For all the fuss about an Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), Australia already has a version of a market in carbon credits and it was set up in 2001 by the conservative Howard government. The RET, Renewable Energy Target, aims to reduce emissions by mandatory use of 20% renewable energy by 2020. For all kinds of reasons we are overachieving, and headed for 27% renewables mix (along with shocking electricity bills, see here too).*
“Official estimates suggest that the RET will generate a transfer of $20bn from householders and industrial users by 2020.”
So in this artificial government-mandated market, which sector is fast to get involved? Finance.
This is not so much an efficient free market as its pale cousin, the whimsical fake market. But free or fake, banks are there. You can’t blame them. But nor do we need to feed the machine unless there is a good reason.
Banks exposed to big RET risks
The Australian: AUSTRALIA’S banks are holding nearly $900 million worth of certificates designed to stimulate investment in renewable energy generation as the price of those instruments becomes captive to the political debate over green energy schemes.
Banks including ANZ, Macquarie Group, Westpac and Commonwealth Bank hold 5.9 million, or 20 per cent, of the 28.4 million large-scale energy certificates (LGCs) issued and yet to be redeemed under the Renewable Energy Target scheme, according to information supplied to the Senate.
Any artificial market almost instantly creates players with property rights. That’s the reason a trading scheme is much harder to unwind than a tax. Once it is created, automatically, there are lobby groups, armed with lots of our money, to keep it going. At least with a tax, voters might get the chance to vote for or against it. In a true free market, voters have the ultimate right — to ignore it completely. They can vote with their feet every day, and spend their money on something better. That’s not what is happening here.
The players in this market are not so much betting on natural events as they are betting on politics. Does that help the nation produce real things, or does it just turn us into a kind of casino where people can bet and lobby on the dice?
The price was $40 – $50 a couple of years ago. This is a fake market determined more by political choice than by buyers and sellers making efficient decisions about the real world.
Market sources speculated that the banks were holding large pools of LGCs under financing arrangements with renewable energy generators and electricity retailers. According to information on the holdings given to Senate Standing Committee on Environment and Communications by the regulator, ANZ is the second-largest holder of LGCs, with 4.36 million, behind Origin Energy, with 5.9 million. Origin is also the largest holder of retail certificates, with 372,677 of the 5.1 million on issue. The price of the retail certificates has climbed from about $25 last year to nearly $40.
Macquarie Bank has almost 800,000 LGCs in two accounts, while CBA holds 536,527.
Mr Crockett said the price of the LGCs needed to be between $40 — where it had been in 2011 and 2012 — and $50 to act as an incentive for investment once the carbon price was removed.
“As soon as you have uncertainty you can’t put the capital to work and get on with building new capacity,’’ Mr Crockett said.
In Lancashire we have a saying:-
It used to apply to families, now it applies to nations.
80
The most experienced snouts will always be the first in the trough.
110
Or, as I prefer to say: “If you build troughs, don’t be surprised if you attract pigs”.
60
> Any artificial market almost instantly creates players with property rights. That’s the reason a trading scheme is much harder to unwind than a tax
Agreed. Trading schemes are stupid. Carbon Tax Now!.
154
So the rich will get richer while the poor will get poorer. Which side of the scales are you on, Bill? BTW, has the present El Nino you were relying on so heavily to jack up temperatures so that you could spread more FUD made any difference yet?
260
Kevin, the silent crippler of our carbon tax was the huge burden on refrigerant gases. If ever you wanted a neat way to send people backward while wasting food, power and money, the soaring price of refrigeration was the way to do it.
But I suppose I shouldn’t be giving our Green Betters guidelines. They do so love a bit of impoverishment and waste.
70
I’ll mark it in my diary. WC and I agree on something.
Good post WC.
72
Except … “Carbon Tax Now!”
20
When you get a stake in the game, you can call for it. Right now, you appear to be the coward behind the mask. You have no financial stake in the issue – and indeed, you have not contributed a single penny to the tax.
It is called hypocrisy – a word I am sure you pencil whipped out of Wikipedia.
80
I do have a stake in the game, or rather in a similar game: I live in the EU, and we have a (stupid) emissions trading scheme (http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2013/04/12/the-ets-is-stupid-part-n/). I’d rather we weren’t wasting our money on that. Note, BTW, that the existence of a parasitic class on trading schemes is one reason why they are favoured, in practice: there’s a readily available lobby group. Carbon taxes, which are simpler and cleaner, don’t have the same lobby group available.
415
But not in this GAME. So why did you go on other than to promote your failed blog?
It is not “our money” that you are pushing to waste. it is THEIR money. And you have donated not a single dime to their tax. Ergo, you have no stake in the game.
Knock off the verbosity. It did not help you on Wiki either.
150
Much like the parasite class in climate research, eh ?
61
So why does the IPCC think it’s so great?….. oops, Willy Wonkered.
20
It’s pushed by the World Bank. See their web site.
Why do they push it? Because then they can lend nations $$money$$ to participate in the casino.
If the Casino designer is also the big lender, they just can’t lose!
20
Greetings Mr Connelley,
Your stoat link advocating a carbon(sic) tax provides an updated link to the passing of the Oz carbon(sic) tax in 2011.
~ ~ ~
For 3 years now, Australia has had a carbon(sic) tax, yet, no-one can show any evidence of the carbon(sic) tax stopping extreme climate change.
