Resisting Climate Hysteria

OzWaveGuy · 9 November 2010

Joanne Nova's blog now has the "Is the Western Climate Establishment corrupt" series as PDF documents that can be easily sent around to others. Feel free to send them to the media and politicians

Is the Western Climate Establishment Corrupt? How many excuses does it take?

"The Western Climate Establishment is cheating:

1. Official thermometers are overwhelmingly in warm localities such as near air conditioner exhaust vents, buildings, concrete, tarmac, or asphalt.
2. Officials hide the Argo data, which shows the world’s oceans are cooling.
3. They ignore hundreds of thousands of weather balloon results that show the climate models overestimate future warming by at least 300%.
4. Climate scientists frequently point to the last 130 years of global warming, but don’t mention the full story: the planet started warming before 1700, over a century before humans started pumping out meaningful amounts of CO2.
5. Leading authors publish a crucial graph with a deceptive colour scheme that imitates the results they wish they’d got. Why did a leading peer-reviewed climate journal publish such a naked and childish attempt at cheating?
6. The Russian, Chinese and Indian climate establishments, which are financially independent of the western climate establishment, are all skeptical. As are many scientists from other branches of science, and many retired climate scientists (who no longer have anything to lose by speaking their minds)."

And the documents cover much more, including the famous hockey stick and hiding the decline etc...

Smurf1976 · 9 November 2010

If people really want to cut CO2 emissions then why don't they just go ahead and stop polluting?

Why do we need a financial market to force people to change if they really believe in the issue?

People do all sorts of things every day without being forced either by government or a market. When is the last time you went for a walk, watched a movie or had sex? Did government or some market force you to do any of these things?

If people actually wanted to cut emissions, they would just go ahead and cut. The lack of solar water heaters on roofs, and the abundance of petrol guzzling vehicles on the road, suggests that cutting CO2 isn't a priority for the average person.

Whilst I take the point that many can not afford solar hot water etc, I have no doubt that anyone who can afford a new car could choose instead to spend 10% as much on a solar HWS and settle for a cheaper car. In reality, there is no shortage of new cars on the road whilst solar HWS remains comparatively rare despite massive taxpayer subsidies. A great many people who could cut emissions if they wanted to, have made a conscious decision not to.

In short, I'll believe that the average person is concerned when they actually start doing something about it. Until that happens, it is nothing more than talk.

Logique · 9 November 2010

OzWaveGuy said:
Joanne Nova's blog now has the "Is the Western Climate Establishment corrupt" series as PDF documents that can be easily sent around to others. Feel free to send them to the media and politicians

Is the Western Climate Establishment Corrupt? How many excuses does it take?

And that CO2 (not a pollutant, plants love it) levels historically followed warming, not led it.

sails · 9 November 2010

Smurf1976 said:
...In short, I'll believe that the average person is concerned when they actually start doing something about it. Until that happens, it is nothing more than talk.

And the likes of Al Gore really don't seem to be concerned with their own CO2 excesses.

As I posted (I think) earlier in this thread an article stating that Ms Gillard had flown the breadth of the country for some backslapping on climate change. Would appear she has little, if any, concern for CO2 emissions.

The sheer hypocrisy causes me to believe there is nothing more in it than an excuse for further taxes.

If those that believed in it put their carbon footprints where their mouths are, it might be worth a further look.

It's Snake Pliskin · 9 November 2010

nioka said:
If you have a close look at our so called "free market" system you will find that is loaded with more cost and inefficiencies than the so called inefficient bureacuacy. There are more snouts in the trough there than there are in Canberra. If you want to see free market in action scroll back a year or two to the GFC.

We don't have a free market system and haven't had for a long time. The GFC was nothing natural because we don't have true free markets. Notice how banks and big corporations were not allowed to fail? The GFC reduced the wealth of nations and the middle class who pay the taxes.

Happy · 9 November 2010

Smurf1976 said:
If people really want to cut CO2 emissions then why don't they just go ahead and stop polluting?

Why do we need a financial market to force people to change if they really believe in the issue?

...QUOTE]

I have no problem and I try to cut on car or electricity use whenever I can without affecting my life too much.

But often I wander if it will make any difference?

Big polluters surely will be sceptical on Global Warming and until whole globe decides to do one thing we will not repair climate ourselves.

I keep reminding that Australia creates mere 2% of Global Warming, so even if we stop dead polluting overnight, surely it will make little difference since other polluters keep increasing their portions.

We will simply tax ourselves to poverty and besides feeling good about ourselves we will just look silly.
(Reminds me of some Monks walking naked around, so their clothing accidentally does not kill some little creatures. Noble thing, but really?)

basilio · 9 November 2010

Smurf1976 said:
That is precisely the problem I have with the whole ETS concept. It may well reduce CO2 emissions, but that is absolutely a sideline to its primary outcome of establishing yet another market on which to trade and speculate. For every Dollar spent, very little of it will end up actually reducing emissions.

In contrast to that, we could just go ahead and build a predominantly renewable power system without the need for middlemen skimming off most of the money. Far cheaper and it actually fixes the CO2 issue.

