The Labor Party claim they think science is important:
”We can’t let this debate be waylaid by people who don’t accept the science,” Ms Gillard said in May.
Yet, when Dr Dennis Jensen wanted to table peer reviewed papers on the Parliamentary record this week, Kate Ellis refused to allow it. Jensen is the only PhD scientist in the Australian Parliament and the papers are directly relevant to the policy under discussion.
The ALP will accept an unaudited foreign committee report, whole, without question, but not scientific evidence from an elected Australian representative. Who are the climate science deniers? Is it the same team that calls people mindless denigrating names?
Ms Gillard said in Parliament in March that Mr Abbott should admit he was ”a climate change denier”
The Labor Party denies the science
From Dennis Jensen’s press release about the censorship:
“I approached Minister Ellis, about tabling some of the scientific evidence I was about to use in my speech”, Dr Jensen said.
“The Minister refused without reason my simple request for honest and evidence based parliamentary debate.”
“It seems the Labor Party is unwilling to allow frank and open debate on the science of climate change, which underpins the whole framework of this legislation.”
“I currently hold the highest scientific qualifications of all the MPs and Senators, and was hoping to shed some scientific light on this debate”
Dennis Jensen wants to talk about the evidence:
“I would happily debate the science with any member opposite
but I know they are too gutless to take me on.”
All the Labor Party posturing about science is disingenuous.
The papers that Labor won’t allow Dr Jensen to table:
Webb, A.P., Kench, P.S., The dynamic response of reef islands to sea-level rise: Evidence from multi-decadal analysis of island change in the Central Pacific, Global and Planetary Change (2010), doi:10.1016/j.gloplacha.2010.05.003 [PDF]
Lindzen, R. & Yong-Sang Choi, Y, (2011) On the Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity and Its Implications, Asia-Pacific J. Atmos. Sci., 47(4), 377-390, 2011 [PDF]
Remer, LA, Kleidman, RG, Levy, RC, Kaufman, YJ, Tanre, D, Mattoo, S, Martins, JV, Ichoku, C, Koren, I, Yu, HB, Holben, BN (2008). Global aerosol climatology from the MODIS satellite sensors. JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH-ATMOSPHERES, 113(D14), D14S07. [PDF]
Kaufmann, R.K., Kauppib, H., Mann, M.L., and Stock, J.H. (2011) Reconciling anthropogenic climate change with observed temperature 1998–2008 PNAS 2011 ; published ahead of print July 5, 2011, [abstract] [PDF]
Trenberth, K.E., and Fasullo, J.T. (2010) Tracking Earth’s Energy, 16 APRIL 2010, VOL 328, Science[PDF]
Spencer, R. W.; Braswell, W.D. (2011) On the Misdiagnosis of Climate Feedbacks from Variations in Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance, Remote Sens. 2011, 3, 1603-1613. [PDF]
Allan, R. P., and B. J. Soden (2007), Large discrepancy between observed and simulated precipitation trends in the ascending and descending branches of the tropical circulation, Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, L18705, doi:10.1029/2007GL031460.[PDF]
HOUSTON, J.R. and DEAN, R.G., 2011. Sea-level acceleration based on U.S. tide gauges and extensions of previous global-gauge analyses. Journal of Coastal Research, 27(3), 409–417. [PDF]
Holgate S.R. (2007) On the decadal rates of sea level change during the twentieth century GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 34,
Katsman, C. A., and G. J. van Oldenborgh (2011), Tracing the upper ocean’s “missing heat”, Geophys. Res. Lett., 38, L14610, doi:10.1029/2011GL048417. [PDF]
WATSON, P.J. (2011). Is there evidence yet of acceleration in mean sea level rise around mainland Australia? Journal of Coastal Research, 27(2), 368–377. [PDF]
Dr JENSEN (Tangney) (12:33): Speech to Parliament
I have been dreading this moment since I first became interested in the science of climate change and anthropogenic global warming, and particularly since the Prime Minister misled the Australian people by saying that there would be no carbon tax under the government she led. As the only PhD qualified scientist in this parliament, I have watched with dismay as the local and international scientific communities and our elected leaders have taken a seemingly benign scientific theory and turned it into a regulatory monolith designed to solve an environmental misnomer. With a proper understanding of the science, I believe we would not even be entering into this carbon tax debate. To put it simply, the carbon tax, with all its regulatory machinations, is built on quicksand. Take away the dodgy science and the need for a carbon tax becomes void. I do not accept the premise of anthropogenic climate change, I do not accept that we are causing significant global warming and I reject the findings of the IPCC and its local scientific affiliates.
On the subject of the science, I note that pre-eminent 19th century physicist Lord Kelvin said to physicists at the British Association in 1900:
There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement.
Settled science indeed! Quoting ‘the science’ is the same as appeals to ‘God says’ hundreds of years ago. It is an attempt to stop debate. When I hear the likes of the member for Sydney invoking ‘the science’, as she did in her utterly unsupported claim that the Central Coast will be the area of New South Wales hardest hit by sea level rise resulting from AGW, I look for the snake oil.
I would happily debate the science with any member opposite but I know they are too gutless to take me on.
Science does not work the way that those opposite believe or would have us believe. It is strange how Al Gore, a failed student in science, is automatically accorded reverential scientific status by those opposite while they castigate the likes of Professors Bob Carter and Ian Plimer, people well qualified to talk about the science. I would happily debate the science with any member opposite but I know they are too gutless to take me on. I will take the likes of Al Gore and Tim Flannery seriously when they live the emissions-austere lifestyles they advocate for everyone else, rather than the emissions-profligate lifestyles they themselves hypocritically live.
Still on the subject of the science, have a look at the data for Darwin. If you look at the raw data from the last 110 years, it shows that temperatures have gone down by 0.7 degrees per century. Funnily enough, after ‘homogenisation’ by the CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology, the data magically shows an increase of 1.2 degrees per century. You wonder why I call for a royal commission!
A whole lot of the argument for a carbon tax is premised on models, but models only have any relevance if they have predictive capacity. The reality is that this graph I am holding up shows the prediction of the IPCC’s fourth assessment report. All of their ensemble models indicated that there should have been an increase in temperatures this decade. This other graph I am now holding up is the reality according to the Hadley Climate Research Unit, the repository of the IPCC’s data.
Initially, the so-called ‘consensus scientists’ rejected the theory that there has been no temperature increase in the last decade. They are now coming to the realisation that they have to deal with it, so we get peer reviewed papers, papers that Al Gore said did not exist, like: ‘Reconciling anthropogenic climate change with observed temperature 1998-2008’ and ‘Trend analysis of satellite global temperature data’. They both accept that there has been no temperature increase this decade. The reconciling paper suggests that maybe it is global dimming that has caused the problem. The problem is they did not do their literature survey. If they had had a look at global aerosol climatology, they would have realised there has been no change to the optical depth in the last 10 years.
Let us look at the models. ‘Tracking earth’s energy’, by Kevin Trenberth—lead author with the IPCC, second, third and fourth assessment reports, and still a current lead author—says that we cannot explain it. I have a chart here from Kevin Trenberth showing a massive deficiency in the global net energy budget. Also by Kevin Trenberth is ‘An imperative for climate change planning: tracking earth’s global energy’. Another: ‘On the observational determination of climate sensitivity and its implications’ by pre-eminent scientist, Richard Lindzen, found that the feedbacks have been overstated. The paper on the misdiagnosis of climate feedbacks and variations found a large discrepancy between observed and stimulated precipitation.
I have numerous papers here that I will seek to table
[Kate Ellis was approached and refused to give permission for those papers to be put on the official parliamentary record.]
On ocean temperature, the projections were all for increased ocean temperatures. Since the launch of the Argo network, what do we have? ‘Tracing the upper ocean’s missing heat’ acknowledges there has been no increase but in fact a decrease in ocean temperature since 2003—they cannot explain it. The ‘Importance of the deep ocean for estimating decadal changes’ accepts there has been a reduction in the globe’s ocean temperatures. ‘On the decadal rates of sea level change during the 20th century,’ by Holgate, found no acceleration of sea levels. Similarly, the paper on the dynamic response of reef islands showed that many of the islands in the Pacific have actually been increasing in area. ‘Sea-level acceleration based on US tide gauges and extensions of previous global-gauge analyses’ shows there has been no acceleration; in fact, a deceleration in sea-level rise. The conclusion from the paper ‘Is there evidence yet of acceleration in mean sea level rise around mainland Australia?’ is that, no, there has not been acceleration.
What we see is that the peer-reviewed science is not anywhere near as solid as those opposite suggest. If the science is settled, ask the scientists if they believe we should stop funding the IPCC and anthropogenic global warming science. Let us investigate some of the science and assume that the IPCC models are correct. Even if we reach the five per cent reduction—and government figures show an increase from 580 million tonnes to 620 million tonnes by 2020, an increase not a decrease—then global average temperatures will only be a few thousandths of a degree cooler than business as usual. If we reach 50 per cent less CO2 emissions than today in 2050 and hold that to 2100, the reduction in global average temperatures will be less than one-hundredth of a degree. No wonder the government is trying to spin this policy as a clean energy bill, as it patently does nothing to address the so-called anthropogenic global warming problem. I thought that was the point of the pain associated with this tax—so a whole lot of pain for essentially no temperature reduction.
The reality is that bankers and the like are rubbing their hands in glee at the prospects of the billions, at least, to be made in trading a commodity with no intrinsic value. Even with this tax, most Australians will maintain their current fossil fuel consumption and, more crucially, Labor’s tax will have no effect on the big polluters overseas. It should go without saying that any solutions Australia considers for global warming must have real, measurable impacts on reducing global temperatures. But it seems this point has been lost in the rhetoric and catchcry.
We must ask the fundamental questions: will the carbon tax fulfil its purpose and energise other nations to join us and cool the globe? If not, why are we barrelling ahead? At this time of global economic uncertainty, governments and public policymakers around the world are focused on saving old jobs and creating new jobs. Why then is the government introducing job-killing legislation? The government’s own modelling acknowledges that this scheme is not enough of itself enough to reach the 2020 targets. To make up the shortfall, Australian taxpayers will be spending an estimated $3.5 billion a year by 2020 to buy foreign carbon credits. By 2050, funding going overseas for foreign carbon credits is expected to rise to $57 billion per year—the government’s own figures.
Why are we paying any money overseas for carbon credits? Even if you accept ‘the science’, there are numerous other ways to tackle the issue, including putting money into research and development—the cheap end of the innovation pipeline. Funding for advanced energy R&D will lead to a more energy efficient future by making low-emission technologies more accessible. If we can get sustainable energy to be cheaper than fossil fuels then an economic imperative will drive industry and big business. Copenhagen showed us we cannot get a global approach to climate change at this time. The big polluters of the world—China, India and the US—just are not interested. The Australian government are being completely disingenuous, saying that only 500 or so companies will pay—but then again they have a complete lack of economic understanding; after all, they believe that they can tax the mining industry into greater prosperity and that instituting a carbon tax will drive green jobs. Ask Spain and California how successful that has been. If there are these wonderful opportunities waiting out there, the reality is that industry would be doing it with alacrity.
Germany, touted by the government in terms of solar power, led the world in putting up solar panels—€47 billion in subsidies. Using IPCC models, the legacy of that bill will mean a seven-hour delay in global climate change by 2100.
Further, in order to change behaviour, you need alternatives to go to. In the case of electricity, apart from nuclear we have nowhere to go. We are already paying massive costs associated with a small penetration from renewables. Germany, touted by the government in terms of solar power, led the world in putting up solar panels—€47 billion in subsidies. Using IPCC models, the legacy of that bill will mean a seven-hour delay in global climate change by 2100. Regarding wind power, Denmark led the world in embracing wind power, yet their wind industry is almost completely dependent on taxpayer subsidies and the Danes pay the highest electricity prices in the world.
When Cyclone Yasi hit Queensland, we desperately needed power due to some of those Queensland power stations shutting down. Wind in South Australia provided two megawatts out of an installed capacity of 400—some success.
In terms of transportation there are similarly no alternatives to fossil fuels at present. Indeed the government’s scheme has a negative impact as it makes public transport less competitive than private vehicles. Trying to force carbon cuts instead of investing first in research puts the cart ahead of the horse. Then there is the whole issue of carbon leakage—that is, cement and aluminium industries going overseas, killing our industries, but still emitting carbon dioxide.
We do not have cars because we taxed flatulence from horses.
The PM backstabbed former Prime Minister Rudd. Now she plans to backstab the Australian people, not only with legislation she promised the Australian people she would not introduce, but also by adding landmines to that legislation—with clauses such as carbon credits being personal property—to make the carbon tax harder to rescind. The Russians used scorched earth against Napoleon and against the Germans respectively when they invaded. This Prime Minister plans to use scorched earth as well, not against an invading enemy, but against the very people she purports to represent. There should always be a get-out-of-jail clause in legislation. I ask those opposite this: if the scientific view were to change to one of unanimity that we were not causing a problem on the day after this bill becomes law, what would you think of those mines placed in the legislation then? We do not have cars because we taxed flatulence from horses.
The fact is there are things in the environment we all want—clean air, clean water, good food and reducing birth rates. Look at the countries in the world with the cleanest air, cleanest water, lowest birth rates and best food. They share affluence. Why are we attempting to make ourselves and the world less affluent.
We are promised most Australians will be compensated for the impost of the carbon tax. Calculating the impact of the carbon tax is hard enough, but what happens when it becomes an ETS? You will have an extremely volatile price. The government is betting it will be around $30 a tonne but you can trade it down to $15 a tonne. What happens if it comes in at $15 and you are compensating at $30? Hello, taxpayer, we need some more money please for that compensation. Alternatively, if you compensate for $15 and it comes in at $30 or $45, the compensation will be totally inadequate. More taxes will be needed to cover the shortfalls.
The whole point of this carbon tax is to change behaviour to reduce emissions, which means there must be pain if we are to move from an efficient industry to one that is less efficient. The simple fact is that the Gillard government is being deliberately disingenuous on this issue as they know full well that they will never be able to compensate the people adequately or economically when it becomes an ETS. In the national interest it is time to move past the politics of fear, such as, ‘You need to be heavily taxed or the Great Barrier Reef or Kakadu gets it!’ In conclusion, for all these and multiple other reasons, the Gillard government should not pass this legislation without the consent of Australians.
Madam Deputy Speaker Burke, I seek leave to table these peer reviewed science reports.
Leave not granted.
————————————-
Dennis Jensen has been warning us about climate science for years, his earlier warnings have turned out to be prescient, and ahead of his time — speaking out when few dared too. He deserves credit for his honesty and insight. Parliament could use more people like him.
Why do we need to ask permission to put any document on the official Parliamentary record?
About Dennis Jensen
Dr Dennis Jensen is the Liberal federal member for Tangney in Western Australia. A former air traffic controller, CSIRO and later Defence research scientist, and defence analyst, he was widely recognised as one of the rising stars on John Howard’s backbench. He’s played an important part in Australia’s air capability debate. [From Online Opinion]
Author’s website: Dennis Jensen’s home page
An excellent parliamentary speech. Why does it not surprise me that the ruling to read the proffered papers into the parliamentary record?
What has removed the spine of the average Aussie voter for allowing this incredible con to continue?
40
Spectacular stuff!
How can I find out more about Dr Jensen?
REPLY: Good point, I’ve added a snippet with a link at the bottom. JN
40
Shows how the AGW alarmist terminology has engrained itself in normal discourse.
People believe that CO2 is pollution – rather than airborne plant food.
I think Dr Jensen should have used ’emitters’ rather than ‘polluters’ – we’re playing into the alarmists’ hands by letting them get away with this deception.
20
“Dennis Jensen has been warning us about climate science for years, his earlier warnings have turned out to be prescient, and ahead of his time — speaking out when few dared to. He deserves credit for his honesty and insight. Parliament could use more people like him.”
“Why do we need to ask permission to put any document on the official Parliamentary record?”
Sadly, they don’t care about the science, they just want control. Short of impeachment hearings (can you do this in Australia?), vote them all out of office and kill any legislation they’ve created.
10
Sorry Jo — Off Topic but worth a view if you haven’t seen it.
Lord Monckton Report 2/2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-ZNs8Kjc88
Models are wrong, CO2 is not uniform across the world, clouds have a cooling effect, NEW Australia research study, New Economic approach to climate…
10
Not surprisingly I saw no coverage of Dr Jensen’s speech on the ABC.
10
The utter lack of accountability on the CAGW puts the truth to the claim we (Canada, Australia, Britain) live in a democratically-run country. When you cannot even (as here) table papers that support your views, you know that you have no views as far as the majority are concerned.
What a time we live i!. We thought that the Information Age would lead to enlightenment. We thought that being able to get your opinions out into the public arena meant that you would be heard. Instead we find we live in the Data Age, where facts are handy hooks for any hat to be hung on, and getting your views into the ether is useless if nobody is willing (or allowed) to listen.
Information holds meaning; opinions hold conclusions privately arrived at. In these days meaning and conclusions are the privilege of the Governors. Considering history and the arrogance of the aristocratic masters of old, one wonders how much has changed.
20
HI there, The press release should correct a mistake as to the vocations of Mr. Flannery and Mr. Gore i.e. “Why are the views of people like Al Gore, a failed scientist and Tim Flannery, a geologist, given more weight than those of Professor Ian Plimer or Professor Bob Carter.”
I suggest this should read, “Why are the views of people like Al Gore, a failed theologian and Tim Flannery, a mammologist, given more weight than career geologists such as of Professor Ian Plimer or Professor Bob Carter.”
Al gore was never a scientist and Tim Flannery is not a geologist but a paleontologist / mammologist
10
DougS: #3
I agree. Words have power.
Unfortunately, there are not enough unique words in English to adequately address all of the concepts we wrestle with in this post-modern age.
10
Jo,
The quote you attribute to Ms Gillard is incorrect.
What she actually said was, ”We can’t let this debate be waylaid by people who don’t accept The science.”
Unfortunately the quote was incorrectly transcribed into the record.
10
Doug Proctor: #7
Profound observations!
The interesting thing (for me at least) is that the vast majority of the data and information is out there, hiding in the open.
What people lack, and what they are not taught, is the means to access that data and the ways to interpret the information.
Google is part of the problem, as is the underlying belief that you can search for what you need. You can’t, because what you need is hidden in a paper somewhere in the list of thousands of hits.
Different strategies are needed.
But those strategies are not taught in schools, and by the time people get to university, the vast majority of students have lost the basic desire to apply whatever they have been taught in “odd” ways.
And it is that last factor that is at the heart of all learning and research.
10
[…] JoNova: Science, carbon, climate and tax The Labor Party claim they think science is important: ”We can’t let this debate be waylaid by people who don’t accept the science,” Ms Gillard said in May. […]
10
the govt is just safeguarding our “national security”!!! LOL:
22 Sept: Wired: David Kravets: CIA Says Global-Warming Intelligence is ‘Classified’
In response to National Security Archive scholar Jeffrey Richelson’s Freedom of Information Act request, the CIA said all of its work is “classified.”
“We completed a thorough search for records responsive to your request and located material that we determined is currently and properly classified and must be denied in its entirety,” (.pdf) Susan Viscuso, the agency’s information and privacy coordinator, wrote Richelson…
Steven Aftergood, who directs the Federation of American Scientists Project on Government Secrecy, blasted the CIA’s response to Richelson.