(Angry summers, Abnormal autumns, 2014 hottest year ever)
If you, Mr Connelley, can point to IPCC future extreme doomsday climate change (that hasn’t happened) unless action is taken, the ‘logic’ you display also says you can also point to climate change that hasn’t happened because of the Australian tax is implemented that you advocate here.
Matter of fact, Finland introduced the world’s first carbon tax in 1990.
http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2013/10/29/factbox-carbon-taxes-around-world
Not that anyone knew Gaia was keeping a ledger to tick off venues of less extreme climate for
tithestaxes rendered.Where in the world, Mr Connelley, in 25 years of world carbon(sic) taxing, has an ‘extreme weather event’ been prevented, that you feel is evidence of the carbon(sic) tax you advocate actually working?
Just one example. Too easy.
PS>
Here is one update missing from your page:
2010: Greek PM says it at last: carbon taxes are just another way to raise revenue
190
> Greetings
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:William_M._Connolley/For_me/The_naming_of_cats
> no-one can show any evidence of the carbon(sic) tax stopping extreme climate change
No-one would expect that evidence. I *think* you’re just indulging in rhetoric. If you actually don’t understand the point, do let me know and I can patiently explain the obvious to you.
> Greek PM says it at last: carbon taxes are just another way to raise revenue
No, he didn’t say that. Janet Daley said it.
222
“> no-one can show any evidence of the carbon(sic) tax stopping extreme climate change
No-one would expect that evidence.”
~ ~ ~
With all due respect, sir, I am not engaging in ‘rhetoric’.
“JULIA Gillard has invoked a doomsday-like scenario of metre-high sea level rises and a 2000km southward shift of Australia’s climactic zones as she battles an opposition scare campaign over her proposed carbon tax.”
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/no-tax-on-fuel-but-greens-win-productivity-commission-inquiry/comments-fn59niix-1226087140792
. . .
But, I too, am patient, as I am still waiting for you to explain to me the difference between weather & climate.
By all means move onto rhetoric after “explaining” that.
And, contrary to all reports, Janet Daily is not a unicorn.
120
NB. Daley.
30
> the difference between weather & climate
Climate is the statistics of weather. I’m puzzled as to how you could have failed to learn that already.
119
> “Climate is the statistics of weather.”
Some one should alert Steffen & Laden.
Also,
Phil Plait
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2012/07/02/when-does-weather-become-climate/#.U8PeRVaBA-Z
David Schultz & Vladimir Janković
https://theconversation.com/time-to-separate-weather-resilience-from-climate-change-25058
Scientific American
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/extreme-weather-caused-by-climate-change/
Bill McKibben (Quoting Obama)
https://twitter.com/billmckibben/status/301524068543389697
National Geographic
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/130115-wild-weather-2013-atmosphere-science/
110
> should alert
Feel free to.
But for your part, you should stop asking a question to which you already know the answer. And you shouldn’t get your science from the meeja. You could also try reading your links instead of posting them. PP’s “Weather” is what you look at if you want to know if you need an umbrella or not today. “Climate” is what you expect on average for a given day in a given place. Weather changes on short time scales; climate over long ones. But how long? Weather + time = climate. It’s well past time to start thinking of that “time” as now. is close enough for the level of understanding you have.
323
>”It’s well past time to start thinking of that “time” as now. is close enough for the level of understanding you have.”
So, we’ve thrown the settled climate science meeja under the bus, and resorted to insults as evidence?
110
Weather or Climate?
>”Climate is the statistics of weather.”
More examples of confusion of doomsday global warmers like Dr Connelley (for a doctor he is):
At Think Progress, a 35-minute thunderstorm in Norfolk, Virginia is a global warming story.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/07/11/3459229/norfolk-tides-baseball-flooding/
~ ~ ~
Heat waves are replacing drought as the deadliest climate disaster
“But according to a new report from the World Meteorological Organization, the number of deaths attributable to drought appears to be declining over time”
http://www.vox.com/2014/7/14/5897817/heat-waves-have-replaced-drought-as-the-deadliest-climate-disaster?utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=bradplumer&utm_content=monday
Children education: What is a heatwave?
“Heatwaves are caused by extremely hot and humid days with very little air movement to cool things down.”
http://schools.aemi.edu.au/heatwave/about-heatwaves
. . .
Incoming insults about my level of ability to understand from Dr Connelley (for a doctor he is)
> “Climate is the statistics of weather”
Not according to the UN-IPCC consensus.
110
Climate has been defined as the summed average of the weather over a 30-year period. It’s been cooling at the poles (and ice sheets have been growing overall) for more than 30 years. Does this mean we shouldn’t really call it “global” warming?
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v415/n6871/abs/nature710.html
[O]ur spatial analysis of Antarctic meteorological data demonstrates a net cooling on the Antarctic continent between 1966 and 2000, particularly during summer and autumn. The McMurdo Dry Valleys have cooled by 0.7 °C per decade between 1986 and 2000, with similar pronounced seasonal trends.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20120013495
During 2003 to 2008, the mass gain of the Antarctic ice sheet from snow accumulation exceeded the mass loss from ice discharge by 49 Gt/yr (2.5% of input), as derived from ICESat laser measurements of elevation change.
http://www.iceagenow.com/Antarctic_Ice_Cap_Growing_Thicker.htm
Ice and snow piling up over a large area of Antarctica – 19 May 2005 – According to a new study published in the online edition of Science, the East Antarctic Ice Sheet gained about 45 billion tons of ice between 1992 and 2003. The ice sheets are several kilometers thick in places, and contain about 90% of the world’s ice.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023%2FB%3ACLIM.0000018509.74228.03
The Greenland coastal temperatures have followed the early 20th century global warming trend. Since 1940, however, the Greenland coastal stations data have undergone predominantly a cooling trend. At the summit of the Greenland ice sheet the summer average temperature has decreased at the rate of 2.2 °C per decade since the beginning of the measurements in 1987. This suggests that the Greenland ice sheet and coastal regions are not following the current global warming trend.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/310/5750/1013.abstract
Recent Ice-Sheet Growth in the Interior of Greenland
A continuous data set of Greenland Ice Sheet altimeter height from European Remote Sensing satellites (ERS-1 and ERS-2), 1992 to 2003, has been analyzed. An increase of 6.4 ± 0.2 centimeters per year (cm/year) is found in the vast interior areas above 1500 meters, in contrast to previous reports of high-elevation balance. Below 1500 meters, the elevation-change rate is –2.0 ± 0.9 cm/year, in qualitative agreement with reported thinning in the ice-sheet margins. Averaged over the study area, the [net] increase is 5.4 ± 0.2 cm/year.
WWII planes abandoned in 1942 on the interior of Greenland were found in the 1990s buried under 268 feet of ice(!).
http://www.longrangeweather.com/ArticleArchives/GreenlandIceSheet.htm
150
> defined as the summed average of the weather over a 30-year period
No, not really. Its the statistics of weather. Yours is the defn for children who have trouble with the concept of statistics.
> It’s been cooling at the poles… for more than 30 years.
No, its hasn’t. Most of your refs are old, and date from when this stuff was more uncertain (Doran is the obvious exemplar). You need to bring yourself up to date (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctica_cooling_controversy and links therein. As to ice loss: from http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_Chapter04_FINAL.pdf: “The Greenland ice sheet has lost ice during the last two decades… The rate of ice loss from the Greenland ice sheet has accelerated since 1992… The Antarctic ice sheet has been losing ice during the last two decades”. And so on.
322
wikipedia quote:
“The 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report states that Observational studies have presented evidence of pronounced warming over the Antarctic Peninsula, but little change over the rest of the continent during the last half of the 20th century.”
Further evidence it is NOT global warming.
Quote;
“> It’s been cooling at the poles… for more than 30 years. No, its hasn’t. You need to bring yourself up to date”
Rapidly melting Antarctica has their coldest June on record (via meteofrance)
80
A 30-year period is the traditional definition as established by the IPCC and World Meteorological Organization.
Here’s the IPCC quotation:
http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/wcp/ccl/faqs.html
So how is it that WWII planes were found buried under 268 feet of ice 46 years after they were abandoned if the Greenland ice sheet is losing ice at an accelerated rate on its interior?
Here are some more references for a cooling Greenland/Arctic, especially in relation to the 1920s and 1930s, when temperatures were much warmer (+3.0 C compared to now!)…and CO2 levels hovered around 300 ppm. This establishes a non-correlation between amplified CO2 and warmer polar temperatures.
———————————–
http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/Hanna.pdf
Analysis of new data for eight stations in coastal southern Greenland, 1958–2001, shows a significant cooling (trend-line change −1.29°C for the 44 years), as do sea-surface temperatures in the adjacent part of the Labrador Sea, in contrast to global warming (+0.53°C over the same period).
——————————-
http://www.biogeosciences.net/9/5391/2012/bg-9-5391-2012.pdf
Sea surface temperature [Arctic Ocean] between∼ AD 1885–1935 were warmer by up to 3◦C with respect to the average modern temperature at the coring site. For the period ∼ AD 1887–1945, reconstructed sea ice cover values are on average 8.3 months per year which is 1.1 months per year lower than the modern [2012] values [9.4 months of sea ice cover per year].
——————————–
http://www.joelschwartz.com/pdfs/Chylek.pdf
[1] We provide an analysis of Greenland temperature records to compare the current (1995–2005) warming period with the previous (1920–1930) Greenland warming. We find that the current Greenland warming is not unprecedented in recent Greenland history. Temperature increases in the two warming periods are of a similar magnitude, however, the rate of warming in 1920–1930 was about 50% higher than that in 1995–2005.
——————————
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v361/n6410/abs/361335a0.html
“Absence of evidence for greenhouse warming over the Arctic Ocean in the past 40 years”
In particular, we do not observe the large surface warming trends predicted by models; indeed, we detect significant surface cooling trends over the western Arctic Ocean during winter and autumn. This discrepancy suggests that present climate models do not adequately incorporate the physical processes that affect the polar regions.
——————————-
“It is very likely that the annual Antarctic sea ice extent increased at a rate of between 1.2 and 1.8% per decade between 1979 and 2012. There is low confidence in the scientific understanding of the observed increase in Antarctic sea ice extent since 1979…” —IPCC, AR5
——————————–
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, doi:10.1029/2012GL052559
Increased ice loading in the Antarctic Peninsula since the 1850s and its effect on Glacial Isostatic Adjustment
“Accumulation increase results in up to 45 m extra ice thickness over 155 years.”