If my car breaks down tomorrow then I'll get it towed to a mechanic who can fix it. There's no point paying an army of middlemen to argue about what the mechanic should be paid and what might be wrong with the car. Just fixing the thing will be a lot cheaper and a lot quicker. Same with any problem.

If your household hot water bills are too high then do you employ an accountant to set up a shower trading system amongst family members? A system which can only work through either forcing the purchase of a more economical hot water system or by rationing consumption to some level below what would otherwise be preferred? Or do you just get a solar water heater and fix the problem simply and relatively cheaply? I think most would choose the latter and there's a reason for that. Trading the problem is not fixing it, all it does is waste money on middlemen.

Trading and markets certainly have a place. But the concept that bankers are the best people to fix an engineering and ecological problem worries me greatly. Keep the bankers well away at least until they can get their core business, the financial system, running sustainably (noting that failure on this point is the root cause of the CO2 issue in the first place - attempting constant growth on a finite planet).

Very well put Smurf. Firstly recognizing there is a serious problem in global warming and depletion of non renewable resources and finally that the bankers and financiers have only a limited role in solving the problem (and if left to their own devices will just put us in more doo.)

wayneL · 9 November 2010

nioka said:
If you have a close look at our so called "free market" system you will find that is loaded with more cost and inefficiencies than the so called inefficient bureacuacy. There are more snouts in the trough there than there are in Canberra. If you want to see free market in action scroll back a year or two to the GFC.

Oh brother! I can't believe people are still pushing that poorly thought out barrow.

GFC had nothing to do with a genuinely free market. It was primarily due to a legislated and bureaucratic credit bubble, courtesy of Bill Clinton and The Fed.

A true "free market" would have sorted out any market inefficiencies far earlier than GFC, via a normal business cycle.

GFC was a regulatory (via interference) failure not a market failure.

Knobby22 · 9 November 2010

wayneL said:
Oh brother! I can't believe people are still pushing that poorly thought out barrow.

GFC had nothing to do with a genuinely free market. It was primarily due to a legislated and bureaucratic credit bubble, courtesy of Bill Clinton and The Fed.

A true "free market" would have sorted out any market inefficiencies far earlier than GFC, via a normal business cycle.

GFC was a regulatory (via interference) failure not a market failure.

Agree, but it was also a regulatory failure due to removing constraints off the banks and driving up government debt, courtesy of George Bush ...and failure of policy of Bush and Obama with providing money to the big end of town when they would have been better helping the middle class and letting a few more banks go broke.

moXJO · 9 November 2010

nioka said:
Bankers are the last people we need to get involved but I still see the need to hit the hip pocket nerve. I have just received a subsidy for both my solar hot water and my solar power. By installing these at considerable cost (after subsidies) I paid a price for reducing my carbon footprint. The subsidy I received had to come from taxation. I believe that it should come from a charge levied on those that choose not to reduce their carbon footprint, via a carbon tax.

Yes I agree........... Let’s make poor people pay for it. And how about even more obscene priced subsidies on our solar generated power.

wayneL · 9 November 2010

Knobby22 said:
Agree, but it was also a regulatory failure due to removing constraints off the banks...

The banks behaviour would have been a whole lot different if governments kept the #### out of it, even without regulatory restraints. If the banks knew there were never going to be any bailouts, they'd have been a LOT more conservative.

By the way, can we have 2 minute silence for the Chicago Climate Exchange's (I mean WTF?) Carbon contract CFI please.

RIP Gore's grand fantasy.

nioka · 9 November 2010

wayneL said:
A true "free market" would have sorted out any market inefficiencies far earlier than GFC, via a normal business cycle..

A truly free market exists only in your mind or maybe in a perfect world. The closest you could get these days is via a visit to Woodstock. The last freemarket was about the days of the cave man. The fact that it no longer exists puts in in the same class as the Tasmanian tiger. Time to be realistic and face reality.

I love to drive fast. the reason I don't is because if I get caught I get fined, lose points and could use my licence. Most drivers are the same. Apply the same rules to pollution, carbon style, and youd see the same result.

wayneL · 9 November 2010

nioka said:
A truly free market exists only in your mind or maybe in a perfect world. The closest you could get these days is via a visit to Woodstock. The last freemarket was about the days of the cave man. The fact that it no longer exists puts in in the same class as the Tasmanian tiger. Time to be realistic and face reality.

I love to drive fast. the reason I don't is because if I get caught I get fined, lose points and could use my licence. Most drivers are the same. Apply the same rules to pollution, carbon style, and youd see the same result.

Ahh the usual faulty logic.

You say: The free market does not exist.

You say: GFC was caused by the free market.

Yet somehow trying to apply both to some point about your AGW/pollution confusion.

Classic cognitive dissonance.

As we've discussed on this forum before, applying a price to carbon in western economies only drives emissions offshore to the third world, trashing our economies and enriching others... and no net carbon benefit.

In fact, this probably increases emissions and most certainly increases general pollution.

nioka · 9 November 2010

wayneL said:
Ahh the usual faulty logic.

You say: The free market does not exist.