The CIA’s position, he said, means all “the center’s work is classified and there is not even a single study, or a single passage in a single study, that could be released without damage to national security. That’s a familiar song, and it became tiresome long ago.”
When the center was announced, the CIA said it would become “a powerful asset recognized throughout our government, and beyond, for its knowledge and insight.”…
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/09/cia-classifies-global-warming-intelligence/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wired%2Findex+%28Wired%3A+Index+3+%28Top+Stories+2%29%29
10
What else would one expect from government led by semi educated ex union officials?
10
Meanwhile back in the real world where observation trumps rigged IPCC modeling:
“The Rest of the Cherries: 140 decades of Climate Models vs. Observations” by Roy Spencer.
10
Brilliant and concise synopsis of the deceit thrust upon us by this most vile of Australian Governments. I will admit there were times when I disliked Howard’s actions, and Rudd was a arrogant git, but at least he never passed any legislation of any significance, so he was pretty much harmless. Gillard on the other hand, raises such bile that I find myself shouting at the TV for the first time in my life.
And yet gullible and/or gutless Australians stand idly by while this Government rams this pointless and costly legislation down our throats. It makes me wonder about the apathy of voters in this country when they let this kind of creeping bureacracy kill their economy.
This is one way in which you share very little with our US counterparts. They would not lie down and let a Government trample on them as we do. Clarly Australians do not value their democracy as much, and one can only assume that this is because it was not as hard won as that of our American friends.
Having lived for years in both countries, it is striking how similar the cultures are in many respects, but in this aspect we differ greatly, and I would argue we Australians come off looking rather insipid.
10
I am truly heartened to see that we actually have an MP who actually has high scientific qualifications.
I am not all that suprised to see that this MP is sceptical of AGW.
With the excellent submissions seen here, and now this, I can only conclude that if this tax is passed through parliament it would have to be categorised as being the most bastardly act imposed on the Australian people by any democratically unelected government in history.
There is no way to make the assertion that there is any solid scientific basis for doing this.
The use of a carbon tax and an ETS is a known opportunity for financial fraud.
This is a means for politicians to bully any institution they want to for any reason they wish.
If this gets through, there should be a royal commission to uncover exactly who is behind this puppet of a government. I suspect it’s more than just ideology and the greens. I suspect darker influences on this kangaroo government.
10
Great speech and some real “pearls’ in there.
For example
“If the science is settled then why not defund the IPCC?”
“Germany touted by the government in terms of solar power, led the world in putting up solar panels—€47 billion in subsidies. Using IPCC models, the legacy of that bill will mean a seven-hour delay in global climate change by 2100. “
11
DJ’s eloquent speech shows up the enormous gap between the gov(wo)min’s unconscionable lies and the overt scientific facts.
Just how do ‘we’ get ‘our’ less fortunate citizens to understand that their ordinary way of life is on the line if ‘we’ don’t get rid of those “reds under [their] bed”? And urgently, before they destroy us all with this most foul tax that was ever conceived by the most deluded and incompetent government that Oz has ever had.
10
I have commented before about Jensen’s maiden speech and again urge all to read it at the aph link.
One wonders if he might have declined the position of Opposition spokesman for climate matters because he could not bring himself to spruik the rubbish that Greg Hunt does so readily.
Ah, no. I get it! Maybe he wasn’t even offered the position for the same reason.
10
Oh and completely O/T but important – the GFC II is back in session:
http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/newshome/10322765/a-sliding-on-back-of-us-concerns/
Yes the dollar has hit under US$0.97 overnight as Wall Street was pummelled again. It is slowly dawning on people that this time it is different, as I have been reporting for some time now.
There was a pause in the decline while people foolishly believed the Eurozone could defy simple mathematics (like pretending Greece will not default), but the downgrades of major economies and insipid (word of the day!) economic statistics coming out of major economies is finally delivering the message that needs to be understood.
My biggest concern is that the Aussie dollar will not fall as much as in previous global recessions (i.e. US60-70c range) because much of the fundamental weakness is the US economy itself. This is bad for Australia as an exporting nation. Were I a betting man I would expect the Aussie to bottom out in the high 80s low 90s … but anyone’s guess is good at this stage.
Why oh why an Australian Government would seek to hobble this country with two new massive taxes is completely beyond me… this would not have happened on Costello’s watch.
10
An oustanding parliamentary speech. No wonder it was not reported by the mainstream warmalarmist media. By the way Lew (21) some of us have seen the light (and the sun) on the issue.
10
Bulldust:
You realise you’ve just awakened The Smith Family, don’t you?
10
Mark, now you’ve done it. Expect Dr Smith to come here and educate us terrible creatures!
10
Bulldust@19
Yes mate this is a double disaster. A tax on productive inputs and a GFC Mark 2. We have a dollar that is over valued by about 40%. PRC has a yuan that is undervalued by about 40%. Try exporting a value added product against that. By the way the news from Wollongong is that while thousands are being herded to the dole queues by the party of the working class our local member Stephen Jones made (in contrast to Jensen) the most ignorant speech in the history of the parliament on unemployment. Thinks that the unemployment rate in Australia is under 5%. A shining star in the Gillard firmament. And to cap off a wonderful week in Wollongong the roof of the new football grandstand built by the late and unlemented Kenneally Government nearly blew away in a mild wind a couple of days ago. Cost about 40 million (Gillard has promised 30 million to help the unemployment). Built with imported Chinese steel. This country really is going to the dogs.
(sorry mods this is outrageously off topic – but Bulldust started it)
10
A man in parliament who knows what he’s talking about. I have known of Dr. Jensen and his ability to question AGW for years. Like Mark @18 I wonder why Dr. Jensen is not the Oppositions spokesman on Climate Change. After this speech even Tony Abbott should take notice and if half smart would announce a total denouncement of AGW, thus taking away Julia’s argument that her proposal is cheaper than Abbott’s. No action at all would be far cheaper still.
I shall be writing to congratulate Dr. Jensen and another to castigate Kate Ellis. I’ve already updated Tanya Plibersek on the rate of sea level rise. I suggest others do the same.
10
Scaper:
Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa!
10
Many thanks to Jo for covering this issue and providing links to the papers. I have left a note on Andrew Bolts site asking him to further publicise the issue. –
Andrew,
I would urge you in the strongest terms to give some coverage on Sunday to the Issue of Dr. Jensen’s sceptical speech to parliament and the refusal by Labor to allow the accompanying scientific papers to be tabled. The speech and links to the papers can be found at Jo Nova’s site. You have the media influence to defeat the Labor party on this issue. You have sufficient audience both online and on air. If you link to the speech and the peer reviewed papers, Labor’s foul act in trying to ignore the science will be undermined. It will become public knowledge that they were given fair warning on the folly of their new tax and their refusal to allow peer reviewed material to be tabled will be turned against them. Australia must know what Labor has done. You are in a position to tell them.
I hope other readers will also encourage Andrew to cover this on Sunday.
10
Yep – agree with everybody who says the Coalition need to dump their absurd policy and just say they will act IF & WHEN the rest of the world does.
That would completely take the wind out of Gillard’s sails and give her nowhere to hide.
Cheers,
10
connolly:-
Yeh, that roof business was a real clanger wasn’t it. If the gust had been the same strength as the one in the afternoon of 31 Oct. ’04 (131 kph at Bellambi Pt.), the bloody thing would have finished up in NZ,
I’m also from the ‘gong, by the way.
10
Hooray, a fair dinkum sign of Life and Intelligence in the MORAL and INTELLECTUAL desert of Australian Politics,a miracle of Biblical proportions, surely not.
10
Konrad: @ 26
I have sent a similar note to Alan Jones.
10
Popeye @ 27:
I am quite dismayed that Abbott did not take a more pragmatic approach. He could have taken votes from both Labor and the Greens by taking a direct action on real environmental issues in Australia approach, and then adding, as you say, we’ll act on carbon when the major emitters do.
10
Compare Dr. Jensen’s excellent speech to the following reply I received from Andrew Leigh, the ALP member for Fraser, to a question about his support for the “carbon tax”:
The pricing scheme is not a carbon dioxide tax. The term ‘carbon pollution’ actually refers to several organic and synthetic greenhouse gases that will be included under the carbon pricing legislation. The pricing mechanism will cover four of the six gases counted under the Kyoto Protocol – carbon dioxide is only one. The others are methane, nitrous oxide and perfluorocarbon. These are all emission from the aluminium sector.
The remaining two greenhouse gases counted under the Kyoto Protocol (hydrofluorocarbons and sulphur hexafluoride) will face an equivalent carbon price, which will be applied through existing synthetic greenhouse gas legislation.
We use the label ‘pollution’ because it acts as pollutant to unbalance the natural atmospheric system, causes a threat to public health and welfare through its growing impact on climate and, in the long run, sea levels.
Australia generates more carbon pollution per person than any developed country, including the United States. We produce significantly more pollution per person than India and China. Australia’s carbon pollution is high because our electricity is mainly generated by burning coal. Transport, mining, industry, farming and deforestation also contribute to Australia’s high carbon pollution levels.
Our carbon pollution is continuing to grow at a rapid rate. Without action, it is expected to continue to grow by almost two per cent a year to 2020. Reducing our carbon pollution means we have to produce and use energy in a cleaner, smarter way.
The science on climate change is settled – deniers remain in a very small minority. The CSIRO, the Bureau of Meteorology, Australian Academy of Science, and academies of science from around the world have all advised that the world is warming and high levels of carbon pollution risk environmental and economic damage. Last year I spoke in Parliament about the science behind the Government’s policy.
In Australia and across the globe, 2001 to 2010 was the warmest decade on record. Each decade in Australia since the 1940s has been warmer than the last. While 2010 is the 34th consecutive year with global temperatures above the 20th Century average. Australia faces significant environmental and economic costs in a hotter, less predictable climate.
Climate scientists advise that extreme weather events, such as droughts, heatwaves and bushfires, are likely to become more frequent and severe. More information on this can be found on the Clean Energy Future website.
10
Good work by Dr. Jensen. One for the bookmark file.
Never let it be forgotten that Kate Ellis DENIED the tabling in parliament of peer reviewed science she feared inimical to her Green dogma.
The table has turned. As Jo asks–Who are the real DENIERS of scientific evidence in the climate debate?
Labor has confirmed our worst fears—given one last chance to review the latest scientific literature and they have chosen ignorance over inquiry.
A great ideological darkness has fallen over our country and nothing, no amount of evidence, no amount of reason and rational exposition can ever pierce the veil of their faith-based Green mythology. They will proceed with their doctrine justified by faith alone, self-righteously and tyrannically imposing their will upon our nation.
It seems to “Save the Planet”, you need a mean streak. The Green moralists will enforce their Carbon Tax creed with a kind of spiteful brutality you’d expect from religious fanatics like the Taliban:
It is said that when the Romans finally conquered their arch-foe Carthage they ordered the city dismantled then they ploughed the land for miles around with salt.
Likewise the Labor/Green master plan is to enshrine their sanctimonious superstition into law as an entitled a personal right as private property!
Do these people have no shame?
10
Well I had hopes that Kate Ellis was a sensible person.
Sorry Kate, you’ve just dived head first into the ALP sewage alongside your sporting successor Mr Arbib. Disgraceful.
10
[…] More » The full story, and Dr Jensen’s speech. […]
10
Because you blog from Australia, does the “No” symbol used in the above illustration get reversed? Sort of like Hurricanes and cyclones? Just curious.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_symbol
10
For what its worth:
Mongolian Mining Corporation (MMC; SEHK Stock Code: 975)
source: http://www.mmc.mn/about-company-profile.html
“MMC is the closest coking coal producer to Baotou, the closest railway transportation hub providing access from Mongolia to the largest steel producing provinces in China.”
BullDust is much smarter than the average Bear:
“The main mechanism is straightforward. Higher minerals push up the Australian dollar, which makes exports harder to sell and imports much cheaper.”
Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/business/mining-not-the-beall-and-endall-20110823-1j8ca.html#ixzz1YjI4RJwN
Your current Labored Party is not only killing the AUD but killing all chances of future growth. They simply aren’t functioning on business terms.
The question is, are they even smart enough to care about freedoms and growth? If no, seriously concider a class action law suit and impeach the lot.
Not a cheap undertaking but you might find an entire herd of volunteers ready to prevent their disaster as well 😉
10
once again, it’s what the MSM doesn’t report that is telling:
22 Sept: SMH: Mark Dreyfus: Ghosts of Abbott past haunt climate debate
COMMENT BY DENNIS JENSEN: Hmm, Dreyfus doesn’t mention that in my speech, I sought to table peer reviewed papers from “consensus” scientists acknowledgethat there has been no warming, and are now trying to rationalise that fact away. Funny how Dreyfus doesn’t mention that I sought to table the IPCC temperature record (the Hadley CRU dataset) which shows no warming in the last decade. He also fails to mention that the tabling of these documents was refused…if they are of the view that we should accept “the science”, what are they concerned about.
Dreyfus needs to start getting an understanding of how science works (I am a PhD qualified scientist, he is a barrister trained to make an argument). The fact is, science couldn’t give a stuff who or how many say it. It is about data and evidence, not appeals to authority. Appeals to authority and consensus shows how weak the argument is (when was the last time you heard “the consensus of the world’s scientists” or “the majority of the world science academies agree” that the earth orbits the sun?)
I have laid down a challenge, that I am happy to debate the science of this with any Labor or Green member of the House of Reps, Senate or government. No acceptances…I wonder why?
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/blogs/the-dreyfus-files/ghosts-of-abbott-past-haunt-climate-debate-20110921-1kkwq.html
how about the media inquiry looking into the failure of the MSM to report on such serious matters as the Govt censorship of the scientific papers offered into the record by Dr. Jensen?
10
btw, apart from Jo, there is not a single mention of the above censorship.
10
@Pat #36
Pat,
Has there been any economic analysis related to the state of the Australian economy with projections based on regional competition that clearly state — the eco-NutJobs who wish to exhale CO2 into baggies and store them in their basements will not impact the future of Australian growth?
Do you have economists over there or do you just throw a coal on the barbie an hope she doesn’t whine down the road?
10
wes george: Do these people have no shame?
Does this question need an answer? Isn’t it obvious that they KNOW their position is fatally flawed down to its roots without foundation in fact? Otherwise they would allow the evidence a fair exposure and a full public re-analysis. They are panicked that they will lose their positions of power and are taking the action of last resort. They refuse to see any evidence contrary to the path they are taking and refuse the people to have a say in the matter.
They claim it is all being done by due process. What due process? They gained their positions by fraud and lies and they continue the fraud.
That the law will be respected is predicated upon the belief that the population will continue to abide by the law no matter how unjust. They expect you to willingly submit yourselves to the fraud and become little more than serfs with them as unaccountable and unquestionable masters. Then, if you don’t go along, they expect to pick you off one at a time while others stand by thinking “it isn’t me”. Why not? After all, it has happened before. In fact several times during the last century.
Yes, there is a tipping point out there but it is not runaway global warming. Will the world return to a path of civilization and technological progress strengthened by freedom or will it descend into the dark ages of slavery of all to all with a political elite living off the lives and blood of their slaves?
He who is free never submits. He who submits, was never free.
Which is it going to be?
10
Just looking at Don Wilkie’s quote from Andrew Leigh, it’s interesting that we are constantly corrected on the use of the word “tax”, but the use of the word “carbon” to represent carbon dioxide and, in Leigh’s own words, “methane, nitrous oxide and perfluorocarbon”, is not questioned. The “carbon price” does, in fact, have many of the qualities of a “tax”, but “carbon”, till very recently, would not have been accepted as gas. Nobody ever fizzed water with carbon, or lit a fart to show the flammability of carbon. When challenged about the fact that one of these gases does not even have a carbon component, defenders of the wording will explain that nitrous oxide is expressed as carbon dioxide for accounting – and that John Howard is to blame for that!
My only explanation is that carbon’s association with soot and smoke is somehow appealing the GetUp/Green spin mentality, and satisfies their very first priority.
For, surely, if one had to nominate the five priorities of the renovated market-preaching Left, they would surely be:
1. Spin
2. Factoids
3. Cant
4. Beautiful sets of numbers
5. Reality
10
Yes a great speech by Dr Jensen
It started me wondering what would have been achieved if leave had been granted to table the peer reviewed papers so I ploughed off to this site
http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/pubs/guides/briefno12.htm
according to that site unless a document falls within specific categories (which these peer reviewed documents do not) then its presentation must be authorised by the Senate
It seems curious that no vote was called for but maybe the authority lies with the Deputy Speaker – I have no idea
But if that hurdle had been passed then it seems that there is opportunity to debate the document (see http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/pubs/guides/briefno03.htm ) and that’s I suspect where matters would have gotten interesting
That’s my understanding from reading the above links – it would be great if Jo could issue an invite to Dr Jensen to comment on that aspect
10
If the government was censoring Denis Jensen, how is it that he made a speech to parliament?
If they were really censoring him, a minister would’ve moved a motion that Jensen be no longer heard.
10
@ mosomoso: #40
Isn’t it easier to simply say, on behave of all of us who Do Not Support the IPCC Consensus nor the pitiful UNFCCC resolutions — we simply prefer INSIGHTFUL Solutions based on Fact?
10
That is an excellent reply from Dr Leigh.
10
@ Adam Smith #42
They didn’t allow the most knowledgeable soul in the room to even present EVIDENCE.
Pretty pitiful on the terms of all but the worst governments worldwide!
10
Wow, I am in awe.
If that is not the best Parliamentary speech I’ve ever heard, I’ll be a monkey’s descendant.
GO SCIENCE! GO JENSEN!
JEN SEN! JEN SEN! JEN SEN!
Jensen for PM. (Oh, so *that* is why Abbot didn’t lend him any limelight?)
I read that whole speech out loud with the most sneering and exasperated expression I could. It was wicked. Horse flatulence never sounded so good. Hey I mean that in the nicest possible way.
Yeah, I too have known of Jensen’s tendencies toward naked emperor proclamations for a few years now.
For those who didn’t know, a couple of years ago – crikey it was 2007 – when CPRS first raised its ugly head Jensen and few others were not happy with the committee report that tried to justify the scheme. Jensen said fine, we’ll write our own report then. So along with three other members they write their own minority report and totally trash the CAGW basis of CPRS. Of course the next day the watermelons call them every name you can imagine, including the term that has stuck until this day: The Flat Earth Four.
I believe at the time a certain Mr Garrett rhetorically inquired “What planet are these MPs on?” That’s how Mr Garrett respects scientists and respects the science when it suits him.
I remember in one of Bob Carter’s videos he talked about this incident, pointing out that Jensen was the only member of parliament qualified to make a scientific assessment, and when he does so he’s shown no respect whatsoever. Well here we are again.
I only finished writing my submission to the Select Committee on Clean Energy Future this morning. I spent the last two days writing it, missed the 5pm mark, kept researching, missed the midnight deadline but stayed up all night to finish it because I had gone too far to stop. So at 9am this morning I attached it to an email along with my pleading for them to accept it, sent it in. Phew. I was fairly happy with it, but I would be more pleased if they do actually accept it into the comment pool.
Now I come here to see what’s happening… and read of this travesty.