——————————–
Sea ice extent for both the Antarctic and Arctic combined are above the 1981 to 2010 average, meaning that we actually have more global sea ice now than we did 30 years ago…a long enough period of time to establish a cooling climate.
http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/news-stories/article/global-sea-ice-levels-are-above-long-term-average-as-the-antarctic-posts-another-record.html
Data from the US National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) shows that:
Antarctic sea ice extent was 19.4m km2 in October compared with a long term average (from 1981 to 2010) for October of 18.3m km2. This is a new record high for October and follows on from the record high reported in September.
Arctic sea ice extent is 8.1m km2 in October against a long-term average (from 1981 to 2010) for October of 8.9m km2.
———————————-
And sea ice extent in the Antarctic set a record 35-year high a few weeks ago, hitting 2.1 million square miles…
http://talkingabouttheweather.wordpress.com/2014/06/29/antarctica-sets-new-record-for-sea-ice/
———————————-
https://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.meteofrance.fr%2Fweb%2Fcomprendre-la-meteo%2Factualites%3FarticleId%3D8990197
Antarctica continues to defy the global warming script, with a report from Meteo France, that June this year was the coldest Antarctic June ever recorded, at the French Antarctic Dumont d’Urville Station.
According to the press release, during June this year, the average temperature was -22.4c (-8.3F), 6.6c (11.9F) lower than normal. This is the coldest June ever recorded at the station, and almost the coldest monthly average ever – only September 1953 was colder, with a recorded average temperature of -23.5c (-10.3F).
June this year also broke the June daily minimum temperature record, with a new record low of -34.9c (-30.8F).
130
me>> Its the statistics of weather
You> A 30-year period is the traditional definition as established by the IPCC
You quoting IPCC> more rigorously, as the statistical description
Ie, the IPCC agrees with me. You need to actually *read* what you quote, rather than just emphasise the bits that you think agree with you. If you want to learn anything.
you>>> It’s been cooling at the poles… for more than 30 years.
me>> No, its hasn’t.
> So how is it that WWII planes were found buried under 268 feet of ice 46 years after they were abandoned if the Greenland ice sheet is losing ice at an accelerated rate on its interior?
Seriously? This is a genuine question? And no-one here is able to answer the obvious? This is worse than I thought. OK, I’ll take this as a genuine failure of understanding. You could rectify this for yourself by reading the right bits of IPCC, but you won’t:
the interior of Greenland (and Antarctica) gains mass at the surface, and loses it subsurface, in glacier flow towards the edges, where it melts or calves. An ice sheet in balance loses as much from glacial flow as it gains from snowfall. So, anything on the surface gets buried (have you never wondered why research stations in Antarctica sit on legs, and/or get buried(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halley_Research_Station)? Even if the ice sheet is out of balance – as they are – and lose more at the edges, there is still net snowfall *at the surface* as the winter snowfall is greater than the summer melt in most places.
05
This response is incoherent, as usual.
Agrees with you about what? The NCDC/NOAA and MetOffice calculate statistical temperature trends with 30-year periods. They are mandated by the World Meteorological Organization to do this. Why do you think that is, WC?
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/normals/usnormals.html
“In the strictest sense, a “normal” of a particular variable (e.g., temperature) is defined as the 30-year average. For example, the minimum temperature normal in January for a station in Chicago, Illinois, would be computed by taking the average of the 30 January values of monthly-averaged minimum temperatures from 1981 to 2010.”
“NOAA’s computation of climate Normals is in accordance with the recommendation of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), of which the United States is a member. While the WMO mandates each member nation to compute 30-year averages of meteorological quantities at least every 30 years (1931 – 1960, 1961 – 1990, 1991 – 2020, etc.), the WMO recommends a decadal update, in part to incorporate newer weather stations. Further, NOAA’s NCDC has a responsibility to fulfill the mandate of Congress “… to establish and record the climatic conditions of the United States.”
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/averages/
The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) requires the calculation of averages for consecutive periods of 30 years, with the latest covering the 1961–1990 period. However, many WMO members, including the UK, update their averages at the completion of each decade. Thirty years was chosen as a period long enough to eliminate year-to-year variations.
————————————-
I understand this, and yet the problem for you here, WC, is that the ice sheet in the interior of Greenland is growing faster than the melting coasts, leading to a net increase in the Greenland ice sheet. This is well-established peer-reviewed science.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/310/5750/1013.abstract
Recent Ice-Sheet Growth in the Interior of Greenland
A continuous data set of Greenland Ice Sheet altimeter height from European Remote Sensing satellites (ERS-1 and ERS-2), 1992 to 2003, has been analyzed. An increase of 6.4 ± 0.2 centimeters per year (cm/year) is found in the vast interior areas above 1500 meters, in contrast to previous reports of high-elevation balance. Below 1500 meters, the elevation-change rate is –2.0 ± 0.9 cm/year, in qualitative agreement with reported thinning in the ice-sheet margins. Averaged over the study area, the [net] increase is 5.4 ± 0.2 cm/year, or ∼60 cm over 11 years, or ∼54 cm when corrected for isostatic uplift. Winter elevation changes are shown to be linked to the North Atlantic Oscillation.
And another, even bigger problem for you, WC, is that Greenland used to be much, much warmer than it is now for thousands of years, or throughout the Holocene Thermal Maximum, during a stretch of time that CO2 levels were in the 250 ppm range, or 150 ppm lower than now. In other words, CO2 amplification didn’t primarily cause those much warmer Greenland temperatures. The same phenomenon has occurred in modern times, as Greenland was about 3.0 C warmer during the first half of the 20th century than it is now, and yet CO2 levels hovered around 300 ppm during this period, which is 100 ppm lower than now.
Perhaps this common-knowledge science is also new to you, WC.
20
I’m puzzled at how ignorant of statistics you climate scammers are.
81
You may pay as much tax as you like, WC, which is a good argument to make Carbon Tax a voluntary tax; though do not expect those who are not as gullible as you to willingly follow.
180
Is this the same William Connelly that was given the Heave Ho! by Wikipedia?
60
yep. A serial mis-informer, driven purely by his own ego.
60
With any luck, the stupidity that is the Carbon Tax will be repealed this week in Australia.
I hope PUP insist on an ETS to go with the DAP, and that the Liberals will refuse, thus leaving ZERO activity towards CO2 reduction in Australia.
Getting rid of the RET would be an even better outcome, but unfortunately doesn’t look like its on the cards yet.
111
The libs won’t refuse an ETS that only comes in to place when there is an internationally recognised system. It’s smart politics as it won’t happen for many years, yet the move would appease some of the Turnbull type voters. It’s perfect get rid of the tax for the core voters, support a mythical distant ETS for the left of the party, have some senators complain the science is crap for the right of the party.
26
Mattb,
I’m really curious now.
It’s plainly obvious that you have no real idea of what an ETS is, and what it actually encompasses, so, in your own words, could you explain what you see it as being.
Go ahead. Umm, enlighten us.
Tony.
60
Actually tony from a political tactic point of view an ETS could be a flock of flying pink elephants, but it’s worth supporting if it sure up your voter support.
ummm yeah though your question. Emissions Trading Sceme. Capped emission rights traded to the highest bidder on the open market.
15
Oh, Mattb, really? A smaller than one line response. Just as I suspected. Utterly clueless.
How are they issued?
How are they traded?
Who gets to trade them?
What registration procedures do traders need to have?
How often are they traded?
What happens at the end of the 12 Month period?
What happens at the start of year two?
What happens if emissions are exceeded? (Multi part response here)
Are foreign credits tradeable, and if so, at what value?
Can an emitting entity purchase overseas credits, and if so, what is their value?
Can an entity invest in overseas projects and claim credits for that, and if so, what value are they?
How are the emissions calculated correctly, and how exact must they be?
Who does the auditing?
When is the money due?
Where does the Money Go?
What involvement does the UN have in Australia’s ETS, and if so, how much is their take, and again, if so, what do they use it for?
Does the CDM work in conjunction with Australia’s ETS?
And more even than just these few questions.
So, Mattb, I’m afraid your one liner just doesn’t cut it here.
As I expected, you don’t know. You have no concept of what an ETS is, what it does, what its intent is. You just believe what your string pulling puppet masters tell you to believe, but at no time would you even consider finding out the facts.
Tony.
91
Tony have you forgotten your hi fibre shake as something seems to be making you annoyed?
None of those questions can be answered as there is no internationally agreed ETS. Yes they are details that such an ETS would have to address but the answer to all of them is “it depends on the design of the ETS”. That in itself will take years and of course many many international UN meeting type things.
No one could answer those questions. It’s impossible. It is the ultimate strawman argument.
So anyway tony if you don’t like fibre shakes, and I know you like your maths, maybe you can work whatever is troubling you out with a pencil, as the joke goes.
06
Mattb,
Oh surely not!
You really don’t know, do you.
The former Labor Government released its proposed ETS during office. Do you seriously think policy would not be in place already for the transition from the fixed price to the ETS.
That original policy was hundreds of pages long, and, umm, freely available for all to read, Something I did at the time.
Oddly, it was based (umm, almost verbatim) with the now failed U.S. proposed policy, artfully called The American Power Act.
That Government policy is summarised at the following link, Mattb, still available for all to read.
Policy Summary (pdf document of 10 pages)
And Mattb, a the answers to all of those questions, and many more are all detailed in the original document.
You silly boy. Fancy your not being aware of that. It umm, reminds me of an old lawyer joke.
Never ask the question unless you already know what the answer will be.
You must be so embarrassed.
Just wonderin’ here. Is that word strawman another of those key words your string pullers tell you to use.
Tony.
Post Script: This is just one part of what the current Government are trying to get rid of with their repeal act.
70
I never suggested that the current government should adopt the former government’s ETS though?
The would adopt some future ETS as agreed pretty much globally, which may or not be based on the ALP’s former policy (I’d suggest not).
05
So Tony, which of the answers to your questions (you can find them in the policy docs) are to your disliking. I mean having an ETS is only sensible if AGW was real, so pretend it is and tell me what you don’t like? It does seem to be a reasonable ETS to me. How would you improve it?
If the truth is, however, that you just don’t think there should be an ETS then why the questions?
04
NO… NO ETS… ever.. not even a mention of a possible one, later. !!
30
MattB,
The Senate is currently improving it.
By repealing it.
I’m with Griss here ….. No ETS, ever.