You say: GFC was caused by the free market.

Yet somehow trying to apply both to some point about your AGW/pollution confusion.

Classic cognitive dissonance.

As we've discussed on this forum before, applying a price to carbon in western economies only drives emissions offshore to the third world, trashing our economies and enriching others... and no net carbon benefit.

In fact, this probably increases emissions and most certainly increases general pollution.

I said "a TRULY free market does not exist". Nor does it.

The GFC was caused by the free market that DOES exist.

There are ways of passing off the carbon price to the third world eg add an export tax to the price of coal to those countries.

Then again we could lead by example.

Think outside the comfort zone square.

Smurf1976 · 9 November 2010

nioka said:
I love to drive fast. the reason I don't is because if I get caught I get fined, lose points and could use my licence. Most drivers are the same. Apply the same rules to pollution, carbon style, and youd see the same result.

OK, here's a very real scenario. Most roads have speed limits, but there are few roads that do not. You imply that you will obey the speed limit, but what happens when you come to a road with no limit whatsoever?

My guess is that you'll floor it...

Quite a few countries will have no "speed limit" so far as CO2 is concerned. No prize for guessing where the steel industry, aluminium smelters and every other energy intensive process will become concentrated. They're only in Australia in the first place specifically because we have cheap electricity, a point that has long been fairly well known.

nioka · 9 November 2010

Smurf1976 said:
No prize for guessing where the steel industry, aluminium smelters and every other energy intensive process will become concentrated. They're only in Australia in the first place specifically because we have cheap electricity, a point that has long been fairly well known.

I didn't know we had much industry left. The "free market economy" has offloaded them to the countries with no speed limits anyway. The rest will soon follow. The aluminium smelters could have had cheap Hydro power but for the no dams policies and with a little imagination.

Smurf1976 · 9 November 2010

nioka said:
I didn't know we had much industry left. The "free market economy" has offloaded them to the countries with no speed limits anyway. The rest will soon follow. The aluminium smelters could have had cheap Hydro power but for the no dams policies and with a little imagination.

Looking at it nationally:

Aluminium smelting is a significant industry in Qld, NSW, Vic and Tas. Even with cheap power from coal and hydro, electricity is by far the largest cost of production.

Alumina production (the "half way" stage of making aluminium) is a significant activity in Qld, NT and WA.

Steel manufacturing is a significant industry in NSW and SA.

Ferromanganese, silicomanganese and zinc smelting are significant industries in Tas with local production around 2.5% of the world total.

In addition there are various other metal smelters aound the country, plus other industries including cement and paper.

In short, energy-intensive processing is pretty much all we're actually good at in terms of manufacturing. Energy is (or at least was) one of the few key natural advantages we have. I'm not too keen on throwing that away and tuning Australia into a mining-only economy that exports ores and buys back metals. That won't help us economically or environmentally.

OzWaveGuy · 9 November 2010

nioka said:
I didn't know we had much industry left. The "free market economy" has offloaded them to the countries with no speed limits anyway. The rest will soon follow. The aluminium smelters could have had cheap Hydro power but for the no dams policies and with a little imagination.

Your a distractor on this thread nioka, you make every assertion under the sun, rarely substantiate any of it and can't answer basic question on your assertions.

Time to add you to the ignore list

wayneL · 10 November 2010

OzWaveGuy said:
Your a distractor on this thread nioka, you make every assertion under the sun, rarely substantiate any of it and can't answer basic question on your assertions.

Time to add you to the ignore list

OWG

But there are Nioka's out there on a grand scale, watermelons who fail to think the whole issue through or who understand the law of unintended consequences. He is typical of the leftist Orwellian ideologues who think things will be better if the likes of Joolya Dullard, Wayne Swine and a bevy of detached and small-minded bureaucrats would micromanage every aspect of our lives.

Do you recognise the asinine logic, the limited mind captured by one sided public debate capable of only binary thought, the cultural self loathing and bloody minded empathy failure.

It's possible to ignore one ASF poster, but like a zombie army, there are more of them out there to contend with.

medicowallet · 10 November 2010

nioka said:
I didn't know we had much industry left. The "free market economy" has offloaded them to the countries with no speed limits anyway. The rest will soon follow. The aluminium smelters could have had cheap Hydro power but for the no dams policies and with a little imagination.

Actually I am with you on this nioka

We do not value add in this country.

We could actually produce the steel to sell if we wanted to, but govt processes make this not financially viable for companies.

We have the raw materials and the skill, just not the regulations that would make it happen.

Resisting Climate Hysteria

OzWaveGuy

Smurf1976

Logique

Investor

sails

It's Snake Pliskin

Happy

basilio

wayneL

VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!

Knobby22

Mmmmmm 2nd breakfast

moXJO

menace to society

wayneL

VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!

nioka

wayneL

VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!

nioka

Smurf1976

nioka

Smurf1976

OzWaveGuy

wayneL

VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!

medicowallet

Similar threads

Resisting Climate Hysteria

Investor

VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!

Mmmmmm 2nd breakfast

menace to society

VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!

VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!

VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency