mitchell Nadin :

AT 73, former CSIRO engineer Denis Whitnall has seen many things -- but rising sea levels isn't one of them.

Looking out over the Pacific Ocean from the back of his waterfront property at Avoca, on the NSW central coast, Mr Whitnall shakes his head as he talks about a grim report commissioned by his local council in 1995 that predicted some houses along the beachfront, including his own, would be subject to flood risk. "The council had a town meeting and told everyone properties along the waterfront were going to be under threat," Mr Whitnall said. "Everyone was aghast. Twenty feet (6m) of water is supposed to be covering my land (by 2015)."

Tide of anger at 'flawed' facts on water levels

Retired engineer Denis Whitnall, at Avoca, says the Gosford City Council is wrong to say his home will be flooded by 2015. Picture: Dan Himbrechts Source: The Australian

 

[sails]

Here is an interview transcript with Flannery in March 2008:

http://www.jetstarmag.com/story/10-minutes-with-tim-flannery/290/

And from this blog, some of the links no longer work. Have they been taken down because the predictions didn't happen?

http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/rain_denied/

Here's two links that don't work from that page:

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/...r-foster-climate-rains-on-aussie-drought.aspx

and

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/feedarticle/8526003

Is this an attempt to cover up?

 

[LostMyShirt]

Shouldn't it now be Labours Carbon Tax Fact? Since it is now legislation it must be the utmost fact!

 

[sails]

Another transcript - Tim Flannery in September 2005 on the 7:30 report:

Interesting comment from Alan Moran, economist with the Institute of Public Affairs:

ALAN MORAN, INSTITUTE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS: The alternative is we stick with what we can know or become relatively poorer. And we enjoy lower standard of living, we enjoy less industry, etc. We can do all these things, they're all doable but we are poorer for doing them.

MIKE SEXTON: Alan Moran is an economist with the Institute of Public Affairs and a one-time deputy secretary of the Victorian Department of Energy. He worries a radical shift away from current energy practice, as proposed by Dr Flannery, would hit the economy hard and believes current government subsidies for alternative energy sources are enough.

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2005/s1468875.htm

 

[startrader]

Shouldn't it now be Labours Carbon Tax Fact? Since it is now legislation it must be the utmost fact!

No, it's Labor's carbon tax lie.

 

[LostMyShirt]

No, it's Labor's carbon tax lie.

I don't get the threshold changes - the rates are being increased so people are paying more tax all around :/

 

[ghotib]

You're kidding me, right? I offer you a 65 page report with 9 pages of primary references, and you respond with an article from an inflight magazine?

That's roughly equivalent to someone responding to a detailed analysis of BHP from 10 years of annual reports with a quote from the astrology column of New Idea. A meeting of minds will have to be on another subject.

Ghoti

 

[Smurf1976]

http://www.themercury.com.au/article/2011/10/17/269655_most-popular-stories.html

Here we go, the first step toward closing the Australian aluminium industry is now being taken.

Those who have seen this scenario play out in other industries will know how it goes. First engage a capital strike (already done), next sell it off (about to happen), then watch as piece by piece of the smelters are progressively closed over the coming years as they individually become uneconomic. Most likely there will be a few different owners over that time and even more different names on the sign out the front. But the end result is that 30 years from now there will be some sort of park, or perhaps just a Tioxide-style abandoned site, where the Bell Bay smelter stands today. Likewise the other smelters in the other states will ultimately suffer the same fate.

As for Bell Bay specifically, my personal best guess is (1) change owners (2) at some point potlines 2 & 3 will be closed (3) more changes of owners and a few different names, probably including some incredibly corny ones like "Tas Aluminium" or something like that. No significant investment will take place beyond this time beyond minimum maintenance (4) closure of the associated powder (that's powder not power) plant next door (5) shutdown of potline 4 and closure of the site once the final potline goes revenue negative or is simply worn out. It'll take 20 - 30 years to play out most likely, but that's my guess as to what's ahead.

And the great irony of all this is that Bell Bay was built where it is specifically to take advantage of hydro-electricity, still the world's major source of renewable electricity. Oh how the Greens and Labor have screwed this state and increasingly this country...

 

[So_Cynical]

I understand the desal plants in various states were built at great tax payer expense based on these dire warnings:

Funny cos i thought the desal plants were built because we were running out of water...Sydney's biggest Dam, Warragamba dam is currently 78.63% full and hasn't been over 95% full since 2001

http://www.iliveinsydney.com/water/warragamba-dam.php

----------------------

Shouldn't it now be Labours Carbon Tax Fact? Since it is now legislation it must be the utmost fact!

The ASF right and other deniers have little interest in facts...better to leave them to their lies and other negatives.

 

[sails]

You're kidding me, right? I offer you a 65 page report with 9 pages of primary references, and you respond with an article from an inflight magazine?

That's roughly equivalent to someone responding to a detailed analysis of BHP from 10 years of annual reports with a quote from the astrology column of New Idea. A meeting of minds will have to be on another subject.

Ghoti

Does it matter if it is a transcript of Flannery's statements? I thought you were saying you couldn't find anything about his rain comments in that report so I gave you something else. You clearly don't want to know the truth.

Please put me on ignore if I am so beneath your high and mighty opinion of yourself.

It's another thing that puts me right off AGW is the cultish behaviour of it's believers who seem to think they are superiour beings to the rest of us mere mortals. It is very cultish behaviour and there is usually very little reality in cult doctrines.

AGW is clearly a scam.

 

[Julia]

In my experience, the AGW story told by columnists such as Delingpole and Bolt has very little relationship to the AGW story told by scientists. That story is indeed alarming, but it's also fascinating, coherent, rich in details, and IMO beautiful. It's the story of our planet.
Ghoti

You've been consistently telling us we are about to experience dire and catastrophic events, potentially even the end of civilisation as we have known it, unless we all become engaged in massive action, yet you describe the "story" as "beautiful"????
Something seriously wrong here imo.

 

[ghotib]

Does it matter if it is a transcript of Flannery's statements? I thought you were saying you couldn't find anything about his rain comments in that report so I gave you something else. You clearly don't want to know the truth.

Please put me on ignore if I am so beneath your high and mighty opinion of yourself.

It's another thing that puts me right off AGW is the cultish behaviour of it's believers who seem to think they are superiour beings to the rest of us mere mortals. It is very cultish behaviour and there is usually very little reality in cult doctrines.

AGW is clearly a scam.

I guess you weren't kidding.

How do you know it's a transcript, or what it's a transcript of, or who conducted the interview, or when it was conducted, or whether anything has been omitted. There's literally nothing in the article to tell a mere mortal any of those things. I don't say the article is wrong. I say it's a light piece published in an ephemeral magazine driven by the need to fill a certain amount of space between advertisements. Would you give such credence to an article on any other subject from such a source? I doubt it.

 

[sails]

I guess you weren't kidding.

How do you know it's a transcript, or what it's a transcript of, or who conducted the interview, or when it was conducted, or whether anything has been omitted. There's literally nothing in the article to tell a mere mortal any of those things. I don't say the article is wrong. I say it's a light piece published in an ephemeral magazine driven by the need to fill a certain amount of space between advertisements. Would you give such credence to an article on any other subject from such a source? I doubt it.

If all these articles I posted haven't been retracted or corrected for errors, why shouldn't they be believed?

They were easy enough to find with a google search. I have noticed Flannery has gone very quiet of late. If you join the dots together you get the picture of predictions that haven't come true and a prophet who got his message wrong. Nature has it's own ideas and is not conforming to AGW predictions.

 

[ghotib]

You've been consistently telling us we are about to experience dire and catastrophic events, potentially even the end of civilisation as we have known it, unless we all become engaged in massive action, yet you describe the "story" as "beautiful"????
Something seriously wrong here imo.

I see what you mean

It's not quite as contradictory as it seems though. I do think, on the evidence as I understand it, that if humans don't make big changes very soon to the way we use the planet then bigger changes that have catastrophic effects on us are likely to follow.

That's far from beautiful. I think it's desperately sad.

But the climate systems we're poking at are beautiful in themselves. The gorgeous dance of eddies around Antarctica, the rolling doughnuts of Hadley cells, the complex movements of heat through the oceans, the seasonal changes in atmospheric and ocean chemistry... whatever the outcome for us, I'm glad to have learnt a bit about those things and I'm grateful to the scientists who uncover them.