It’s a veiled attempt to close ALL CO2 emitting power plants, by lowering their emissions progressively, imposing draconian costs on them, thus making them uneconomical to remain in operation.
And Mattb, without those power plants, there’s nothing. No power for anybody on the same basis we have it now.
They have quite literally no replacements for any of those CO2 emitting plants.
There goes Industry, with all those jobs. There goes Commerce, with all those jobs. There goes 24 hour electricity to every home, except those rich enough to afford batteries to run their rooftop solar at night.
Imagine the fury of the public when all that happens.
Now see why politicians will NEVER allow that to happen.
If you seriously believe an ETS is a good idea, then, Mattb, there’s a big problem. People like you ARE the problem.
Tony.
50
You are babbling now Matt. Give it up.
10
If the Liberals bring in an ETS, there will be A LOT of once Liberal voters that vote informal.
Bringing in an ETS WILL NOT shore up their vote…. it will lose them votes. !!!
30
they are not going to bring in an ETS. They’ll have a minor clause that says we’ll bring one in when everyone else does. It’s not going to lose them any votes.
04
You want to bet. !!
You are looking at it from a misleading far-left loony green agenda….. as usual.
Liberal voters want NO ETS…….. EVER !!!
20
Standard “sneak it in through the back door” green meme.
There is not, and never will be, a rational argument for a CO2 based ETS.
30
I think you are confusing “Liberal Members” with “nutters”.
05
No Mattb… Liberal member are NOT nutter green voters. !!
20
Actually I think that’s very dangerous for the future,as anything that Parliament allows in that regard can be changed ,what’s to stop the regulations that say when everyone does,we will as well being removed,by a future government.
20
And who would question the integrity of Australian Banks:
July 14, 2014
Breathtaking but predictable: Why Ralph Norris’ CBA rogue claim doesn’t wash
“Former Commonwealth Bank chief executive Ralph Norris’ attempt to dismiss the bank’s financial planning scandal as nothing more than a few “rogue people” is public relations trick 101. The scandal occurred when Norris was running CBA between 2005 and 2011.
Eight months after the letter was sent, bank whistleblower Jeff Morris warned the corporate regulator about what was going on, including cover-up.
It took the regulator another 16 months to act. The delay by the regulator to act on the information allegedly led to cover-up attempts, which included the falsification of documents, files disappearing and deceptive explanations to clients.
Some of those 38 critical risk planners identified in the 2008 letter still work at the bank.”
http://www.smh.com.au/business/comment-and-analysis/breathtaking-but-predictable-why-ralph-norris8217-cba-rogue-claim-doesn8217t-wash-20140714-zt6ol.html
. . .
Australian banks are like drug cartels.
Except eventually the drug kingpins do handcuff time.
90
When I first came to this blog, I thought Climate Change was all about Science!
Progressively I have come to understand that it is also about Economics, Politics and Religion and Greed.
Hopefully the Banks will lose all their investment in trading schemes and their management will then be punished by their shareholders. At least that is how the system is supposed work in theory.
240
Peter C – regarding the likelihood of banks being punished for making bad decisions and losing lots of money, see the G.F.C..
Theory is a wonderful thing.
120
Unfortunately, trying to fit reality to the theory inevitably becomes uncomfortable.
41
In the real world, GW *is* largely about economics and inevitably politics. Governments don’t spend a lot of time worrying about the science, because the IPCC has provided that – not all of it, but enough.
130
In the real world, some people rape, steal and murder.
We want to stop those abuses too.
150
So if “In the real world” AGW is all economics and politics, what is the other world where this IPCC “science” comes from?
A massive projection of truth there WC…gun, foot, bang!
130
By “GW” I assume, WC, that you mean “Global Warming”.
I also assume from your posts that you know a lot about global warming. You you then please then answer this one simple question:
How did the planet come out of The Little Ice Age…. was that due to The Industrial Revolution, or was it natural?
140
> How did the planet come out of The Little Ice Age
Too far off topic for this post. If our host is interested in same, doubtless she’ll have a post on the issue. If you’re genuinely interested in the answer, rather than just point-scoring, do feel free to ask on my blog.
126
It’s not offtopic at all. You brought up GW. You also advocate a carbon tax. To support that, you must show that GW is not natural. To do that, you must show why and how warming changed from natural to anthropogenic, even though the rate of warming has not changed in any statistically significant way since it began.
240
The lead dancing marionette isn’t interested in the evidence nor the consequences of the policies he advocates. He can only dance. The tune is the same as it has always been. Even the dance steps are the same. The puppet master pulls the strings, the puppet’s puppet master pulls his strings. It is puppets all the way to the top. The top puppet has palsy thereby assuring every dance is the same.
For a moment there, I thought the dancing marionette was breaking free from his stings. Sadly, it was just his puppet master taking a short coffee break. It was nothing but a momentary adjustment.
The dancing marionette dances.
200
Yes, I would be interested in knowing exactly who is paying him.
60
I would have thought that it would be Jo’s decision, or the moderators call, whether something was off topic or not.
But he can’t give an answer that will stand up to scrutiny, so he ducks and dives into diversion, and so, by not giving a real answer, he looses that argument.
I don’t think anybody is paying him, unless they are fools. He makes statements, but then runs away from a real debate, based on facts. It is his ego and lack of friends that drives him.