After seeing the treatment Jensen got, I’m suddenly very pessimistic about the committee even bothering to read a paper from a nobody like me.
Bah.
You guys can read it if you want, it’s here.
When people ask what I did to try to stop the rot, I can tell them.
Oh, and Jensen for PM.
10
bbl,
Need to attend a class to trade Options worldwide ; )
10
Don Wilkie at comment 32,
thanks you for introducing the reply from the ALP’s Andrew Leigh.
This angers me so much when I see this comment from those who favour the introduction of this Tax. They always resort to this comeback that we are the highest ‘per capita’ emitters of CO2, and Leigh says this:
So let’s then deconstruct what was said by this ‘follow the Party meme’ in that statement.
The U.S. is in fact almost exactly the same ‘per capita’ emitters as Australia when you remove the 22% of their power being generated (for consumption) from Nuclear generation sources.
Now for China and India.
These idiots must think we are fools that we cannot deconstruct this in one short reply of 3 sentences.
The population of Australia is 22 Million.
The population of China is 1.3 Billion.
The population of India is 1.15 Billion.
Just by population, of course they are considerably lower emitters than we are here in Australia, and the U.S. for that fact.
However, what really needs to be looked at here is why are they lower emitters than us.
Here in Australia, we have access to a CONSTANT and RELIABLE source of electrical power.
38% of that power goes to the Residential sector.
In China, which has only in the last year started to generate more electrical power than the U.S. barely 8% of that power goes to the Residential sector.
In India, an even smaller percentage of power goes to the residential sector, and they generate only slightly more power than Australia.
In both China and India, almost 1 Billion people (in each Country, so that’s 2 Billion in total) have either no access whatsoever to electrical power at the Residential level, or very limited, and tiny access to that power, let alone a constant and reliable source like we have here, and take so much for granted.
This bogus ‘per capita’ emissions meme that those from that side always refer to is fallacious in the extreme.
What people need to realise when they view what is happening in China with the construction of one large scale new technology coal fired power plant every seven days, not just starting, but finished and delivering power is that they are Industrialising, make no mistake, and part of that Industrialisation is that the people in those Countries are finally being connected to electrical power, something that we take so much for granted that in fact we think we can do without by the introduction of this Tax that is in fact designed to remove that access to that power, by closing down what access we do have to that power.
When people understand that China is not doing this out of a ‘giving the bird’ to environmental concerns, but to give their people access to something that we already have, and here we are, in typical colonial fashion, saying to China and India that for the sake of ‘our’ environment, we’ll keep what we have thank you very much, but you ‘environmental vandals’ can’t have it.
THAT is what makes me so angry.
These people use that stupid ‘per capita’ argument as a sword, without even realising that it is an actual ‘I am holier than thou’ statement.
Sorry to take so much space, but when I see statements like this from the ALP’s Andrew Leigh and others of his ilk, it makes my blood boil.
Tony.
10
Peter Costello is the highest taxing treasurer in Australia’s history and here are the figures that prove it.
http://www.budget.gov.au/2011-12/content/overview/html/overview_48.htm
Government revenue has a proportion of the economy has never been higher than it was under Howard / Costello.
Peter Costello never won the Euromoney finance minister of the year award.
Peter Costello never had to get the country through the GFC, which Wayne Swan achieved without the economy going into recession.
11
The Adam Smith Committee @ 44
I doubt Mr Leigh come up with that.
Sounds like it was regurgitated from an ALP propoganda briefing of some sort.
You are a bit late this morning? Do GetUp! trolls work shifts now?
10
Adam S @49
“Peter Costello never won the Euromoney finance minister of the year award.”
The fact that Swan and Keating “won” this award isn’t that credible…..
The also awarded Euromoney 2006 Best Investment Bank – Lehman Brothers (Busted 2007)
Euromoney 2006 Best Equity House – Morgan Stanley (Bailed out 2007)
Euromoney 2006 Best at Risk Management – Bear Stearns (Busted 2007)
Euromoney 2006 Best at Investor Services – Citigroup (Bailed out 2007)
Yeah.. Prestigious award that…
10
mosomoso mentions in Comment 40 that there is another ‘dud’ statement out there.
This had nothing whatsoever to do with John Howard.
While this may be enshrined in Legislation, recently amended by the current Government, it is an invention of the UNFCCC and the UNIPCC from the original Kyoto Protocol, that Rudd signed us up to in ratification of that Protocol.
Here’s the link to an image that shows all 24 of these gases, and their multipliers ‘for accounting purposes’, and all 24 gases will be levied under this new Tax.
Tony.
10
Tony:
What? Why would you remove that power source?
So you are saying that to the extent that we ignore the U.S. using a very low carbon intensive source of electricity generation, it is as bad as Australia.
That’s kind of like saying if you ignore all of the electricity Australia generates using fossil fuels, we have a very low carbon intensive electricity generating sector!
I think you meant “higher”?
Whereas the average Indian or Chinese doesn’t, hence they live in poverty.
Surely your argument isn’t “well Australian pollutes more per capita because Australians have higher living standards”? Please, please deny this.
So surely that means that the emissions intensity of these countries will increase as more people have access to electricity, and which will mean there living standards will improve.
Well if that is so, shouldn’t you actually be able to explain why it is wrong? What you have done so far is made a good case that emissions intensity is a fairer measure of pollution because it indirectly takes into account living standards.
Is this a good or a bad thing?
Well three points:
1) They are shutting down a lot of their least efficient power stations (lets call them the ones that are like Australia’s) and are replacing them with highly efficient coal stations and many nuclear reactors too.
2) I don’t see how more Chinese and Indians having access to electricity is a bad thing
3) None of these points explain how emissions intensity is an unfair way to evaluate relative emissions between countries; surely a poor Indian should be entitled to have access to electricity as much as a poor Australian?
I haven’t heard anyone make this claim. What will most likely happen in future climate agreements is that developed countries like Australia and the U.S. and Germany will have to reduce their emissions intensity at the same time as the emissions intensity from China, India, Brazil and other developing countries increases so that ultimately they coincide at the same amount, and then we will have to keep them at that there.
Thus the ETS in the Clean Energy bills is a good insurance policy for what we will be obligated to do by international agreement in a decade. If you don’t think this will happen, look up the Montreal Protocol.
I don’t see how this can be possible when per capita measures make developed countries look worse than developing countries. In fact, it is the people that insist that total emissions, irrespective of population size, is the only measure that counts that are ultimately suggesting that hundreds of millions of CHinese and Indians should be left in poverty without access to electricity just so that people in developed countries won’t have to pay, on average, an extra 0.7% on goods and services (most of which will be reimbursed as income tax cuts anyway).
10
A touch off-topic, but so exciting, if true.
In the wake of the exhilaration generated by Wayne Swan’s award from a prominent European financial body, it has been announced that Ivan Milat will be adjudicating the NSW tourism awards.
10
I don’t know if they can do this? If any parliamentarian offers evidence and they won’t allow it, this is tantamount to not allowing evidence to be heard in a court case to help the defense. Where’s all our Liberal and National senators or the shooters party, Christian Democrats. I don’t think we have heard the end of this,
the speaker hasn’t that much power surely.
10
There, I’m finally convinced.
Our dear Doctor Smith really cannot read at all.
I think you meant “higher”?
[snip]
Tony.
10
Well John Howard was the chair of cabinet (i.e. Prime Minister) when it was put through parliament by Malcolm Turnbull as the minister for the environment. It was called “National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007”.
10
[snip – refers to snipped. -JN]
10
[snip –JN.]
(I have not seen a single complaint from YOU via e-mail.Let us moderate the forum ok?) CTS
[agree!] ED
10
It is a long standing convention that only ministers can incorporate documents into Hansard.
If Jensen wanted the material incorporated into Hansard, he should simply read it and everything he says will be quoted in full.
Jensen’s problem is that he is just a back bencher which means he has bugger all power in the parliament. But ultimately that was his choice because he wouldn’t promise Tony Abbott that he would adhere to coalition policies, which of course is acceptance that climate change science is true beyond a reasonable doubt.
10
Tony, your text was very interesting, at least in its original unshredded form. In the shredded form, I just can’t find much relationship between your words and verbiage inserted between the shreds. But thanks once again for trying.
11
Adam Smith – Bob Hawke/Keating were the highest tax according to your chart in 86/87 – 26%
10
The libs are doing well on climate change.
Tony says he believes the science, but then he allows (encourages?) his colleagues to come out and say that the science is rubbish. Tony does not admonish them, so any sensible person assumes that Tony does not believe the science.
Its a little like the Kevin’07 campaign, where Kevin would be nice, but the Labor state premiers would say the things that Kevin knew it would be impolitic for him to say.
Tony is following the same path allowing Bernardi to bring an anti-muslim ratbag out from the Netherlands. Tony can’t get away with making anti-muslim statements, but since he doesn’t stop Bernardi, it seems he has his tacit approval – but he can always deny it if asked directly.
For the record, I disapprove of all religions. The more fundamentalist they are, the stronger my disapproval. So Anglican (the religion of my childhood) is the least bad in my eyes. The nastier varieties of christianity and islam, with the truly orthodox jews are my least favorite. But however uneasy I feel about the strange beliefs and lifestyles of these people, I’m happy to tolerate them as long as they operate within the law (and that includes dobbing in child molesting priests to the cops).
11
Hats off to Dr Jensen.
It never ceases to amaze me how whenever a “skeptic” doubts the CAGW theory, they are told to provide “peer reviewed evidence”, and when they do, other tactics are used to avoid facing opposing views.
I am fairly new to this debate and don’t fully understand most of the science, but from what I have read and seen so far, it seems that those of the left persuasion would do just about anything to maintain their status quo.
Keep up the good work Jo, we all appreciate your efforts.
10
DougS @ 3
The only inappropriate mention in that bit is the US where the Clean Air act has seen massive reductions in airbourne pollutants. If he were to substitute Russia for the US he would be spot on as they are nations with massive air quality and water quality issues due to little or no regulations around pollution, and high levels of official and non-official corruption that results in no charges ever being laid or sucessfully prosecuted agains those found in breach of their pathetic lip service legislation.
10
This whole thing has nothing to do with ‘carbon’ ‘carbon di-oxide’ or any other ‘pollutant’ – it is all about wealth redistribution cf the billions to purchase credits from overseas, and social and political control.
If the Australian public is so dumbed down that they cannot see this, but I suspect that many can, then our society will need to be very active to repeal legislation, and counter measures that this ‘Carbon Tax’ is designed to enshrine.
10
Yes its an excellent speech.
The fact that was not allowed to be tabled is a disgrace, but remember this all about politics not science or facts. So what is the real game here.
1. ALP cannot allow anything to go on the public record that suggests their actions are inconsistent with “knowledge afforded to them”
2. The libs have not sanctioned one of there party against making such a speech, instead they are testing the waters in a way that allows a “boffin” to say something that they can easily distance themselves from if it got a backlash by the media greenies
3. Do the Libs want and Andrew Bolt or Alan Jones to pick this up yet? Not sure, depends whether they beleive Bolt making a fuss about it will cause a journo to stick a microphone in front of Tony and ask him “are you a denier”. What answer can he then give?
“yes” = politcial suicide and that is exactly what the ALP want because it their only hope of political survival
“no” = why do you have a renegade member in your party that is not towing the party line
So i think they dont want this subject picked and driven by the Andrew Bolts just yet. The court of public opinion has not moved enough yet.
This is exactly why our mission must be to educate the masses. It is the only thing that will give Tony the courage to give the “yes” answer we all want to hear.
10
Yes that’s true. I think that was caused by the start of Medicare.
10
This Jensen guy is a known complete and utter tool and his above speech demonstrates why.
In his speech as quoted above he says:
“‘Tracing the upper ocean’s missing heat’ acknowledges there has been no increase but in fact a decrease in ocean temperature since 2003—they cannot explain it.”
Actually, if you look at the document he references:
Katsman, C. A., and G. J. van Oldenborgh (2011), Tracing the upper ocean’s “missing heat”, Geophys. Res. Lett., 38, L14610, doi:10.1029/2011GL048417.
in the abstract it says:
“The analysis reveals that an 8-yr period without upper ocean warming is not exceptional. It is explained by increased radiation to space (45%), largely as a result of El Niño variability on decadal timescales, and by increased ocean warming at larger depths (35%), partly due to a decrease in the strength of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation. Recently-observed changes in these two large-scale modes of climate variability point to an upcoming resumption of the upward trend in upper ocean heat content.”
So rather than, “they cannot explain it”, they actually do.
Is this guy actually misleading parliament??
10
[snip]
10
catamon @72:
Try thinking about the reality of what that abstract claims. It has already been trashed as an impossible conjuring trick by the skeptic side. That is possibly what Jensen meant by “they cannot explain it”. At least I hope so otherwise it will backfire on him.
Can you guess what the problem with that paper’s explanation might be?
(Hint: it violates the laws of thermodynamics. Yes, really.)
10
“It is a long standing convention that only ministers can incorporate documents into Hansard.”
So, actually no real issue here at all and the OP really of no significance. Parliament being run according to the conventions as is appropriate.
Could we change the topic of the thread to something relevant along the lines of:
Did Jensen knowingly try to mislead parliament, or is he just a fool?
10
My understanding is that Dennis Jensen is a democraticaly elected representative of a specific geographical sector of the Australian electorate.
On their behalf he asked to lodge certain papers onto the record of the Australian parliament.
AFAIK, he was refused his request and without explanation.
What does he do, in the interests of a transparent and inclusive democracy, if one or more of his constituents ask the reasons why their duly elected representative was turned down?
Does he say. “Sorry mate, they just did what they did. I’m as powerless as you to explain” or just apologise with “I assumed that they were were fair b****ds but I was only half right, they are anything but fair”
I’d be tempted to hammer, repeat and hammer again the question to Government, on behalf of my constituent(s)why was my request turned down?
I’m assuming, of course, that at least one of his voting electorate could be bothered to switch off the TV and ask the question!
10
Adam Smith tries to impress us with this deceptive scribbling at post #46:
Did you even read what Jo wrote? I wonder because you have made it appear you missed key points in her blog entry here.That would make clear what that censorship she is referring to.Jo herself knows Jensen gave a speech,by posting it.So your comment was dead on arrival.
Why did you miss the obvious so easily?
Here Jo wrote,
If you were a decent reader.You would learn very fast,that he was always allowed to give his speech.It was the science part he wanted to “table” that was being blocked by the Minister Ellis.I quote what DOCTOR Jensen states about it:
It was his desire to “table” science papers that was censored.He mentioned he had them with him and was intending to have it put into the official parliamentary record.It was refused.
He was indeed being censored.
10
Abbott has to walk a very fine line, Jensen can be more forthright. Congratulations to Dennis and to this forum for highlighting his efforts.
Air-traffic controller, eh? I like it.
10
It did not take long for the Smithsonian circus to roll into town.
To put this thread in a nut shell, we have a government which is about to legislate a tax on scientific advice it has received. Thats fair enough i suppose however if new scientific advice is received then surely a responsible government would at the very least look at this new advice and then change their policy where necessary.
This is not what transpired in parliament the government refused to look at the new advice can we now call the government and by logical extension all of its supporters *deniers*?
10
Because ONLY MINISTERS CAN INCORPORATE DOCUMENTS INTO HANSARD.
Without this convention, each edition of Hansard would be hundreds of thousands of pages long.
Jensen would say that he isn’t a minister of the crown, thus he does not have the parliamentary privileged to incorporate documents into Hansard whenever he likes.
10
Of course, because Denis Jensen, unlike Kate Ellis, isn’t a minister and thus does not have the privileged of incorporating documents into Hansard.
He is not a minister, he has no right to incorporate documents into Hansard.
If he wanted them incorporated, he should’ve simply read them out, WHICH MUST be recorded by Hansard.
11
Yes, it is the same scientific advice that Greg Hunt has relied on in formulating the Coalition’s tax and spend socialist nonsense climate change policy which supposedly will acheive the same 5% cut on 2000 levels by 2020.
Yes that is one of the the Chief Scientists roles. The government recently appointed Professor Ian Chubb to this position:
http://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/2011/04/new-chief-scientist-appointed/
What transpired is the standard parliamentary procedure that has existed in our country for 100 years. Only ministers of the crown can incorporate documents into Hansard.
This is simply a practical rule so that each yearly edition of Hansard isn’t hundreds of volumes.
There is nothing stopping Jensen from reading sections of the articles into Hansard.
[So why didn’t Ellis allow it then, if he could have read them, why did she bother saying No? –JN]
10
Hey Smithy your mate Swanny joins a prestigous list apart from Comrade Paul. He is in good company with these luminaries:
1996 Robert Rubin
1997 Anatoly Chubais
1998 Leszek Balcerowicz
2001 Shaukat Aziz
2002 Milen Veltchev
2003 Ibrahim bin Abdulaziz Al-Assaf
2004 Ivan Miklos
2005 Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala
2006 Sri Mulyani Indrawati
2007 Mlađan Dinkic
Where do we start? Balcerowicz a former Solidarity functionary who delivered a shock therapy to the Polish people and closed down shipyards and other places of employment.
Chubais is a criminal. He accepted a $90,000 “book advance”.The “advance” came from a publishing company controlled by Oneximbank which had profited enormously from a series of auctions over the previous two years that Chubais had overseen.
Chubais admitted to receiving his “advance”. Still waiting for the book. Rubin is a shill for Goldman Sachs who let the derivatives finance industry run riot without any regulation (and a big thank you from Bernie Madoff and Enron).
Veltchev another shill for Merrill Lynch (remember them?).
bin Abdulaziz is on the board of Saudi Aramco (thought they were the enemy???).
Aziz was a hatchet man of the dictator Musharraf.
Okonjo-Iweala was paid over US$240,000 a year while serving as the Nigerian Finance Minister compared with the then current parliamentary salary of $6,000. The difference was paid by the UN. That would have got her a jail cell in this country. In 2007, the Nigerian Court of Appeal ruled that her UN remittance was illegal under Nigerian law and ordered her to pay it back. She has an appeal before the Nigerian Supreme Court and a judgement is pending. Shall I go on? Why not.
Miklos is a member of the Bilderberg Group (google it up) and is a former Privatisation Minister much loved by the World Bank.
Indrawati is currently under investigation for a bailout of Bank Century in 2008 which was done without any legal authority or economic justification.
But Dinkic is the most wonderful companion for our little Aussie rooster. He plays in a rock band called “Monetary Coup” and in Serbia Dinkic is rated as having the biggest number of broken promises of any minister in the government of Serbia.
10
“Comrade Paul”, thanks for the laugh.
He was the bloke who deregulated the economy!
10
[snip -essentially “Smith is wrong and hasn’t done his research”–JN]
Take this, and Joanne and the moderators, I’m sorry to move away from the main topic, but this is just to irresistible to ignore. (for me, anyway)
Those plants that China are indeed closing down are small 70’s era coal fired plants, that in fact, were state of the art when constructed.
The ones they are closing down are small plants of a maximum of 50MW, most considerably less than that, constructed in areas where power was only needed for some cities and towns. They are closing these down on a sporadic basis, as those newer, larger new technology coal fired plants come on line, those plants being in the main large scale plants of 1500MW+, in fact most of them over 2000MW, bring thousands more residential consumers into an age we already have.
Now, here’s the most stupid comment of all from our good friend Doctor Smith, that part in brackets, condescendingly having a ‘dig’ at Australia in his own special way.
Those large scale coal fired plants we have are now approaching and some of them beyond 40 years old.
When THEY were constructed, they were also state of the art.
Now, compared to new technology coal fired plants, they ARE less efficient, and that’s no fault of those plant operators.
Some of them actually want to upgrade to those new technology plants that burn considerably less coal, do that more efficiently, and consequently emit less CO2.
Every obstacle is being placed in the way of their doing just that.
However, now we have this wonderful new mechanism, the Clean Development Mechanism, (CDM) again part of the Kyoto requirements that Rudd signed us up to in ratification, meaning we now have to abide by that.
Here’s the stupidity of it all.
That CDM means that emitters here in Australia can invest in those 152 Countries efforts to lower their emissions. The Government can also do the same, invest Billions in those Countries and the UN will magnanimously allow Australia to emit, by issuing International Credits.
So here’s the rub.
Those new technology coal fired plants are indeed methods to reduce emissions.
So, our Government, or even a current coal fired power plant operator can invest money in those new tech coal plants in those developing Countries.
They don’t ever get ownership from this, just the credits, which have less value that Australia specific credits.
So, theoretically, a current coal fired plant operator can invest in an overseas new tech coal fired plant, and yet he cannot do that here in Australia.
Oh, isn’t it all so
deliciousstupid.Let’s hope these two proposals get up, but going on what is in store for the new TAX, Smith, TAX, there’s little chance of that happening.
Mount Piper Plant Upgrade. (pdf) (relevant area – Section 3.3)
Bayswater Plant Upgrade. (pdf) (Relevant area – Section 5.2)
Tony.
10
Mark @ 30
Yes mate and i wont risking attending any matches to watch the easybeats play under that construction. When we next get a decent buster (post carbon dioxide tax) and the wretched thing takes off over to New Zealand it will be the only steel that we are exporting out of this country
10
Smithy the “comrade” was sarcasm. Dripping.
10
Adam’s dumb replies.From post 82,
No kidding Sherlock! Why do you think he was asking her for permission to include them into the record? Maybe because she is a MINISTER and he is not?
DOH!
Then he goes on with information everyone else already knows.
Wow!
I am impressed that you know!
Thank you for letting us in on the secret!
Then he goes on with this whopper:
Have YOU ever given a technically based science presentation to a bunch of non scientists? Reading all of these science papers to them in the speech would damage the flow of the presentation.
Can you imagine reading out all the below to politicians?
Webb, A.P., Kench, P.S., The dynamic response of reef islands to sea-level rise: Evidence from multi-decadal analysis of island change in the Central Pacific, Global and Planetary Change (2010), doi:10.1016/j.gloplacha.2010.05.003 [PDF]
Lindzen, R. & Yong-Sang Choi, Y, (2011) On the Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity and Its Implications, Asia-Pacific J. Atmos. Sci., 47(4), 377-390, 2011 [PDF]
Remer, LA, Kleidman, RG, Levy, RC, Kaufman, YJ, Tanre, D, Mattoo, S, Martins, JV, Ichoku, C, Koren, I, Yu, HB, Holben, BN (2008). Global aerosol climatology from the MODIS satellite sensors. JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH-ATMOSPHERES, 113(D14), D14S07. [PDF]
Kaufmann, R.K., Kauppib, H., Mann, M.L., and Stock, J.H. (2011) Reconciling anthropogenic climate change with observed temperature 1998–2008 PNAS 2011 ; published ahead of print July 5, 2011, [abstract] [PDF]
Trenberth, K.E., and Fasullo, J.T. (2010) Tracking Earth’s Energy, 16 APRIL 2010, VOL 328, Science[PDF]
Spencer, R. W.; Braswell, W.D. (2011) On the Misdiagnosis of Climate Feedbacks from Variations in Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance, Remote Sens. 2011, 3, 1603-1613. [PDF]
Allan, R. P., and B. J. Soden (2007), Large discrepancy between observed and simulated precipitation trends in the ascending and descending branches of the tropical circulation, Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, L18705, doi:10.1029/2007GL031460.[PDF]
HOUSTON, J.R. and DEAN, R.G., 2011. Sea-level acceleration based on U.S. tide gauges and extensions of previous global-gauge analyses. Journal of Coastal Research, 27(3), 409–417. [PDF]
Holgate S.R. (2007) On the decadal rates of sea level change during the twentieth century GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 34,
Katsman, C. A., and G. J. van Oldenborgh (2011), Tracing the upper ocean’s “missing heat”, Geophys. Res. Lett., 38, L14610, doi:10.1029/2011GL048417. [PDF]
WATSON, P.J. (2011). Is there evidence yet of acceleration in mean sea level rise around mainland Australia? Journal of Coastal Research, 27(2), 368–377. [PDF]
What you propose is absurd.Tabling them into the record is rational.
How old are you anyway?
10
@Smithie
“To put this thread in a nut shell, we have a government which is about to legislate a tax on scientific advice it has received”
Nope. Massive fail Smithie old boy.
You have a government which is about to enforce legislation on a tax based upon one-sided (dissent inadmissable) ‘scientic advice and massively funded’ advice it has been told to.
By a bizarre combination of patronymic and baptismal circumstances you have clearly proven that life is full of contradictions. From the “Wealth of Nations” to the “Politically enforced Penury of the Antipodes” in but a handfull of generations you’ve reminded me that real-life is far more surprising than fiction.
10
To bring up something our astute reader Adam missed:
Now what can you do to credibly justify in the rejection Minister (thank you for telling us that she is a minister) Ellis gave to an elected member of the Australian Parliament on important policy matters?
Could it be because she wants to contradict the Prime Minister?
LOL
10
Leaving aside the idea of ‘intrinsic value’ (there is no such thing), it is a shame that even PhD Liberals (or maybe Nationals?) abet the trading of a commodity of dubious nature, that being the dollar & even enforce its acceptance in ‘payment’ of debt by citizens.
10
John Brookes:
What an utterly ludicrous statement to make. The Liberal Coalition, unlike their Orwellian Labor socialist mates across the floor, allow contrary statements within their party … they may not like it, but they don’t censor them. I won’t even begin to dismantle the logic of your argument, because the weaknesses are plain to see.
Really JB … your arguments used to have some degree of common sense, but of late you have been rambling pure nonsense.
10
Tony, you still haven’t provided a single reference to a peer reviewed journal for your assertion that nuclear power is cheaper than all other forms of electricity generation without a price on carbon. Remember, I linked to a webpage that referenced a peer reviewed study that demonstrated that you require a low carbon price to make nuclear cheaper than pulverised coal (the most efficient PROVEN method of power generation from coal), but you have not provided any references for your claim of the costs of nuclear power.
In the interests of reasoned debate, you should provide such evidence or withdraw the claim.
Australia should do the same. We should aim to shut down all our brown coal power stations and replace them with nuclear. If we did that we would cut our emissions by something like 20%.
The rest of your post was simply a lecture unrelated to your erroneous assertion that nuclear power is cheaper than fossil fuel power without a carbon price.
21
I can understand this idea that the guy with the PhD in physics in parliament must know best, but the reality is that there are a whole heap of guys out there with PhDs who are the actual scientific experts in the field who believe Jensen is wrong.
10
the European Commission Joint Research Centre told us this week that carbon dioxide emissions went up 45% between 1990 & 2010. the MSM totally ignored it, cos it begged the question how come the global temperature hasn’t shot up as well.
those with the money are paying attention tho and it’s becoming more and more evident they know the game is well and truly up:
22 Sept: Guardian: Jonathan Watts: Carbon capture progress has lost momentum, says climate change agency
Meeting of senior ministers in Beijing hears that CCS is being left behind due to financial crisis and weakening political will…
Sequestration – the depositing of greenhouse gases underground rather than into the atmosphere – was supposed to account for a fifth of the world’s emissions reductions under the agency’s roadmap for keeping global temperature rise within 2C (4F) by the end of the century.
But delegates including the US energy secretary, Steven Chu, heard at a meeting, held in Beijing, that the global temperature is on course to rise by 3.5C, due to poor progress both on carbon capture and storage, and on acceptance of a carbon price and other carbon-cutting efforts.
IEA deputy executive director, Richard Jones, told the meeting, hosted by the Washington-based Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum, that this would wreak havoc on human wellbeing.
According to the IEA, global energy demand has more than doubled in the past 40 years and even with the most favourable assumptions will grow another 35% by 2035, which will take carbon dioxide emissions above 35 gigatonnes per year.
Projects to capture and bury a major chunk of that are behind schedule and finding it harder to secure funds.
To reach the 2C goal, the IEA estimates there will have to be 1,500 large-scale CCS projects around the world by 2035. However, only 74 have been announced, and the trend is in the wrong direction.
“We’re seeing a decline in new projects due to a softening global economy and an uncertain carbon price,” said Brad Page, head of the Australia-based Global CCS Institute…
US energy secretary Steven Chu told the meeting the price of carbon would have to be $80 a tonne for CCS to be economically viable with current technology.
But, he continued, the US has yet to even set a price, which makes it difficult for companies to invest and financial institutions to make loans to CCS projects…
Delegates said other forms of CCS need more state aid to get going but cash-strapped governments are backing away from financial commitments…
Delegates said commodities firms – who are profiting from the rise in energy prices – should step in…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/sep/22/carbon-capture-and-storage-energy?newsfeed=true
10
[snip reply to snipped]
So let’s get this right. Jensen couldn’t just explain the papers in question because he doesn’t have the capability to explain the science? I thought he had a Ph.D. in physics?
If you can’t explain something during a speech then it means you don’t really understand what you’re talking about.
11
These aren’t my words.
The opposition accepts the science too. If they didn’t they wouldn’t be proposing to cut emissions by the same amount by 2020.
I have no idea what this means, but you should’ve thrown On the Origin of Species in there for rhetorical effect.
10
I don’t really know what your point is here.
The minister at the table simply saved Tony Abbott from the embarrassment that members of his party don’t support his policy.
And I again revert to my earlier point. Only ministers can incorporate documents into Hansard. If this wasn’t the case Hansard would just be unreadable.
10
Jensen believes that Jensen is wrong.
I vaguely recall him saying on the CPRS bills that the earth isn’t warming, then later on in his speech he claims that the earth is warming but not by much.
10
Adam Smith: September 23rd, 2011 at 11:28 am
Costello had the foresight to see the unfunded liabilities coming at him and establish the Future Fund to cover them. Without surpluses it is a tad difficult to deliver monies into said fund, no?
Also, the main reason taxes were lower in the last few years was because of the oversized cuts delivered over a 3-year period resulting from the 2007 election campaign income tax cuts. You watch the percentages change if Labor’s new taxes come in, plus the bracket creep which no one seems to talk about.
This is all entirely besides the point I made in any case, as you well know. Your spurious statements make no sense in the context of what I said. No doubt you will spew reams more garbage on this blog in order to drown real signals with your noise. This is clearly the intent of your cadre of late.
10
Adam Smith:
Reference? Too lazy?
10
Dear Mod,
Is badgering considered abuse?
10
Only if the badger said no.
10
Smithy you are a very naughty little troll!
You work in an ALP ministers office and you have deliberately tried to mislead people here regarding the tabling of documents in the House of Reps.
It is true that there is a protocol for the tabling of reports by Ministers.
http://www.dpmc.gov.au/guidelines/docs/guidelines_gov_docs.pdf
However that is not what Jensen attempted. Somewhat obviously. There are also rules of procedure for the incorporation of documents into Hansard. These are allowed under the Standing Orders. The House of Reps Practise note makes it very clear:
By leave
Leave of the House is required to enable the presentation of a document in circumstances not provided for in the standing orders or established practice of the House.
It is expected that a Member or Minister seeking leave to present a document will first show it to the Minister at the Table or to the Member leading for the Opposition, as the case may be, and leave may be refused if this courtesy is not complied with.39
By private Members
Other than providing for the presentation of committee and delegation reports, the standing orders make no provision for private Members to present documents. Any private Member (unless presenting a parliamentary committee report, or a delegation report during the time allotted on Mondays, or unless the document relates to a matter of privilege raised by the Member40) wishing to present a document must obtain leave of the House to do so, and leave may be granted only if no Member present objects.(Standing Order 62) Leave is not required to present an explanatory memorandum to a private Member’s bill.
http://www.aph.gov.au/house/pubs/practice/chapter17.htm#fn42
So Jensen attempted to incorporate the scientific research papers onto the record and Ellis used the Standing Order to block it. Democracy, transperancy and reliance on the science at work Smithy? And you attenmpted to deliberately mislead the good people that read this blog into believing that Jensen had no right. About as good as your fudging and dishonesty about the settled science “comrade”(note for the dull and dim witted – heavy sarcasm with a dash of irony). The science is not settled and Jensen tried to prove it by incorporating the papers into the Hansard. And Ellis used a shabby device of the the Standing Orders to prevent it.
I hear Albo is a little down in the dumps and is expecting a thrashing at the polls. He should be.
10
So in the end we have a government that is basing this tax legislation of scientific advice, advice that may or may not be up to date. Any new additional scientific advice that may possibly cause a change to this legislation cannot be considered during the debate of such legislation due to a parliamentary rule.
Which begs the question why bother with scientific advice in the first place?
10
And how was this mainly achieved? Simple. He sold Telstra. The 1/3 of Telstra he couldn’t sell he moved into the future fund, which is really just an accounting trick. The future fund has rapidly sold down its Telstra shares as they have realised that the company is a dud that hates competition.
Which Labor supported and implemented.
It won’t change much. The ETS is revenue neutral in the longer term. The mining tax will be new, but that comes with a 1% cut to the company tax rate, so that is offset somewhat too. The forward estimates do show a slight increase mainly because the economy won’t be at trend growth until 2013.
My intent is to simply demonstrate that the current government has kept spending as a proportion of GDP lower than the Howard government.
This is a numerical fact. You can have your own opinions, but not your own facts.
10
You said:
Now one assumes you mean this in reference to the request to “table” the papers he presented to the Senate. You claim that he may not do this, which is wrong in fact. Any senator may ask leave to have papers tabled, which is exactly what he did.
Source: http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/pubs/guides/briefno12.htm
Unlike you, I make references to my claims of fact. Still looking up your reference on Jensen, or do you always verbal people and then just move on?
10
BD,
Sooooooooooooo if Jensen has every right to table a document what grounds does Ellis have to deny him doing so?
TIA
10
the Coalition is as much a part of the scam as Labor and the Greens. otherwise, Dr. Jensen would have been made Climate Minister, and not Greg Hunt. Abbott has nothing to gain from playing games, because the public are on the side of Jensen.
besides, there’s nothing to stop a Coalition Minister from entering the scientific papers, if they wanted to do so.
MSM still remains silent on this issue.
as for the CAGW Greens/environmentalists/Christians/NGOs around the world who were almost universally against emissions trading because they knew it was a scam, how hypocritical are they for going along with this charade, especially given Climategate, the temps not performing according to the CAGW script, and the admission CO2 emissions have increased 45% in two decades with no warming to match, and the promise of more CO2 emissions in the future?
21 Sept: NYT: Josh Kron: In Scramble for Land, Group Says, Company Pushed Ugandans Out
According to the company’s proposal to join a United Nations clean-air program, the settlers living in this area left in a “peaceful” and “voluntary” manner.
People here remember it quite differently.
“I heard people being beaten, so I ran outside,” said Emmanuel Cyicyima, 33. “The houses were being burnt down.”
Other villagers described gun-toting soldiers and an 8-year-old child burning to death when his home was set ablaze by security officers.
“They said if we hesitated they would shoot us,” said William Bakeshisha, adding that he hid in his coffee plantation, watching his house burn down. “Smoke and fire.”
According to a report released by the aid group Oxfam on Wednesday, the Ugandan government and a British forestry company forcibly expelled more than 20,000 people from their homes here in recent years, emblematic of a global scramble for arable land.
“Too many investments have resulted in dispossession, deception, violation of human rights and destruction of livelihoods,” Oxfam said in the report. “This interest in land is not something that will pass.” As population and urbanization soar, it added, “whatever land there is will surely be prized.”…
But in this case, the government and the company said the settlers were illegal and evicted for a good cause: to protect the environment and help fight global warming.
The case twists around an emerging multibillion-dollar market trading carbon-credits under the Kyoto Protocol, which contains mechanisms for outsourcing environmental protection to developing nations.
The company involved, New Forests Company, grows forests in African countries with the purpose of selling credits from the carbon-dioxide its trees soak up to polluters abroad. Its investors include the World Bank, through its private investment arm, and the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation, HSBC.
In 2005, the Ugandan government granted New Forests a 50-year license to grow pine and eucalyptus forests in three districts, and the company has applied to the United Nations to trade under the mechanism. The company expects that it could earn up to $1.8 million a year.
But there was just one problem: people were living on the land where the company wanted to plant trees. Indeed, they had been there a while.
“He was a policeman for King George,” Mr. Bakeshisha said of his father, who served with British forces during World War II in Egypt…
New Forests says that it takes accusations that settlers were forcibly removed “extremely seriously” and will conduct “an immediate and thorough” investigation.
“Our understanding of these resettlements is that they were legal, voluntary and peaceful and our first hand observations of them confirmed this,” the company said in a response to the Oxfam report…
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/22/world/africa/in-scramble-for-land-oxfam-says-ugandans-were-pushed-out.html?_r=2&scp=3&sq=uganda&st=cse
New Forests: Board of Directors
Robert Devereux – Chairman
Robert was one of the founding shareholders of The Virgin Group and Chairman of Virgin Entertainment…He has a home in Africa and a keen interest in environmental businesses…
Julian Ozanne – Executive Director & CEO
Julian has widespread knowledge of Africa – its countries, politics, influential people and the business environment. In 1986 he graduated with an Economics Degree from the London School of Economics (LSE). Between 1987 and 1997 he worked for the Financial Times and was foreign correspondent serving as Middle East Correspondent and Africa Bureau Chief. Between 1994 and 1999 he advised a number of US and European investment banks on business and political risk in Africa and worked for the World Economic Forum…
Jonathan R Aisbitt – Director
Jon has been the non-executive Chairman of The Man Group since September 2007. He was previously a Partner and Managing Director in the Investment Banking Division of Goldman Sachs and has 20 years’ experience in international corporate finance…
Avril Stassen – Director
Avril Stassen is currently a Principal at Agri-Vie Investment Advisors (Pty) Ltd and SP Fund Managers (Pty) Ltd, the Fund Manager to the $110 m Agri-Vie Africa Food and Agribusiness Private Equity Fund…
He was a co-founder of AMB Capital Management (Pty) Ltd and AMB Private Equity Partners Limited (a JSE listed company), a ZAR 1 billion private equity fund in August 1998 and left their employ in December 2002. Prior to that he was employed as a Chief Investment Officer at Southern Asset Management, a subsidiary of Southern Life Association Limited (a top 5 Life Insurance company in SA), with assets under management of ZAR 50 billion, where he was involved in all aspects of investment management across all asset-classes for a period of 5 years. Prior to joining Southern Asset Management he was employed as investment professional by Allan Gray Limited, the largest privately-owned investment management firm in South Africa, for a period of five years…
Sajjad Sabur – Director
Saj Sabur is a Managing Director at HSBC and head of Principal Investments Africa. Saj joined HSBC in 2005 bringing with him over 12 years of investment banking experience…
http://www.newforests.net/index.php/our-people/board-of-directors
Bob Brown, i can hardly believe i voted for your Party. do the right thing and oppose any pricing/trading of carbon dioxide
10
Read the section in the regs Crakar … if anyone rejects it is not accepted. They can then elect to suspend standing orders yadda, yadda, yadda… there are processes in place to deal with the back and forth stuff.
The simple point I was making is that Mr Smith was wrong in fact. You do not have to be the President or a Minister to request the tabling of papers, which is what he indicated. Any senator can request papers be tabled, it just isn’t guaranteed that they will get in.
10
catamon#72
Cannot explain it in terms of human emitted CO2.
10
Crakar24: @ 109
There are no requirements under Standing Orders of Parliamentary Practice that a Minister of the Crown need justify denial of leave to table a document, IMO, I think that is detrimental to open debate in the Parliament and is something that should be changed.
10
BD and Paul M,
Thanks for your responses, to take my question one step further. If Ellis has the right to reject the tabling of the documents then surely it would be need to be justified. I suppose this justification would be detailed upon suspension of standing orders as you eluded to in 111 Bull Dust.
I can understand why the suspension option was not exercised as the science denial of the Labor/green/IND coalition was already laid bare for all to see.
By the way looks like the Kevin 07 has been re badged to Kevin 11 rumours abound Canberra that Kevin is polishing up that very same knife. Cant wait for Speedy’s next ABC installment.
10
Adam’s post 96 scribblings:
[snip – about snipped]
It was dumb because in the blog entry from Jo Nova is this.The one you must not have read because everybody who did,KNOWS Ellis is a Minister and Jensen is not:
Dr. Jensen says,
From Dennis Jensen’s press release about the censorship:
Jo says,
That is why I said your replies are dumb.All the information was already there in Jo’s post.You failed to provide any new information.
But you prove your inability to see reason with this absurdity:
Jo already told us that Dr. Jensen is a scientist.
It is obvious you NEVER sat through a science presentation.They do not read out a long list of references as you are stupidly proposing.That is not how scientists speak in seminars or similar presentations.
I have sat through a few over the years.Listening to scientists talk about soil science or how chemicals move in soils and plants,and so on.The most recent presentation was about how to design irrigation systems.They NEVER read out a list of published science references.They ALWAYS have it printed out on paper they make available.
They are there to talk about what they know and what needs to be known.Not to waste time and energy reading out all the published references that supplies information to their presentation.
You are pathetic.
10
MattB:
September 23rd, 2011 at 2:23 pm
It is common knowledge that the vast majority of them are in the employ of government or have their noses in the trough. Any sign of dissent would put them a great disadvantage. The science is corrupt. As far as “scientific experts” are concerned you will find that many of them have no right to claim expert status in climate science. You might like to research and advise those who you consider are appropriately qualified and experienced. And please don’t list Flannery and Garnaut.
The growing reality is this … http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=8355 and this … http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=8362
10
Responding to post 99 written by the diligent reader Adam Smith:
Read this again and see if you finally get it.This is from the beginning of Jo’s blog post:
Read very carefully this time Mr. Smith.
The point is not hard to find in it.
10
Doctor Smith.
I understand that Politics is your ‘go’, and it’s pretty obvious that Maths isn’t.
Since its inception, Nuclear power has been the single cheapest form of generating electrical power that there has been, and that’s not even argued.
Why do you think that in the U.S. electrical power has been so cheap for the last 40 years, in fact almost half the cost of what we pay retail here in Australia.
That is because Nuclear power sells its power to the grid at less than half of what the next nearest power generation does, that being coal fired power.
It’s simple Maths. If a large scale electric power generator produces massive amounts of electricity for consumption, and then does that extrapolated out over 40 years, and now some of those original plants are having their licences extended to 60 years, and the cost of the fuel is hugely less expensive than that of the coal fired plants, it stands to reason that the power is cheaper, and this has been proven over the last 40 years.
True, in the current situation, some extrapolated costings are almost equal for new constructions of any plants, but again that is only going on the 40 year total life extrapolation of costs, and if (when) they are extended to 60 years then they also will become immensely less expensive also, again, Maths.
That does not alter the fact that for the last 40 and more years, Nuclear power has been the cheapest form of generating power.
I can quote an example of its cheapness, from the site of someone who has actually worked at a Nuclear plant for more than the last 20 years, where he quotes:
That is at the following link, which will be of interest to all readers wanting to know about an actual Nuclear Power Plant from an insider. The relevant text regarding costing shown in the quote are in the second major text block at that site.
http://www.zimfamilycockers.com/DiabloCanyon.html
For information from the monstrously huge Energy Information Administration site, they say that during peak consumption seasons, Summer and Winter, Nuclear power is used more because of the low cost.
Just one area where it says this is as follows:
That is at this link.
Again, in respect of costings at this link it says:
When you add those O&M costs to the existing 1.9 cents per kwh it still comes in at half and less than any new baseload plant.
Further, Doctor Smith sanguinely believes that here in Australia, with no background whatsoever, he says we can have a Nuclear Plant up and running by 2020.
At the first EIA link I provided it says:
That’s just the construction. Prior to that are 4 to 5 years in planning, approvals, financing etc, if everything lines up first time. Also in another area of the EIA, it says that it is problematic that new nuclear plants could be delivering their power in anything under 11 years as there is very few construction entities capable of actually doing it, and this in a Country that actually has Nuclear capability already, so when Doctor Smith sanguinely states they will appear in no time flat, he’s just ‘snowing’ you, talking off the top of his head, because he has no idea whatsoever.
Doctor Smith, I’ll not argue with you any more on this.
I feel sure you (think you ) have all the answers, and will find something that makes what was said at these links invalid, probably because they are not ‘peer reviewed’ to your ‘special’ requirements, but gee, it’s hard to actually argue against the existing truth.
To Joanne, and the Moderators, I’m sorry to make this so long and involved, and I’m also sorry that it won’t shut Doctor Smith up, because, after all, he has a political answer, but nothing in actuality.
For all you other guys, have a good long read of Jim Zim’s link, that first one. It really is most interesting from a number of aspects.
Tony.
10
Crakar24
Spot on, part of the reason why The Practice should be changed, especially as the requirement for a Substantive Motion means in almost all cases the Government of the day is protected by its’ own numbers and thus removes a level of accountability that would make QT, MPI’s and Ministerial Statements significantly more effective and bebeficial to our democratic processes.
Kevin 11, well he may well be sharpening the knife, which will be a good thing, with a little bit of luck he will become PM in the next couple of weeks, call an election for mid/late Nov, having notified the GG (after relegating Bully Boy Bill to the dimmest corner of the backbench)that minority gvt is unworkable, and the good people of Griffith will at last be given the opportunity to cast their elected member (The Prime Minister)into the dustbin of history where he belongs and everyone else that lives in a ALP/Green/Independent electorate will be able to do the same. My figurative baseball bat has been sitting beside the front door gathering dust and I still have that nagging itch between the shoulderblades you get when you see a lame arse pitch coming square into the strike zone.
20
Thank you, Dr Dennis Jensen, for having the courage to speak about:
Society’s demise, from scientific lies!
http://judithcurry.com/2011/09/21/the-myth-of-easter-islands-ecocide/
An ill-conceived plan, for the benefit of man,
Obfuscated truths like theses, with pleasing narratives.
1. “Is the Sun a pulsar?”, Nature 270, 159 – 160 (1977)
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v270/n5633/abs/270159a0.html
2. “The almost demise of earlier lies, “Nature 303, 286-286 (1983)
http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/swart-1983.pdf
3. “Neutron Repulsion”, The APEIRON Journal (2011)
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1102.1499v1
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo
Video Summary of Research (1961-2011)
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/10640850/Summary_of_Career.pdf
10
She is a minister of the crown and Jensen isn’t. In fact, he isn’t even good enough to be on the Opposition’s front bench.
10
It is justified on the convention that only members of the executive, that is ministers of the crown, can incorporate including documents in Hansard.
10
Crakar24 @ 114
Perhaps the Ides of March is coming early for our Caesar. Possibly February 2012?? If so I wasn’t far off.
10
@ Adam Smith
Bombarding this blog’s threads with hundreds of ‘sludge like’ comments, abusing (yes, abusing) the freedom rightly accorded to you/us, in the spirit of mutual respect, does not enhance your debate.
Its quality over quantity that shows intelligence, not post after post, sometimes with barely a minute in between.
Slow down, gather your thoughts, post a little less with more concise content, and with a bit of evidence (links) to support your points.
For instance, can you provide a link to ‘THE ONE PAPER’ that the consensus of government funded climate scientists, the UN-IPCC/CSIRO and all the scientific bodies all over the world refer to when they claim carbon dioxide is the sole driver of all weather/climate/glacial/inter-glacial periods?
Do that, and the debate is over. You win. Gaia wins. We all win. We can all go home and install windmills.
It’s the old ‘K.I.S.S.’ principle.
Thanks in advance for the link.
10
Tony:
Evidence for this claim? I linked to peer reviewed research that demonstrates how it is wrong, but again you are just asserting things are true without supporting your claims with evidence.
Oh come off it Tony, the U.S. only gets about 20% of its electricity from nuclear. They get most of it from fossil fuel sources.
Evidence for this claim? There’s a lot of data on generation costs here that all show nuclear (admittedly it says “Advanced Nuclear”, so I guess that means a passively safe Gen III+ reactor is more expensive than fossil fuels:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source
1) Plants are only having licenses extended now, which will become harder since Fukushima
2) Fuel costs for nuclear power plants are a very small part of operating costs.
What you are still avoiding is the cost of fossil fuelds which don’t have as big initial infrastructure costs as that of a nuclear reactor.
You’re flat out dodging the question. Nuclear is only cheaper than fossil fuel sources with a low ($20 per tonne) carbon price.
Again you keep repeating this assertion but you haven’t supported it with any evidence. The link above says you are wrong
Oh come on mate, that quote is just the cost of generating power now. It says nothing about how much extra nuclear costs compared to the a coal power station as an initial investment. I accept your point that this is amortised over the life of a plant, but the same goes for a coal plant. We have coal plants still operating in Australia that are 50 years old.
Of course we could Tony! You shouldn’t talk down the Australian economy or its people.
10
Incorrect.
Any member of the governing party may table documents in the parliament.
10
I have not abused anyone. It is I who have been subjected to abuse. I have been called a socialist, a communist, Kim Jong-Il, an left wing extremist, a Green, an operative for GetUp! a committee, and “Adams Family” (which is both an insult of myself and the English language).
If people ask me questions I respond to them.
WOAH! Who ever proposed that carbon dioxide is the “sole driver of all weather/climate/glacial/inter-glacial periods”?
Why don’t YOU find me a paper that makes this absurd claim!
I guess that this doesn’t count as abuse, but it is nonsensical.
10
Not true. Only members of the executive can incorporate documents into Hansard.
A Government backbencher is not a member of the executive.
10
Smithy you have been sprung.
“that only members of the executive, that is ministers of the crown, can incorporate including documents in Hansard” is completely misleading and only a dolt or a dishonest troll would peddle such garbage. Your choice. Which one would you like to object to as an ad hominen? So no member of the house ever presents documents in a speech to the house? Members can incorporate a document on the proviso that no member present at the sitting objects. Standing Order 62. But before we get to that step the Minister at the Despatch Box must accept the documents. The Minister for Sport,that most intellectual of politicians since Andre Malraux was the minister at the despatch box when Jensen rose to speak and she declined to accept the documents and thus prevented Jensen from proving on the record for posterity that the science is not settled. No doubt from the right side of history. Keeping them coming in spinner. You have been comprehensively pantsed by Tony, Bulldust et el and you provide the yapping evidence standing on hind legs of the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of your political clan. Comrade. (See the note in the previous post re. sarcasm and the unfathomable subtelty of irony).
10
Bollocks, documents can be tabled by the Prime Minister and Government Ministers during Question Time and/or Ministerial Statements. During Matters of Public Importance or Legislative debates the Government Member at the despatch box may table documents in accordance with standing orders. Members of the cross benches and opposition must seek leave to table documents at the discretion of the Government and/or The Speaker.
10
OH DEAR! You write “bollocks” and then you go on to say that what I have said is right.
Ministers don’t need leave to table documents. The convention has always been that only ministers can incorporate things into Hansard.
Jensen made his request knowing full well that backbenchers have never been allowed to have things put into Hansard.
It was a stunt that Jensen knew was doomed to fail before he even conducted it.
10
I am so sick of global warming, that I have decided to throw in the towel and pledge allegiance to perpetuating the AGW myth as it is easier to parrot the party line than to think for myself. I hereby make the following oath;
“I hereby solemnly swear on this unholy communist manifesto, allegiance to the perpetuation of the AGW myth for the righteous destruction of the west and its capitalist filth. I will howl “denier!!” in a shrill and exaggerated finger-pointing motion anyone who dares question AGW orthodoxy, as determined by the labor/green alliance, assorted socialist economists and the occasional left-leaning scientist. I will sanctimoniously yell “think of the polar bears!” whenever complaints arise about cold weather without having stated the obligatory disclaimer about it being anecdotal evidence only.
If the temperatures or sea levels go down, I vow to adjust them to fit the AGW narrative accordingly. If anyone points out that CO2 and temperature correlation does not equal causation, I vow to launch an ad hominem attack, questioning their morals, peerage, or employment as deemed appropriate and necessary. If they point out that 97% of CO2 is natural, I vow to claim that Gaia distinguishes anthropogenic from natural emissions and discriminates on the basis of its sinful production as a crime against nature / Bob Brown. If they point out that positive feedbacks are negated by negative feedbacks (such as more rain in response to more water vapour in the atmosphere), I will claim the moral high ground from my waterfront mansion. If they point out that a unilateral carbon tax / ETS will have no discernable positive impact on the environment, I will state that there will be no carbon tax under a government I lead, and call a media inquiry into media that points out this inconvenient truth. If they get democratically elected and attempt to table inconvenient peer-reviewed literature into parliament, I vow to thwart them long enough to enact “the plan” and release the Fabian wolf from the green sheep’s clothing, but only when it’s too late for anyone to do anything about it. And when the temperatures don’t rise, I vow to claim the economic solution that is the carbon tax as having worked as the environmental solution we always said it would be.”
Now I can go and obsess about my carbon footprint while making excuses for Al Gore’s. Actually, bugger that, that sounds even harden than being a denier! Thankfully, being an alarmist gives me the right to hypocrisy, so I hereby go back on my oath.
10
WOW! Twenty five posts out of 132 thus far, talk about saturation to destroy the thread.
I’ve noticed this tactic elsewhere. This blog is being destroyed, moderation is required.
10
So nice to read what we all know to be confirmed by a Professor of Social Sciences as reported by P Gosselin.
10
Terrific to see at least one politician who has the courage of his convictions to stand up and be counted even in the face of overwhelmingly negative media coverage from the usual suspects. I myself am sick to death that those of us who are yet to be convinced, are so sanctimoniously dismissed by the alarmists as though our opinion counts for nought.
Remember, your vote has the same value as the next persons, regardless of political persuasion….
10
I see Smith has still not provided a reference for the words he put in Jensen’s mouth, nor has he read the link I provided that any senator can request tabling of papers. And yet he warbles on troll-like from on post to the next.
Can we take your lack of reference to back up your Jensen remarks as an complete withdrawal of your baseless statement?
Also for your reference, here is the list of transfers into the Future Fund:
http://www.finance.gov.au/investment-funds/future-fund/transfers.html
Note how large amounts have come from Budget surpluses.
Never let the facts get in the way of a good rant eh Smith?
10
I find this baffling. The Greens in Australia are supporting a market mechanism to reduce carbon emissions.
It is the Coalition, the Liberals and Nationals, that are proposing a social state planning solution where the politicians in Canberra wright pages and pages of regulations to determine the eligibility of companies for funding. Then on top of that you’d need a regulatory force of some sort to ensure compliance with the regulations.
It seems that article doesn’t relate to the Australian context because here it is the Liberals and Nationals that are proposing the command economy planned solution.
10
@ Adam Smith:
September 23rd, 2011 at 4:23 pm
Uhm, I didn’t say you abused anyone or individual here.
If you read it again, I suggested your constant postings abuse the freedom of speech we all enjoy here.
As for a paper that makes this ‘absurd claim’, I can’t find it, but, I provide links to govt. websites that do, and more:
cleanenergyfuture
http://www.climatechange.gov.au/
climate commission
CSIRO
UN-IPCC
Note: If evidence exists cO2 drives global warming, (because we know it’s not the sun, or clouds), lack of warming (see note link, and Late Ordovician period) and the direct cO2 influence must also exist.
So, where is your link?
Will you address the question?
10
Adam Smith:
Get your own blog so that people can properly enjoy your demonstrated functional illiteracy at their leisure.
There is more to reading than sounding out the words.
10
Adam, I’m waiting for your response to #129, did you get got? 😉
10
It never ceases to amaze, sometimes amuse and often appall me how this site so continually and relentlessly gets things completely wrong. How often I have seen a blog proclaiming some particular point of view of the climate change debate which is quickly debunked by some of the more astute bloggers here. It happens time and time again, you’d think you’d give it away. Points for dogged persistence in the face of relentless debunking, no points for accuracy.
Here again Nova, you’ve thoroughly had your pants pulled down! Give it up, you’re wasting everyones time.
[Look everyone, an anonymous commenter keeps popping to say black is white, up is down, and that we’re all stupid. Penny-baby you know we only let you post these baseless-bluster pieces to showcase how desperate you are in the losing house of climate scares. –JN]
10
Is Adam Smith paid by the hour? Given the job of full-time JoNova denier, no doubt!
10
From the official guide: “Documents may be presented by the Speaker, by Ministers and, in restricted circumstances, by private Members.” Not sure what conditions and standing orders allow private members to table. Maybe connolly has that well covered in his comment. I should know, because, well…
Now, I don’t want TonyfromOz to giggle at this…but I actually have a degree in (ugh!) Political Science. It was actually called Government in the swinging sixties. I think people then thought Political Science sounded a bit yankee or wanky. I can hear you giggling, Tony! Stop that!
Anyway, good work by Jensen to pull a good stunt, if it was a stunt.
10
mosomoso,
you had me worried there for a minute.
my wife heard me laughing and said, and I quote, “hey, stop that will you.”
I had to go and look in the back yard and see if there were any bamboo plants.
To quote Curly – Nyuk nyuk nyuk!
Tony.
10
Apart from lying, again, about who introduced the Brooks paper on the relative costs of nuclear against the preferred renewables [which is the point!] – I did – the Smith hive-mind makes a good point @64 and 82 when he suggests Dr Jensen read into Hansard the censored papers; to do that all he need do is cover the title, abstract and source, probably 5 minutes for the list and another 5 minutes for a synopsis since some are pro-AGW.
Well done hive-Smith, you are just not an irritant.
10
Well this is just nonsensical. It isn’t like we are writing on paper. If you want to post something, just make another post.
10
There’s no reason to revert to abuse simply because you’re unable to engage with my arguments.
20
There’s no reason to revert to such abuse. In fact speculating on people’s motivations comes under the “Mindless” posting section of this forum’s rules:
http://joannenova.com.au/rules-legal/
10
I don’t think people should be laughed at because they have a university degree, or a trade, or even a TAFE certificate. If that is what the person wanted to do, and they did it successfully, then that should be commended.
My favourite PM / Treasurer left school at 15 to work for his dad’s cement company. We shouldn’t judge people because of, or because of a lack of, formal qualifications.
10
No, you linked to the paper after I had linked to it on another thread.
You then went and misrepresented what it says. The study you linked to only mentions pulverised coal because that’s the most efficient method of electricity generation from coal. Conventional methods of generation from coal are less efficient, but cheaper.
If this wasn’t true then all coal plants would be the highly efficient type because they would be cheaper to run, but that isn’t the case.
10
Honestly Adam Smith… I think you should be sidelined until you provide references for your baseless allegation against Jensen. You still haven’t provided a reference for what you said about him.
It is now patently obvious that you are a troll intent simply on bringing down the tone on this site with mindless one line jibber-jabber, and then pursuing pointless debates about people’s responses when they anger at your baseless remarks.
Time to play the ball – two questions have been put to you repeatedly:
1) Provide a reference to your remark about Jensen contradicting himself.
2) Acknowledge you are in error about tabling documents in the Federal Senate.
you avoid honest debate and keep sidestepping from one pointless remark to another. Time to put up or shut up.
10
Adam,
Dude, you’re clueless. So here’s a clue—
The Greens hate free and transparent markets of anything, whether it’s the free market place of ideas (The Greens support “licensing” of bloggers and have proposed a media inquiry into the possible avenues for limiting the free expression of their political opponents) or the free market of goods and services. (The Greens support higher taxes and more collectivist control of everything.)
The Greens hate freely competitive markets because markets are the fairest most egalitarian method for selecting and propagating the best and brightest ideas.
In other words, free markets often produce novel unexpected results that are beyond the control of elitist cliques promoting “morally superior,” yet imbecilic ideas, such as shutting down Australian mining or going 100% “renewable” energy by 2030 or banning Jews from doing business in Green controlled shires—all highly sanctimonious idiocy the Greens piously believe in, yet don’t stand a snowball’s chance in hell in the free market of ideas. The Green solution to the failure of their crappy ideas in the market place, as I noted, is to seize control of Internet and ban their political opponent’s right to free speech.
Another thing the Greens secretly hate, because it’s a constitutional extension of the market mechanism for the sorting of good Ideas from the crappy, is Democracy. One person, one vote. Obviously, some people’s votes are “morally superior” to other people’s vote, according to the Greens, and therefore should be worth more.
That’s why Bob Brown recently stated he supports turning Australia’s sovereignty over to a One World Government as soon as practicable in the future. That would do away with the Greens crappy poll numbers and the wasted time trying to sell idiotic ideas directly to skeptical Australian citizens with their morally inferior bogan sensibilities and votes. Instead, Bob could just be appointed Proconsul of Australia for Life by a committee chaired by, say, Iran and Bob’s your uncle, as they say.
So, Adam Smith—What an ironic sense of hilarity you show in your choice of nom de plume ;-)—Don’t be fooled by Green protestations that theirs is the party of Peace, Liberty, Whales, free markets, transparent science and free beer, because everything they say is, in fact, Machiavellian treachery designed to conceal the dagger they clutch beneath their cloak.
10
If mindless posting was moderated here, we’d never need scroll past Kevin’s NWO copypasta. Similarly wrt off-topic posts.
All the groupsnark directed towards Adam is puerile and doesn’t befit an [ostensibly] scientific blog.
10
Very emotive piece there. A little light on substantiated content though.
10
Adam Smith: #46
And you profess to understand how Parliament works?
A Minister could have moved a motion that Jensen be no longer heard, but would then have had to give a reason, and that reason would have had to satisfy the Speaker as to its merits. Something that rarely happens, as somebody with your professed depth of experience should have known.
Adam Smith: #48
I can’t think why you would think that. Dr Leigh said absolutely nothing new. The purpose of debate is to move the matter forward. Patsy speeches do not count, as you should well know.
Adam Smith: #57
Because to have a valid comparison, you need to have a level playing field. Since Australia has not implemented nuclear power, you need to look at the emissions from other sources in the USA for a valid comparison (did you not do statistics at school?)
Define average, as applied to population statistics. The concept of “population averages” is an old epidemiological trick.
Also, please quote your sources for your assertion. I think you will find that access to electrical power in South and South East Asia is much higher than, say Africa or South America, so why not use them as your comparator?
Adam Smith #81
This is mostly true. Any Minister can table a document in the house, as of right while they are on their feet (i.e. speaking). This privilege does not extend to backbenchers. However, what Adam Smith fails to mention is that any member can seek leave of the Speaker to table a document in the House, and the Speaker then decides. The fact that it was not allowed in this case, when the member was speaking, was probably a politically motivated decision. But we will never know.
Adam Smith is wrong in suggesting that having a large number of documents tabled would blow the size of Hansard is totally wrong. Hansard only records what is said in the house, so it would contain a reference to the document, but not the full content unless it was read in full (which would not happen due to the time constraints placed on speeches, something Adam Smith also goes out of his way, to not mention).
That’s it – I am bored by all the nonsense.
Except to point out that Adam Smith did not pay me the courtesy of responding to my comment #180 on the previous thread. So rude.
10
“because everything they say is, in fact, Machiavellian treachery designed to conceal the dagger they clutch beneath their cloak.”
Well, there is a demonstration of the open mind working beneath the tinfoil hat if i have ever seen one.
10
All the Evidence on Jo`s Blog here and all that Blog here , I just feel the message needs to be advertised more , Especially to people caught up in main stream media ( lies and deception)
MSM News just panders to the walking human drones .
Take all the good posts on this Blog , Copy paste and link to everyone you know . Wake up all the Australian people ,Hypnotised by MSM
10
You fight those drones, mobilly!
10
T@153,
Uh, Excuse me?
Bob Brown, the proconsul wannabe, didn’t come out in support of One World Government recently? Really?
Jewish businesses haven’t been persecuted by Greens, especially Lee Rhiannon, who is a former Stalinist who was paid by the USSR to publish pro-Soviet propaganda in Australia?
http://www.thesydneyinstitute.com.au/issue-111/
So when totalitarian communism finally collapsed along with the Berlin Wall, Lee joined Bob Brown’s Greens. Now she’s in our senate.
Nice.
10
Try to avoid starting your posts with abuse, it makes it seem that you don’t have confidence in your position.
Well they believe in a market for the right to put greenhouse gases into the air.
They have even said the cost to do this will be $23 per tonne in the first year, which is astonishingly transparent.
What will the cost for abatement be under the Liberal and National socialist policy? The answer is nobody knows, because we won’t know how effective the policy has been until after billions of dollars have been spent.
Well I admit I haven’t heard of their blogger licensing policy, but I will guess I’ll have to take your word for it since you didn’t back up this claim with a link.
I don’t necessarily equate collectivism with higher costs. Australians enjoy the benefits of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme which means we get access to medicines at a much lower price than say Americans that don’t have such a scheme. This is achieved because the government buys in bulk on our behalf, and passes on the savings.
Well market for what? Should their be a free market for heroin? I agree that the price of TVs should be determined by a free market (well, even those are subject to a 10% tax called the GST), but what about health care? Do you support scrapping Medicare and just going to a health system where if you have money you can get access to a hospital, but if you don’t have enough money you suffer?
Should the allocation of EVERYTHING simply be left to the free market?
Should we have tobacco taxes? A free market fundamentalist would say they are wrong, even though all they do is get back some of the financial damage that the use of tobacco causes to society and the economy.
1) Yes saying Australia can convert to 100% renewables by 2030 is idiotic.
2) I don’t think anyone has said we should shut down our mining sector! I know the Greens hate coal mining, but even they see the benefits of Australia exporting things like gold and copper.
Some of what you say is true, but the Greens have actually opposed the internet filter from the start.
Well hang on a second here. It was the Liberals, not the Greens, that increased the campaign disclosure rules from $1500 to $10,000 so that their mates could donate more without having to be on the public record. I think you are pointing in the wrong direction here.
One world government? Yeah right. Whatever.
The Greens are doing about as well in the polls as they did at the last election.
No my name is completely appropriate. Adam Smith’s book was an attack on mercantilism, it wasn’t an attack on socialism, which I guess is what the Greens espouse.
While your post was interesting, you didn’t actually engage with my criticism of the Liberal and National parties. It is those two parties that have given up their regular support of markets and are instead proposing to use billions of dollars of direct government investment to encourage businesses to cut their greenhouse emissions.
To do this they would need a massive bureaucracy, pages and pages of regulations, if not legislation, a team of bureaucrats to determine if different businesses comply with the regulations, and then some kind of monitoring organisation to ensure compliance with the regulations.
If that isn’t socialism, it is pretty dam close. On this issue the Liberal and National parties are to the left of the Greens.
10
Ha! And you profess to understand how Parliament works?
A motion that a member be no longer heard is IMMEDIATELY voted on without debate, and odes not require any justification from the member that moves the motion.
The Speaker has absolutely no role in determining the validity of such a motion!
Because it featured a lot of useful information.
This makes no sense whatsoever. If you are making a comparison, you must compare things how they are, not how you imagine or wish them to be. You can’t just discount the fact the U.S. uses nuclear as a way to make Australia look better. That’s simply an unfair comparison.
Well go into Hansard and find for us the last time a backbencher, and in particular one from the opposition, was granted leave to incorporate something into Hansard.
Well sorry but it is possible that I just didn’t see it. I have people in this thread complaining that I post too much, and you complaining that I don’t post enough!
10
Survey was a communist propaganda magazine that Lee Rhiannon edited and wrote for under the name Lee Gorman. The Survey was funded by the Soviets.
Here’s a snapshot of Survey during the time Lee Rhiannon (Lee Gorman) contributed to the magazine.
Note that by the time Lee Rhiannon was supporting a totalitarian communist regimes in Eastern Europe and Russia, every one was aware that these governments had murdered, tortured or committed genocide on not thousands but tens of millions of their own citizens.
Obviously, Lee Rhiannon was OK with brutal totalitarianism. To this day she has yet to recant her past support for totalitarianism or communism.
One can only assume her rapid rise in the Australian Green Party of Bob Brown is simply a matter of shared political persuasion.
http://www.thesydneyinstitute.com.au/issue-111/
Bob Brown has come out in support for one world government. This is the same goal that the International communists and Lee Rhiannon supported all through the last century.
Hey, just sayin’ 😉
10
Team Adam @ 159
Link to Brownshirt Bob addressing the National Press Club on his support for a one world government.
http://www.worldcitizens.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=80:senator-bob-browns-speech-proposing-support-for-global-parliament&catid=14:local&Itemid=13
Yeah right. Whatever.
10
Thank you for pointing that out Bulldust. We will move to remedy this loophole shortly.
Fondest regards from the ALP.
11
Sure he made some idealistic comments about the possibility of that happening one day. Is it party policy? Nope.
There hasn’t been a ‘ban on Jewish businesses’ anywhere. The NSW greens (separate from federal greens) have engaged in a BDS against Max Brenner to highlight their opposition to the actions of the IDF which the company has stated its support for. Rather than being anti-semitic as some commentators have claimed, the greens are anti-orthodox zionism (along with most of the world).
10
The Brown/Gillard government will not say, no we will NEVER license bloggers or newspapers. In fact, they are seriously looking into limiting our ability to exercise free expression on the Internet (ie “converging media”…) Of course, if you AGREE with the Greens and support the Brown/Gillard insane clown posse then your right to free speech will certainly remain a sacrosanct.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/government_wont_rule_out_a_licence_to_publish/
10
Oh FFS, what do the rules of the Senate have to do with the rights of members of the House of Representatives?
10
That clip is about a global parliament.
I think it is a silly idea. That’s what the U.N. general assembly is for.
But hey, people here seem to hate the U.N. more than they hate the Greens.
20
[off topic]
10
Dear Jo Nova,
I visit your site to obtain alternative views, I visit often, yet have only posted a comment or two over the years.
I followed this thread to learn about Dennis Jensen and what he had to say in the parliament.
The only real value I got from this thread was the link TonyfromOz gave to the web site of “Jim Zim”.
The whole thread has been destroyed by a couple (maybe one) “carpet bombing” troll.
I’m a retired engineer, doing real work in the field, and a AGW sceptic for at least 10 years. Yes, worked for “Big Oil”.
Jo, do what Anthony Watts does and clean up the site by getting rid of the “carpet bombing” trolls as they start. Maybe then your web site traffic will improve along with quality.
REPLY: I hear you. We do need to do something. The inanity is tedious…
20
Jo,
This shows how science can be shaped by governments rather than following the strings of evidence to their conclusion.
20
In regard to Adam Smith (and his helpers – cause he doesn’t do it by himself)
T/he/ir ENTIRE purpose is just to saturate this site with t/he/ir comments and ensure we respond to them AS OFTEN AS POSSIBLE. In this way t/he/y steer the dialogue in any direction T/HE/Y choose.
I’ll tell you what I do now I’ve realised asking t/he/m a question OR for a link (which is RARELY forthcoming) WON’T work.
I NEVER read any comments t/he/y make, NEVER respond but just mark the red hand and move on. That way I NEVER have to waste my precious time wading through BS and trying (as an individual) to keep up with a team/staff of 10, 20 – who knows????
If we all do this we may get some intelligent banter back again – but if we don’t we’ll continue to be led by the troll and his team.
BTW – I don’t mind people having different views – just that “organised” trolls like AS & team (more than likely members of “GetaLife) can be really so bloody boring with the same responses AGAIN & AGAIN & AGAIN.
Cheers,
10
And I promised that I wouldn’t do this again.
Again, our good friend Doctor Smith just absolutely fails to comprehend how electrical power is generated.
So, Doctor, I’ll do this slowly for you, okay.
At that Diablo Canyon Power Plant in California, they sell their electricity to the grid at the wholesale price quoted of 1.6 cents per kwh, well more than half that of the average, and around half the cost of coal fired power.
Diablo Canyon provides for the grid in California around 18,500GWH of power for consumption.
This gives them just from the sale of electricity a yearly income of close on $300 million, each and every year, or over the life of the plant calculated at the current licence of 40 years an amount of $12 Billion, and if extended by even the one (of 2) extensions of 20 years an income of $18 Billion.
From that yearly $300 million is taken out the extrapolated original construction cost, financing, arrangements, wages for everyone at the plant, maintenance costs, and profit, as well as the (relatively minor) cost for the fuel.
Now let’s then look at a comparison with a coal fired plant producing the same nameplate capacity. This coal fired plant produces less power for consumption, hence less income. If Wages, maintenance, the lower construction cost and profit are similar, then the only difference is the fuel itself.
For that large scale coal fired plant, it will burn around 6.5 million tons of steaming coal, priced at a negotiated price.
Diablo Canyon however only has to refuel one of its two reactors in any 12 month recording period, as rectors are refuelled on an approximate 18 monthly basis, hence one reactor refuel each year.
This refuelling process will cost in the vicinity of $52 Million, considerably less than the cost of 6.5 million tons of steaming (thermal) coal.
Hence the cost of producing power from the coal fired plant is much more, and that extrapolated cost is around double that of the Nuke, on a per kwh wholesale price to the grid.
It’s quite easy to understand really, Doctor, when you understand how electrical power is generated, especially how much is being generated for consumption by large scale plants, be they coal or Nukes.
That is why since its inception, Nuclear power has been the cheapest method of large scale electrical power generation.
Doctor, you have a scotoma that I feel nothing will remove.
Tony.
10
Wes George: #152
Excuse me! And your point is?
I find a cloak and a dagger can be very stylish in the right circumstances. But they have to be sable black or course. And none of this polyester rubbish.
And you should not forget the wide-brimmed hat. You can’t be a decent spook if you don’t have a wide-brimmed hat.
10
I reject this repeated insinuation that I am not one person.
And just read the forum rules. It is against the rules to cast aspersions on the motives for why people post here.
10
But that doesn’t account for the fact that those two reactors probably cost 5 times more than what a similar scale coal power station cost.
Interesting, but not relevant to the discussion.
You still haven’t provided any reference to back up this claim.
Tony, just stick to the facts mate [snip] ED
10
Oh fine House of Reps… for some reason I thought he was a senator:
Source: http://www.aph.gov.au/house/pubs/standos/chapter15.htm
This rule does not specify that it must be a minister, although the other rule refers to such. There is no indication whether these rules are sufficient or necessary conditions.
And your Jensen reference is where exactly?
20
Read that again:
There WAS business before the House! The House was debating a bill. In that circumstance only a minister can table a bill because they are a member of the executive.
10
And still no Jensen reference… still waiting.
10
You really just don’t get it do you Doctor?
Tony.
10
AS @ 178
Here’s the rub Adam – you say “And just read the forum rules. It is against the rules to cast aspersions on the motives for why people post here.”
Now all you have to do is PROVE that statement.
Going to be a bit like PROVING your AGW religion isn’t it?
Have fun!!
Cheers,
10
In fact, Adam, JB, Catamon, blvr, KR and I are all Associates of the Global Marxist Movement. This is one of the last independent blogs online. We will assimilate you.
[thanks for the info i’ll pass it along to the appropriate department] ED
10
Popeye @ 172
Quite correct. After one or two comments towards the resident “borg” otherwise known as Adam Smith I no longer read anything posted under that name nor will I respond to anything posted under that name.
As is typical, ask a question and all you will get in response is obfuscation, redirection, spin, or silence. Anything but a direct answer.
Whoever he/she is it is no wonder they love politics so. In a field increasingly populated by liars and narcissists this person is grooming themselves for a successful career. I suspect the attempts at hijacking Jo’s site is a part of their rite of initiation.
As to topic, I think Jo’s writeup displayed the issue quite well. All the rest from the “borg” is just an attempt at spreading confusion and disrupting the “conversation.” The sooner people put him/her on ignore the better.
10
Gladly! The rules state the following:
http://joannenova.com.au/rules-legal/
[don’t pretend to be a moderator] ED
10
What a load of nonsense. I thought the people here are saving Australia from the threat of tyranny that is Julia Gillard’s government?
Well, you can’t say you care about democracy if you can’t accept people posting here who happen to have views that differ from your own.
I mean what exactly do you want, an echo chamber where everyone agrees with everyone else? It’s those sorts of organisations that end up supporting fuzzy thinking and cultish behaviour because no one is brave enough to challenge anyone else.
10
Adam (and this IS my last response to you on this blog)
You are so EASY.
“Now all you have to do is PROVE that statement.” MEANT that YOU had to PROVE that I was casting aspersions on you!! Best of luck with that!!
As I said “Going to be a bit like PROVING your AGW religion isn’t it?”
Simple really!! – why do I have to spell it out for you?
Cheers,
10
Chris @170 and others.
Please don’t try to censor Adam Smith and the other commentors who share the same views.
Have you heard the expression “Keep your friends close but keep your enemies closer”.
I/we/you must know what your opponents point of view is before you can combat or refute it.
@ Rereke Whakaaro. That was a fairly stinging slap you gave Adam on another thread a couple of days ago. Good points well made. Congrats.
Cheers
NicG.
10
“In fact, Adam, JB, Catamon, blvr, KR and I are all Associates of the Global Marxist Movement”
Damn you Tristan, you are so going to cop a spanking at the next meeting!!
10
@ Catamon 188
Now that IS very funny – get a tick from me Cat
Cheers,
10
Team Adam @ 168
Oh wow, sorry to you and all your associates on Team Adam.
I posted in reply to your utterly snark comment when someone pointed out that Brownshirt Bob supported a one world government. Just remind you of what you posted:
But now, thanks to you, I see the collective error of our ways.
Brownshirt Bob WASN’T talking about a “one world government”, he was referring to a “global parliament”.
My humble thanks to Team Adam for pointing out the enormous difference to all us half-wits.
I mean, how on earth could a half-way reasonably intelligent person confuse a “one world government” with a “global parliament”?
Chalk and cheese, really.
10
catamon @ 188
I always felt you lot had more in common than just dive-bombing the threads at this site.
So tell me, where did you all first hook up?
Salon Kitty’s?
10
Andrew McRae @ 50
A really great submission …well done !!
Say YES to an election now !!
10
Robert @ 183
Couldn’t agree more – not saying that we need to censor t/he/m – just not feed t/he/m.
Cheers,
10
I am amzed at all the spin, politics, money, models, Green job potential that the AGW beievers sprook on about contantly and the CO2 emmissions per person by country! Why per person?
If you equate the emmissions of CO2 (not that it really matters) by land area in square kilometers you find that Botswana, Kenya, Cameroon, Morocco, Iraq, Sweden, Turkmenistan, Spain, Thailand, China, Ukraine, France, Chile, Turkey, Pakistan, Venezuela, Nigeria, Egypt, South Africa, Iran, Indonesia, mexico, Saudia Arabia, Kazakhstan, Argentina, India, Canada, United States & Russia plus many more (eg UAE, Qatar etc) are all bigger emitters of CO2 than Australia.
Land is the last resource in the world – emmissions should be per square kilometer – not per person which infers guilt. If for some future proven fact CO2 does (doubtful) influence global warming – then each country must follow the rules by the only resource of value – LAND. Not people.
All the AGW believers so far have not mentioned the consequences of excess pollution per square kilometer – why? Because their belief is in money and control. The ultimate control of the world is in land – and this is their method of obtaining it all ( examples – Heritage Listing, National Parks). Al Gore is one of the biggest land holders of the AGW group. His CO2 emmissions are huge – plenalty is ZERO – because of his GREEN pedigree.
So Al Gores mate Richard Branson’s island in the Noosa River of less than a square kilometer is one of the biggest CO2 emitters in the world – populates the island with the AGW believers and becomes one of the least emitters of CO2 (because they measure per person) – sounds like Bob Browns world – but don’t mention square kilometers to BOB! The statistics of the AGW crew is false and the biggest con job known in the last thousand years (maybe before Ra of Egypt).
10
Andrew McRae @50
Impressive submission. One important matter I would have added is the damning IAC Review of IPCC’s processes and procedures –
http://reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.net/report.html
This irrefutably documents political interference, lack of transparency, bias, vague statements not supported by evidence, poor handling of uncertainty, failure to respond to critical review comments, reference to material which had not been critically evaluated or peer-reviewed (gray literature), and a total lack of any policy to preclude conflict of interest. How does science emerge from that sewer?
IPCC censored the literature. (Selection bias aka cherry-picking)
Gillard’s government follows suit by excluding any evidence which contradicts their predetermined position.
Unfortunately, all indications are that Gillard’s government will ignore all submissions and inflict this stupid legislation on us regardless of its proven environmental inefficacy and economic toxicity.
10
I sent an email to kate ellis yesterday asking her to resign,haven’t got a reply yet
11
fred nerk
Don’t hold your breath!
10
You know, every time Penelope posts I’m reminded of someone. The arrogant, condescending tone and abuse of Jo reminds me of Luke on Jennifer Marohasy’s blog.
10
I’m going straight to Dr Jensen’s site to convey my thanks!
10
I still don’t see your reference Smith. You’re not going to because you either can’t, or simply are too lazy to check the facts… either way the claim is baseless at this point.
Weak as.
10
Not often that I read a parliamentary speech nowadays, let alone an Australian one and from that (and previously from Dennis Jensen, except for the use of the word “pollution” in the context of carbon dioxide), Australia is fortunate to have just him in Parliament at the moment.
We have one in NZ (John Boscawen ACT) that has made a point of educating himself on AGW refuting science but to date I don’t think has delivered a speech that sews the science into the fabric of it the way Jensen has done.
The Jensen speech raises the level of debate (even though he was not able to table the papers) beyond the candyfloss that is the Green version of climate science by at least presenting some of the papers that the Green/Left would rather just go away.
We can only hope that others on both sides of the ditch follow his lead but take the debate over the wall of scientific denial now that it has been scaled to the parapet.
10
Jensen isn’t exactly popular in his local party branch. In fact he has lost his pre-selection at the last two elections only to have it reinstated when the party leaders (first John Howard, and then Tony Abbott) have intervened.
If the Liberal party elects a moderate as leader again Jensen’s political career will be over.
10
So The bullsmithartist is now an insider on Liberal Party branch matters.
Of course, the Labor Party never, ever drops the N40 bomb on local branches, does it?
Smith is full of “it”.
10
FFS! Some things are true even if you don’t want to believe them!
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2009-07-19/outspoken-liberal-loses-preselection-again/1358506
[SNIP] ED
10
No, it doesn’t, smith. It just makes you look sillier every time you pout that line.
Oh, the source was the ABC. Well, it must be true then.
10
And I notice the bullsmithartist didn’t address the N40 matter whereby the ALP “parachutes” favoured party apparatchiks into safe seats against the wishes of the locals.
10
Seems team “smith” is busy googling up some line in reply.
10
Patrick @ 195
Yeah I had seen that during my research, but my document was already bulging at the seams and as I was already running out of time and was going for breadth rather than depth, I elected to skip it.
I thought the sharp words of some specific examples would have more impact even if they don’t carry the same weight as a wide-ranging institutional survey.
My inbox has already received a reply from parliament containing the sound of crickets. 🙁
10
If anyone ELSE is still reading this thread who submitted a comment to the Select Committee, can you tell me if you ever got a confirmation email back from Parliament?
10
Andrew,
I did make a submission to the committee and have heard NOTHING re same – no acknowledgement of repceipt.
I did however tag my email and have that as proof of submission.
Think I’ll probably send an email now with this proof and ask what happened to my acknowledgement.
Would appreciate any other ideas that anyone has on what else can be done.
Cheers,
10
Have just re-sent my submission and also the original email and POD so will now wait and see what happens?
I will update here if/when I receive a response to either of my emails.
Cheers,
10
Andrew @ 209 No not so far, but mine when through several collectives, No Carbon
Tax and the one on Barnaby is right, and then I sent one direct to the select committee outlining 17 points about the science being wrong.
However, if Rudd gets PM, he will no doubt call an election early than is scheduled
as with the pressure put on the government may in someways ie. Poker machine reform,
now led by the AFL and other people, we may see the backbenchers not voting for the
carbon tax. Difficult one to call. But Dr Jensen may still have his day in court,
so to speak. Stopping him, may also be a problem too. If the government had nothing to hide, why not let his paper be recorded.
10
Just to stray a little, if I may…
Here are the submissions on the Clean Energy legislation proposed by Gillard.
Only 270 of 326 submissions have been listed. Mine is not listed.
I have asked the Committee Secretary to explain why mine has not been listed. My submission is not confidential. My submission does not express general views on the carbon pricing mechanism.
Considering the nature of a number of the submissions included in the 270 listed on your website, I stated I was puzzled why my submission was not listed.
I explained how I essentially presented the case as to why the carbon tax is baseless by referring to:
1. Valid evidence contained in reports authored by some of the most eminent international scientists for which I provided links.
2. Examples of real world observational data that proves the science underpinning the carbon tax is flawed.
3. IPCC AR4 evidence that the human induced annual carbon dioxide emissions (3%) is statistically insignificant and Australia’s 2% of the 3% is statistically irrelevant.
4. Comments by numerous scientists who have been involved with the IPCC (the so called consensus of scientists) who claim the IPCC is wrong about catastrophic man-made global warming due to carbon dioxide emissions.
5. Evidence exposing why the IPCC climate-models are wrong… the carbon tax being based on the model-based predictions of the IPCC.
I wonder how many others put in a submission only to find it has been excluded?
10
Mervyn Sullivan @ 213
Where did you get the information re “Only 270 of 326 submissions have been listed.”?
I have been to the Senate website and note ONLY the following:
101 – Submissions
33 – Additional information received
28 – Answers to questions on notice
See link here
Can you provide a link to your numbers (and see my comments above @ 210 & 211)
Thanks & cheers,
10
Sounds like Dennis Jensen only wanted to present some science and ignore the rest.
Cheery picking antics yet again? How surprising!
10
Mervyn Sullivan:
That list has nothing to do with the Joint Select Committee. The letters in that list are from as early as 17 August. The public comment period for the joint select committee was not even announced until mid September.
There is no listing of comments received for the Joint Select Committee yet, but my interpretation of the web site is that this is the page where they will be listed.
10
Blimey @ 215
Actually Jensen chose to present the science, not the computer model crystal balling. He chose to present the ripe cherries, not the rotten and discarded ones on the ground.
10
Sorry Mervan S
Missed your link above but have now had a look and mine is not listed either (mine also NOT marked as private).
I will be sending ANOTHER email tonight to ask why it’s not listed.
Cheers,
10
Andrew,
See my link @ 214 – it already has some submissions listed so I assume this IS the correct site (Senate)
Anyway we’ll see what happens after my email about my submission – I will repost if/when I receive a response.
Cheers,
10
Truthseeker says:
So HE decides what is good science and what is bad science now does he? What a wonderful way to cherry pick.
Does he acknowledge the warming Nova that can’t see?
10
I saw Mr Jensen debate members of the Labor and Green Party at Notre Dame in Fremantle. While he held his own, he did not exactly blow away his opponents — notwithstanding that they both simply stated over and over that “the scientists have told us that carbon dioxide is responsible and we believe them.” Perhaps Mr Jensen has overcome his initial reluctance to say “BS”.
10
Replying Blimey,who wrote this self explanatory humor:
He posted the REFERENCES to support his speech.But a partisan Minister refuses to have them tabled into the record.
You seem to have forgotten that censorship angle.You sly devil you.
Meanwhile YOU have yet to tell us WHY you think his references are bad or that he used inappropriately in the speech.
All you have are empty words.
10
Blimey: #220
September 25th, 2011 at 7:49 pm says…
I assume the sentence should read “…the warming that Nova can’t see?”
Blimey do you not read the post before commenting? If you had read Jensens speech, you would have read the following…
Anyone who has read the above wouldn’t have asked a stupid question like yours…
So, how about you answer your own question now that I had to hand feed your troll mouth?
Lift your game Blimey, participating in a discussion without reading the post that the discussion is based on renders you a troll.
10
It never ceases to amaze, sometimes amuse and often appall me how trolls so continually and relentlessly gets things completely wrong. How often I have seen a troll proclaiming some particular point of view of the climate change debate which is quickly debunked by some of the more astute bloggers at sites like Jo Nova’s. It happens time and time again, you’d think trolls would go away. Kudos to you, Jo, for dogged persistence in the face of relentless attacks by trolls renowned for their inaccuracies.
Here again, Penelope, you’ve thoroughly pulled your own pants down! Give it up, Troll, you’re waisting everyones time, including your own.
10
To those that bemoan the participation of Adam Smith, Catamon, JB, Tristan, KR and myself: you need to know that the only reason we get involved is because it’s so nauseating listening to you all patting each other on the back, paraphrasing what the last person said and progressively getting more hysterical, building on the most recent
[snip. You don’t have to agree with Jo or the commenters, and we do encourage informed debate. You will find yourself becoming my pet project unless you show your host more respect than that] Yoda.
If it wasn’t for us, you would all end up on the floor of the JoNova temple in a mass of hyperventilating conservatism.
You should be thanking us. We are like the control rods in one of Tony’s utopian nuclear power stations.
PS Apologies to Adam etc, I know I didn’t get approval for this post at the last Party meeting…
10
According to Wikipedia, Dennis Jensen has a PhD in materials engineering (ceramics).
Hardly the most relevant discipline, I would have thought, although everyone is continually reinforcing the fact that he has a PhD?
On the other hand, a lot of people here have criticised Professor Tim Flannery’s credentials because he is not a – well I’m not sure what they would accept, since they seem happy with Plimer’s Geology degree – but I would take a paleontologist over a materials engineer specialising in ceramics any day, at least when it comes to understanding and interpreting Climate Change.
Wikipedia also states “In 2007, he took up a role within the Climate Risk Concentration of Research Excellence at Macquarie University” so he is clearly at the cutting edge of climate change research. Unless you think that Macquarie University is part of the global conspiracy to take control of the world. Which you probably do.
10
@ Blvr:
Really? I suggest that he probably knows more about heat than any climate scientist on the planet. And isn’t heat what the issue is? Or lack of it?
10
I read the link above and would like to highlight the sentence …
“a failed scientist” could also describe those that choose to blog instead of perform science.
As far as failing at climate science, Ian “I can’t publish climate science in peer-review journals” Plimer’s book is full of errors and Carter’s presentations are full of holes.
10
Richard C (NZ) says:
Care to list his publications in peer-reviewed journals on the topic of heat transfer within the planet’s system?
Last time I check the ocean was not a ceramic.
10
Sounds like a bunch of losers in search of a life to me! Lets face it , if you had a life you wouldn’t spend so much time on this site embarrassing yourselves.
Allow me to illustrate:
Wow! Thanks for the revelation! What journal will your findings be published in?
How about this little gem?
You engage in ad hominem attacks because you couldn’t make an intelligent argument to save your life. Based upon you consistent moronic posts I have to conclude that Quasimodo had a higher IQ than you or your confederates. No, that isn’t an attack against the man. You see, first of all , you would need to be a man. Also, your posts demonstrate how ignorant and disingenuous you truly are.
You slugs evade tough questions and every time you paint yourself into a corner you intellectual worms flutter off to another thread to engage in nothing more than an attempt to elicit an emotional response. Why? Because you are lonely and hungry for intimacy. You just can’t live with yourselves knowing that there are people out there that are emotionally stable and secure in themselves. Since you have no life, no true friends and nobody in your life that really cares about you, you band together, throw a pity party for yourselves and try to bring others around you and on this site down to your level. You lend credence to the old adage, misery loves company.
(Getting carried away Eddie?) CTS
Hopefully, they will someday have a 12 step program for trolls. Trolls Anonymous, perhaps?
Pathetic.
10
So Eddy, I guess you couldn’t find any publications on climate by Dennis Jensen either and thus resort to more personal attacks. Good on ya bud!!
No, I made an observation. You joined the dots in your own head and associated this to someone you know.
10
@ Blimey
We are told by AGW proponents, NASA etc and every parrot of them that GHG DLR “warms the earth”, Trenberth, Fasullo and Kiehl ascribe 333W.m2 to this wonderful supposed heating agent.
The earth just happens to be MATERIALS, including ocean and rock but never do climate scientists give us the details of how this heating action actually takes place to justify their claim. Woiuld you be so kind as to provide those details? A peer-reviewed paper would do nicely.
While you are at it, perhaps you could explain why GHG DLR is not harnessed as solar is (there’s only 161W.m2 of that according to TF&K). For example, there’s an annual mean measured 409W.m2 at Darwin – all going to waste if in fact GHG DLR is an effective heating agent.
Climate science has discovered a whole new unexploited energy source if their claims are correct.
10
@Richard C (NZ)
Perhaps you could clarify your question:
I think you’re heading down some kind of weird path towards red-herring land.
BTW Materials engineering is primarily about creating new materials that are lighter, stronger or have specific properties that are useful in everyday life.
I’m not saying Jensen is an idiot, he is most assuredly not. I’m just saying that his specialisation is miles away from climate change, whereas Tim Flannery’s (as an example) is far closer. Yet many people of this blog seem to deride Tim Flannery’s credentials even as they inflate Dennis Jensen’s.
Many people – particularly those that haven’t been through the university system – hear the postnominal “PhD” and instantly assume that they are experts in every area of science. That’s if they don’t automatically assume that they are complete ignoramuses.
Oh wait, that’s reserved for climate scientists only, isn’t it. It’s a double standard.
10
@Eddy: you are priceless!
You say:
Then immediately go on to say:
and my favourite:
All in ONE COMMENT!. Without even putting an argument forward! And the funniest part is, I still don’t even know what we did to upset you so much!
I mean, come on – moderators?
10
Blimey, wake up and turn on that 1200 cc brain of yours!
You are so mentally challenged! you posted
WTF does that have to do with me? Are you referring to this?
Thats right, Truthseeker, not me.
Are you on of Jerry’s kids? What a crock of non sequitur BS!
10
First of all, thanks for spining. Lets start with Ad Hominem. It is latin for “At the Man”. In other words, you are attacking the man and not his argument. What I said was not an “argument” but, as Blimey writes, “an observation.”
Allow me to illustrate.
You and your cohorts are not here to intelligently and sincerely debate the issue. Disingenuous and insincere people are losers or did I miss something? Out of the kindness of her big heart Jo suffer’s your presence on the site. I am not so lenient. I don’t discuss Australian Politics, per se, but I will discuss the science of the failed hypothesis CAGW.
Moronic posts? I will let Blimey’s posted comments answer that question. Quasimodo? Well, at least he had enough intelligence to ring the bell on time! And yes, Blimey needs to be a man if he wants to be acknowledged as such. I saw the anti Nova site he linked to. HMM… Not exactly macho now, is it? Blimey should be grateful that I am not “Mr. Nova” or Blimey would have the opportunity to demonstrate to the world that he has finally become a man. My statement, “Your posts demonstrate how ignorant and disingenuous you truly are” is a statement of fact that any reasonable person of average intelligence would agree with if they read this thread. A slug is also appropriate. I am referring to the lack of ambition needed to inspire Blimey to get beyond cut, paste and quote and start articulating a reasoned argument substantiated by empirical evidence. I have yet to see anything beyond the venal and base in all of Blimey’s posts. My comment “you have no life, no true friends and nobody in your life that really cares about you” is typical of a troll and Blimey fits the profile. Pathetic? That should be intuitively and innately obvious to any open minded person. Or, would you prefer pitiable to pathetic?
Around this site I have been referred to as Dirty Eddy. I know what you’re thinking blvr, “Did Eddy make nine good points or did he make eight? Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kind of lost track myself. But being as this is Jo Nova’s website, the most powerful skeptic site in the world, and would blow your failed hypothesis clean off, you’ve got to ask yourself one question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk?
10
Rolling on the floor laughinmy F$#%^@& ass off!!!
Flannery?
Jensen?
Logic dictates that an argument must be based on evidence and not an appeal to authority. You seem to reason that you need to be an “authority” on something to be able to speak the truth. If that is the case you had better be a degreed scientist if you want to comment further or we would have to ignore anything you state because you are not an “authority”. Do you have a degree in climate science? How do you like that little feat of logic?
10
And instantly assume they are experts in every area of science? Dicto simpliciter, a sweeping generalization. You know, stereotyping? The rest of the comment block quoted was a straw man. Yawn!