As they say in Britain, he is all mouth and no trousers.
100
Here’s a good portion of the answer…
http://lasp.colorado.edu/images/science/solar_infl/Surface-Temp-w-paleo.jpg
Notice the Maunder Minimum, the low solar activity levels, from about 1650 to 1710, and then the low solar activity again in the early 1800s. Then notice how TSI shoots up in about 1900 to 1950, the cooling through the 1970s, and then the resumed warming in the 1980s. In other words, look how closely this TSI record corresponds with temperature.
In contrast, CO2 levels don’t explain the cooling during the Little Ice Age, nor do they explain the rapid warming that took place in the first half of the 20th century. CO2 levels stayed stable and low (around 300 ppm) from 1910 to 1940, when temperatures shot up by +0.5 C.
100
Don’t throw facts at Willem Conelley….. he has no comprehension to understand them.
30
William Connelly Youu state “Governments don’t spend a lot of time worrying about the science, because the IPCC has provided that – not all of it, but enough”.
That of course is a large part of the problem that those who are not entirely convinced that humans have caused 100% of global warming find, at the moment, somewhat difficult to evaluate. What gets the MSM coverage form the IPCC are its comments that, are claimed, to distill the science for the politicians. When you say “not all of it but enough” exactly what do you mean? Enough for whom? Politicians? The average voter? Scientists from other disciplines? Journalists seeking sensationalism to sell papers? Why are the temperature observations from ground stations made prior to about 1951 virtually always reduced while those from about 1975 are are virtually always increased? The average thinking person can see the dichotomy in that for if the stations were over reporting the temperature prior to 1951, why are these self same stations under reporting temperature from 1975 on? Can you not see that that creates scepticism. Look at John Cook’s recent paper where the total number of papers evaluated that agreed entirely with the IPCC was 64 out of several thousand but the headlines were that Cook claimed 97% agreed. Look at Climategate and the revelations that gave the world about the nefarious activities of climate scientists. Look at the Greens in Australia who voted against CO2 tax repeal as they claim increases in power prices due to the tax will reduce power usage and so reduce CO2 emissions. These self same Greens however also vote against indexing the tax on petrol and diesel as they claim this will increase the cost of these fossil fuels to the detriment of Australians. Surely that is what the Greens want so that emissions from the internal combustion engines of the nation are reduced. Of course they don’t as to do so is politically unpopular and the Greens definitely don’t want any opprobrium. This type of hypocrisy plus that where sceptic papers can”t get peer reviewed and the BBC won’t allow sceptics on their programs and James Hansen says sceptics should be imprisoned doesn’t create a very good image for you and those who think like you. Can’t you see that the cult mentality of the proponents of anthropogenic global warming is anathema to many? Still as you are firmly entrenched in this cult you probably can’t
190
> Youu state
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:William_M._Connolley/For_me/The_naming_of_cats
> difficult to evaluate. What gets the MSM coverage
If you read the MSM, of course its hard to evaluate. The MSM are clueless on science.
> Enough for whom?
Not for whom, but “for what”. To know what makes sense: a carbon tax.
> prior to about 1951 virtually always reduced
If you read decent blogs that actually covered the science of that you’d already know, instead of having to ask me (if you want to know, try http://moyhu.blogspot.com/2014/06/tobs-nailed.html etc etc). This returns to my original point: the science is well enough known. If you want to keep gnawing the bone of do-we-trust-the-obs then you’ll get precious little marrow out of it: its been sucked dry.
> Look at John Cook’s recent paper
Why would I do that? I read the literature; I read the IPCC reports. I *know* what people are publishing; I don’t rely on someone else rating abstracts. And neither should you.
025
[SNIP nil contribution]
63
[SNIP nil contribution]
22
[SNIP nil contribution]
32
Just put a few thumbs down here. Some comments, even if true, are not helpfull.
Doug
21
Which is why they have almost unanimous support for CAGW and the alarmista purveyors thereof,
….and refuse to let the climate realists have a say.
81
Geez Will, that little tanty just makes you look like a conceited tosser. It certainly doesn’t help your cause.
It’s a bit like Brian Philip Shehan whinging about red thumbs, and wondering why he keeps getting more.
30
William Connolly…
You seem to be saying that it has never been about the science, but about economics and politics.
And you seem to be OK with that, since you happily and complacently say…
‘ Governments don’t spend a lot of time worrying about the science, because the IPCC has provided that – not all of it, but enough.’
When did you know it was enough?
The IPCC and the CAGW proponents have been telling us that this magical consensus on CAGW emerged decades ago, before most of the science of the elements of the world’s climate had even been done.
They said the science was ‘done’–over–when very little research had been done into clouds and their feedback, into the oceans and OHC, when the oscillations, ENSO, PDO, the Indian Ocean Dipole etc had hardly been studied—- and still ,much is unknown about them.
Scientists are still not certain of the sign of the cloud feedback, and the sensitivity of climate to a doubling of CO2 is thought now to be much lower than that factored in to the models we’re supposed to genuflect before.
If they’re wrong about the sensitivity—if it’s as low as some scientists believe—then CAGW proponents are wrong about the whole thing.
The oceans make up a huge part of the globe, and the temperature of the oceans was unable to be reliably measured before the advent of the ARGO floats in 2003—so how could the temperature of the whole globe have been known any time before then?