10
Self taught “Neil Foster Debates Frank Gallagher [Green Party] About Climate Change On Irelands Highland Radio”.
http://www.sovereignindependent.com/?p=27420
10
Go Eddy go! You’re on a roll! Don’t you think, though, that Blimey, as a target, is mostly used up? (Of course, he just keeps coming back, like a zombie, practically begging for you to go whack-a-mole on him.)
About PhD’s: I’m convinced, from my observation of the University system over the years, that there is nothing in a college education which teaches one to think logically or creatively. In particular, in going from an undergraduate to a PhD, what is rewarded is doing your advisor’s bidding, giving him the credit, and not complaining about it. Conformists and synchophants make it through — independent thinkers drop out (or grit their teeth for 4+ years).
This is not to say that PhDs can’t think logically — many can, but they are self-taught (or had the good fortune to have a worthy mentor.
My school was unique, in that they required every graduate — from philosophy to physics — to pass an upperclass course in formal logic. I wonder how many of today’s climate scientists would have struggled with that? (Not to mention certain trolls on this blog.)
Mostly, however, your education is, as Mark Twain said; “Something you must acquire without interference from your schooling”.
10
Dennis has PhD in nuclear physics, reason he is blacklisted by ABC. Howard, and now Abbott will not give him a frontbench; because are few ABC’s ‘’Trojan Brumbies’’ in the Liberal party. Hunt, Turnbull and Christopher Payne made the conservative as ‘’semi-honest’’ party. They will do what ABC wants them to do. Greg Hunt is in charge for climate change…
Climate change, what? Is he going to stop climate from changing? Climate hasn’t stopped changing for one day in last 65 million years; will he now? Does he believe that the climate would have stayed the same, if it wasn’t industrial revolution? Nothing stays the same in nature; improves or deteriorates. Is this perfect climate; in which animals, properties and people are incinerated in bushfires?! Hunt’s position is dignifying the Warmist. He loves it.
Only solution is: for everybody to realize that: the phony GLOBAL warming has nothing to do with the constant climatic changes = Tony to get a landslide victory = he can then select his frontbench. In China and India, people and companies are paying only 9% per kilowatt of electricity (produced by Australian coal) than what Australians are paying. Dr. Pachoury blames Australians for CO2 emission per capita; but doesn’t say the ladies in India to keep their legs crossed. Is it your fault that they produce another 23 million extra people every year?
Australian trees need more CO2 + H2O than what they are getting now. Please, get to my website and get all the things that can be proven now: http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com that will help the politicians that don’t believe in GLOBAL warming – to get on the front bench. Greg Hunt should become a minister for seasons change – it’s easier to stop the seasonal climate of changing.
10
@ BobC
Thank you for your kind words and your inspiration!
10
# blvr
Have I got news for you. You say:-
Here’s the news,
And,
You say:-
What part of this do you not understand? “…never do climate scientists give us the details of how this heating action actually takes place…”. If you can provide the physics, please do.
The news above may go a long way to explaining why thy don’t. For the rest of the explanation, just look at the EM spectrum. Though some of what is considered DLR from GHGs (and clouds) occurs in the NIR (IR-A) and SWIR (IR-B) range (< 4000nm, the limit of the solar spectrum, note there's a solar-DLR overlap from 3000nm – 4000nm), the bulk occurs in the MWIR (IR-C) and LWIR (IR-C) range 4000nm – 16,000nm spectral range.
Solar collector calcs add direct and diffuse solar (on a very cloudy day, solar power is 100% diffuse) to arrive at the useful power flux – DLR is NOT added. The reason DLR is not added becomes obvious just by looking at the delivery of energy in the electro-magnetic spectrum. Energy-per-photon (in electron volts, eV) decreases as wavelength increases, so at 1000nm energy is 124 eV, but at 10,000nm it’s 1.24 meV.
Where a comparison is made between a measured solar power flus and the DLR power flux at the same location, the DLR flux can be about 100 times less then the solar flux (makes TF&K look silly doesn’t it?). Given the news above, it may not even be DLR that’s been measured.
BTW, more news but this in regard to ceramics (a MATERIAL):-
It seems applied heat isn’t news after all and there might be some (or a lot) of clues for climate science in the study of ceramics.
10
Well folks, the submissions to the Joint Select Committee have begun appearing on the APH web site.
http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/jscacefl/subs.htm
Interesting that they have published submissions from ExxonMobil and the Cement Industry and a couple of skeptics we’ve never heard of like “Mr Richard Davis”, but still nothing published from David Evans or Bob Carter.
Only 53 listed so far. Hopefully in the next day or two more will be published in this list.
A couple of quotes…
I found it bizarre to see this spin from Big Oil:
First they try to claim some moral high horse which is really a capitalist donkey, then they seem to contradict themselves on the market pricing point, and finally the sensible request for “flexibility in the face of evolving climate science”.
The IPA’s submission makes few remarks about science but closes with this:
DELAY IS DENIAL….and happens to be the responsible thing to do in this case.
10
BLImEY at 168. Tell me – what holes are in Bob Carter’s presentations or mistakes in Prof.Plimers book? Go on so educated tell me what in particular you are referring too. Bob Carter comes to this blog, I am sure he will be pleased to answer any of your queries.
Been to one, I have. Prof Plimer is a geologist and Bob Carter holds university posts on environment, climate, etc. I think he is a geologist too. I met him and he is an impressive speaker. You don’t need a Ph.D to understand what drives climate nor weather, it is part of many humanities and also science disciplines. I learned about it in archaeology & palaeoanthropology, why, the natural environment that includes climate and weather of course, dictated how human’s adapt and evolved. Or die off eventually. Thankfully, the last glacial periods did not effect all the globe in the same way, particularly Africa where modern humans spread to Europe and, Asia SE Asia and Australia. And later from there to other parts of the pacific rim. Other than the Neandertals, Europe was not inhabited by modern humans until about 50,000 years ago and only in the southern areas and parts of the middle east. North America was not inhabited by modern humans until about 10,000 years ago after the close of the glacial periods that effected that region. There now understand why another glacial period be it a mini ice age or not would have more effect on human survival that a few C’s of warmth.
10
Bush bunny #245:
If only. I’ve never heard of him showing up around here.
The user “BobC” has been mistaken as being bob carter on at least one occasion I can recall, and denies being the Bob Carter we know publicly.
10
Bush bunny says:
If you clicked on my words above it would have taken you there. On the interweb, these are called hotlinks.
Here they are again:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven_and_Earth_(book)#Reactions_from_scientists
http://itsnotnova.wordpress.com/2011/07/04/bob-carter-same-old-stuff/
Maybe you’re right, perhaps he’s just very very very slow.
See last post … http://joannenova.com.au/2011/05/bob-carter-speaks-wednesday-in-port-kembla/ … I’ve been waiting almost three months.
30
Eddy Aruda says:
As blvr points out, you seem only capable of insults and personal attacks.
I was pointing out that instead of engaging in the debate, you wish instead to intimidate others into submission.
Frankly I am not bothered by your “style”, the more you do it, the more apparent it becomes that you lack the ability to discuss the science. Fire away!
21
Like many here I have seen Gee, Mr Doctor Smith, BlVr and Blimey posting large swathes of comment on spelling, punctuation, philosophy of science, psychology of science, the lack of peer reviewed papers in posts by others and manners.
The format for their posts is available on bloggs like skeptic science and after a short course at SkS University they come out fully qualified to fight the good fight.
Not sure that they aren’t abusing the good will of the moderators and that their real purpose is not to ” put large spaces of verbiage ” between other posts to disrupt the continuity of the threads.
It is useful to interact with them for a while because we all need to keep in mind just what is going on out there.
For the time being, however, I think they have overstayed their welcome.
Sabotage is a strong word but !!
What do you think?
(The main problem is Adam Smith,who is now in Moderation) CTS
(For the rest of us.It would help if people would stop posting the baseless name calling) CTS
10
From 248 as a current example: “”Frankly I am not bothered by your “style”.
And I’m not bothered by your style either, I’m just concerned that Jo’s site has a worm infestation that needs fumigating.
We don’t need to be too PC about this, just use the Arsenic powder.
10
blimey @247
#1 – promoting a hate site, especially on the site of the object of your hate is not kosher.
#2 – if you had anything of substance to say on your hate site, you could link to the sources, not to the hate site, so you are saying with that link that you cannot answer Bush Bunny’s challenge.
#3 – The Wiki site does not answer Bush Bunny’s challenge. It is a litany of people who are making general statements about the book. It does not poke any holes (no point by point refutation) of Plimer, While all are free to criticize works, a specific refutation was requested and you failed to deliver.
To sum up your post, it is a fail.
10
Sorry to burst your cherry picking ways but it seems you failed to read.
and the reference is cited.
I’ll repost it here to make it easy for the web-challenged.
http://www.complex.org.au/tiki-download_file.php?fileId=91
10
Blimey @252
Bush Bunny @245
I have 100 errors, do I hear 200? 300? 400?
I can say any number of errors, but you still have failed to understand her question or are directly avoiding it. She ask “what…mistakes” not “how many” or even “who says”. WHAT MISTAKES.
I clearly read it, you just failed to understand what you read.
10
PhilJourdan says:
I gave you the link that lists Plimers errors.
http://www.complex.org.au/tiki-download_file.php?fileId=91
I am not about to copy and paste each one here.
10
Blimey @254
No, you waited until 252 to do so after being called out twice before that. It was not until after you tried to insult me (remember the 3 fingers on that one) that you finally brought out the a site, that says in part:
So a few typos and difference of opinions. That accounts for the lions share of the “errors” that Enting found. Not 100s, not even really a few. Just his opinion that Plimer did not uderstand the operation of the IPCC (he understood it, they just did not follow their charter).
So you get one point for FINALLY providing a list. You get no points for typos, differences of opinions, and errors on Entings part.
But if that is supposed to impress me, sorry. I have yet to see anything that is perfect and without fault, where everyone agrees with the opinions of the author. But if you can find some substantive problems, by all means post it!
Right after you state what the null hypothesis is, disprove it, and prove AGW. Then I will support you to the maximum! But until then, sorry, I already have a faith. I do not need another called AGW.
10
I would be crapping in my pants, too, if I were you! You do not like my style? Too bad. I do not like your anti nova site. You have jumped to the top of my to do list.
A lack of ability to discuss the science? At least I know what “Null Hypothesis” means!
Speaking of discussing the science, here are a few quotes from a plagiarist!
You placed two imbedded links that lead to abstracts on the papers. However, when I googled your comment I found this:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Common-graphical-tricks-and-the-Medieval-Warm-Period.html
You are not only a troll but an unabashed plagiarist! I am going to call you out on your mind numbing BS every time you comment so you and the rest of your team “skepticalscience” are on notice that you are in my cross hairs. You remind me of the punk bully who throws a pity party for himself after he picks on the wrong guy and gets his ass kicked. Boo Hoo! If you are looking for sympathy you better look for it in the dictionary!
10
Really? You mean like this?
Eddy Aruda:
September 27th, 2011 at 6:53 am
When I caught blvr reasoning fallaciously he responded with? Yep. Zip, zilch, nada.
Go ahead Blimey, make my day!
10
PhilJourdan says:
No, I became more specific in 252, then you asked again at 253 so I had to repeat myself in 254.
Misrepresenting the science is NOT the same as a difference of opinion. What Plimer does is use the work of a scientist, then twist their words, or only partially quotes them, in order to make it sound as if it supports his opinion.
For example …
Plimer says “satellites and radiosondes show that there is no global warming”, and gave as his reference a paper by Charles F Keller.
Here’s what the paper actually says:
“The big news [is] the collapse of the climate critics’ last real bastion, namely that satellites and radiosondes show no significant warming in the past quarter century. Figuratively speaking, this was the centre pole that held up the critics’ entire ‘tent’. … But now both satellite and in-situ radiosonde observations have been shown to corroborate both the surface observations of warming and the model predictions.”
Not only that Plimer uses diversionary tactics rather than admit he was wrong. His behaviour is pathetic! You can watch the disgraceful performance here.
You get no points for not knowing the difference between an opinion and misinterpretation.
Negative points for defending Plimer’s behaviour.
Thanks, but I’ll stick with what the peer-reviewed science says.
10
eddie says:
Oh I’m shaking in my gumboots. What are you going to do, waddle over and hit me with your colostomy bag?
As pointed out before, writing my own words in different places is not plagiarism.
No, I mean like the way you avoid discussing the science and instead try to threaten and intimidate.
00
Blimey @258
You do not have to lie. Everyone can see you did not answer the question until asked twice. Why you feel the need to lie when the truth is staring you in the face is beyond logic and reasoning, but I guess that is all you have left.
00
PhilJourdan says:
I answered it 252, you asked again at 253, I repeated the answer in 254.
Not only that, you fail to address the problem with Plimer and his citing of Keller’s paper.
Do you find it acceptable that Plimer states the complete opposite of what Keller says?
00
Thank you for your concern for my health. Although I am a few pounds heavier then when I was a regional light heavyweight champion I am in good health and I do not have a colostomy bag. Great news, if all is well I will be taking a vacation in Australia. Maybe we can meet up and have a few drinks and take it from there? Just forward your address to Jo and we can”discuss” the matter further in person when I get there.
Thats odd, the site page has, verbatim, exactly what you typed! Gee, what a coincidence? Did you author the article for skepticalscience? Keep digging yourself deeper, Blimey!
The only reason you feel intimidated is that you have painted yourself into a corner and I have exposed you for being a liar and a plagiarist. I have yet to see a comment on this site from you that has merit. Good luck on getting a life and finding a bridge to sleep under!
00
Not really, just disposing the garbage! ;
00
The semicolon was supposed to be a smiley face. OOPS!
00
eddy says:
Another empty threat? I’m still shaking in my gumboots!
LOL. I don’t know how you intend on taking your foot out of your mouth. Yes I am the original author, hence I do not need to “cite” myself for repeating my own words.
Yes, and here’s where I talk about you and how you think I didn’t post that comment.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?p=2&t=84&&n=1034#64111
I don’t feel intimidated. I said you try to intimidate. It didn’t work. Instead you look foolish.
HAHAHAHA. 8 “friends” – at least 4 of them are family members.
00
So, you are Brendon, I thought you were banned from this cite for being…you?! All you had to do was admit that you posted under your alias screen name, Brendon. Instead you are disingenuous and are looking for an emotional response because you have no life.
(I will run this by Jo and see what happens) CTS
As usual you never do your research. I started the Facebook account a few weeks ago. The reason I started it was to assist my clients. The operator of my wells in Texas updates clients through Facebook. The truth is, the t is the only reason my Facebook account exists. I have plenty of friends, including the ones on this site.
So, where are your friends? Lets see your Facebook account? Oh, thats right, trolls are cowards and hide behind multiple aliases! At least my family loves me.
You say you are not intimidated? Glad to learn that. Gee, for a guy who wasn’t intimidated you couldn’t post about it fast enough on skepticalscience! It would seem I hit a nerve?Don’t worry, when I get there I am sure we will hit it off well. Please don’t be intimidated, I am looking forward to this. I am sure you are a lot nicer in person. In fact, my instinct tells me that you wouldn’t act in person the same way you do when you are hiding behind one of your screen names and trolling the night away! 😉
00
Well Eddy, you flushed out Brendon (the infamous). Blimey is only slightly better mannered than that other troll but I can’t remember why exactly he was banned from here. Now I understand why he had to start his own lousy blog-he got his witto feewings hurt here. Was he the one that said to Jo “I can be very persistent”?
I also noticed KR is apparently a regular at Scuzzy Science. It appears that Jo is under the thin skins of many of the SS crowd.
I think the moderators should take note that the banned Brendon is back as Blimey. I wonder if he ever apologized for his offenses?
(I have noticed.Thanks to Eddy) CTS
00
I use different aliases at different sites. I keep you confused that way. 😉
So Eddy, ready to man up and admit you were wrong about saying I plagiarised?
Ready to man up and admit CO2Science’s MWP analysis is flawed?
A troll won’t engage in the debate, at the moment you are the one engaging only in personal attacks rather than addressing the science.
Not one bit.
The same instinct that thought I was plagiarising?
00
Blimey @261
You were asked in 245 and 251, and finally answered in 252. So you lied again. I doubt you will answer, but I have to ask, why?
You have yet to state the null hypothesis! As I said, further discussion is pointless until you know what it is.
00
Blimey @268
No, you merely attempt to hide behind anonymity and when finally exposed for the fallacy of your arguments, you change names to try to attack from a new vector. No one was confused.
00
Blimey:
September 30th, 2011 at 6:57 pm
So Eddy, ready to man up and admit you were wrong about saying I plagiarized?
When I am wrong I admit it because thats what real men do. Of course, that leaves you out. If you would have stated that you posted as Brendon we could have avoided waisting time. That being stated, the only reason you are here is to waste everybody’s time because you are a miserable shadow of a human being whose sole purpose in life is to make everybody you can as miserable as you are. PatheticIn
In fact, my instinct tells me that you wouldn’t act in person the same way you do when you are hiding behind one of your screen names and trolling the night away!
The same instinct that thought I was plagiarizing?
No, the fact is you are a coward, plain and simple. Otherwise, man up and answer the questions. Still too ignorant to form a cogent, nuanced thought about the null hypothesis?
00
We have only your word on the matter, and you have already admitted to deliberately using multiple names in order to mislead people and bypass the rules of this site (i.e. to violate another person’s property).
00
And we know his (blimey”s) word is “gold” right?
Or was it just gold leaf?
Or was it just polished brass?
or was it just shiny paint?
No his word is sh*t.
Remember if it looks like it and smells like it, it’s a good thing we didn’t eat it.
00
Why is it you block this message and continue personal attacks rather than addressing the argument?
Eddy says:
And yet you still have not apologised. Instead you again try to justify your own actions.
Nor do you come close to begin debating how CO2Science being wrong. Instead you continue with personal insults.
You’re right. I’m a LOT more polite here in this forum than I would be in person if you threatened me the way you have been.
Say’s Eddy “I can’t defend CO2Science’s poor analysis so instead I shall try to derail the debate by accusing Blimey of plagiarizing” Aruda.
Actually I did in the other thread. Neither you or PhilJourdan have answered my question to define what you think the null hypothesis is in THIS INSTANCE. PhilJourdan even says “It is the same in all instances. 0 does not change meaning when talking about goose eggs or feathers.”.
It seems he is incapable of defining the Null Hypothesis in THIS INSTANCE because a quick google shows many examples of the Null Hypothesis when used in a variety of contexts. For example this site lists:
– H0: Tomato plants do not exhibit a higher rate of growth when planted in compost rather than soil.
– H0: World is Flat
– H0: The Geocentric Model: Earth is the centre of the Universe and it is Spherical
– H0: The Heliocentric Model: Sun is the centre of the universe
The Null Hypothesis is a statement that changes depending upon what you are discussing.
00
Blimey – remember the old adage “if you have to ask the price, you cannot afford it”? Clearly you have no clue what the Null Hypothesis is, and yet you continue in your ignorance arguing without reason or indeed facts. if you have to ask, you do not know. But you can learn what it is (you can learn, can’t you?). So again, before anyone can take any of your posts seriously, tell us what the null hypothesis is.
00