This isn’t making cupcakes—this is about what we’re told is the ‘greatest moral and scientific challenge of our time’.
This is ‘science'[ or lack thereof], that we’re being asked to destroy our industrial base on the strength of—that Australia is being told to leave our fossil fuels in the ground on the strength of—that Australia is being told we must forego an enormous chunk of our export income that underpins our prosperity for decades to come on the strength of.
This is ‘science’ on the ludicrous strength of which, the UN expects the whole world to be rejigged —countries to lose or have truncated, their sovereignty–that they want us all to submit to global oversight on—by the dodgy, dysfunctional UN.
This is madness.
180
> William Connolly
Sigh. You people really are rubbish at spelling. Read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:William_M._Connolley/For_me/The_naming_of_cats. Just use “WMC”, I think you’re just about capable of that.
> never been about the science
Nope, I didn’t say that at all. I said it *isn’t*, now. Pay careful attention to tenses; they matter. That’s why people invented them. Round about 1990 it was about science, because the science was uncertain.
> When did you know it was enough?
About the TAR; AR4 for sure.
> CAGW proponents
CAGW is a strawman you lot made up; you’re responsible for it, not me.
> magical consensus… emerged decades ago,
Nope. You made that up. I notice you give no sources.
> we’re being asked to destroy our industrial base on the strength of
You made that up too. The level of proposed carbon tax wouldn’t destroy anyone’s industrial base.
021
You always come out with this so called “strawman”. It is not a strawman at all – you alarmists have been screaming for decades regarding impending disaster from so called Anthropogenic Global Warming. I know you all now prefer “Climate Change”, which only serves to highlight your big stuff up from the beginning.
If there is no prospect of CAGW, then there is no need for a tax (which would achieve nothing anyway in regard to reducing CO2 emissions).
210
> If there is no prospect of CAGW, then there is no need for a tax
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2014/06/24/if-it-isnt-catastrophic-weve-got-nothing-to-worry-about-have-we/
022
OMG, still trying to get some traffic to your worthless little mis-information site..
PATHETIC !!!!!
140
@The Griss – it is all he has left. He has been spanked and destroyed by the simple facts presented here. So he has to resort to driving traffic to his site.
And even that is not working. He has the reverse midas touch.
20
You shouldn’t take your name or title too seriously. In Australia you may come across as a bit of a wanker. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wanker
You have claimed many times that ‘Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming’ is a ‘strawman’ made up by ‘you lot’ (meaning I assume Climate Skeptics).
Do you remember Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth”? [Book and movie]He referenced the UN IPCC Climate reports and Climate Scientists throughout and of course was jointly awarded the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with the UN IPCC. This more than anything else was credited for creating a global scare about the catastrophic consequences of man made climate change. Last time I checked, Al Gore and his mates weren’t exactly considered ‘Climate Skeptics’
Here are some of his claims of catastrophe. (Note: ‘Global warming’ is assumed to be mainly human caused in Al Gore’s claims of disaster).
“Global warming, along with the cutting and burning of forests and other critical habitats, is causing the loss of living species at a level comparable to the extinction event that wiped out the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. That event was believed to have been caused by a giant asteroid. This time it is not an asteroid colliding with the Earth and wreaking havoc: it is us.”
“Many people today assume mistakenly that the Earth is so big that we humans cannot possibly have any major impact on the way our planet’s ecological system operates. That may have been true at one time, but it is not the case any more. We have grown so numerous and our technologies have become so powerful that we are now capable of having a significant influence on many parts of the Earth’s environment.”
“The emerging consensus links global warming to increasingly destructive power of hurricanes, increasing the strength of the average hurricane a full half-step on the well-known 5-step scale. As water temperatures go up, wind velocity goes up. One major study came out less than a month before Hurricane Katrina hit.
When Katrina first hit, it was only a category 1 storm. Then, it passed over the unusually warm waters of the Gulf of Mexico [and became category 5].”
“There has been record flooding in China, which, as one of the planet’s oldest civilizations, keeps the best flood records of any nation in the world.
Recently, for example, there were huge floods in Sichuan and Shandong provinces. Paradoxically, however, global warming also causes not only more flooding, but also more drought.”
“Unbelievable tragedies have been unfolding in the part of Africa near Lake Chad, where genocidal murders have become commonplace in the region of Darfur. The region-wide drought has contributed to the famine conditions that put millions at risk. A little discussed contributing factor to the famine and genocide is the disappearance of Lake Chad.
Just 40 years ago Lake Chad was as large as Lake Erie–formerly the 6th largest lake in the world. But now due to declining rainfall and ever-intensifying human use, it has shrunk to 1/20th of its original size. The lake’s dissipation has led to collapsing fisheries and crops.
While Lake Chad withered, intense drought set the stage for the violence that erupted in neighboring Darfur, a war-torn region of Sudan.
The more we understand about climate change, the more it looks as if we may be the real culprit–the US emits 1/4 of the world’s greenhouse gases. We helped manufacture the suffering in Africa, and we have a moral obligation to try to fix it.”
“Since the 1970s, the extent & thickness of the Artic ice cap has diminished precipitously. There are now studies showing that if we continue with business as usual, the Artic ice cap will completely disappear each year during summertime. At present, it plays a crucial role in cooling the Earth. Preventing its disappearance must be one of our priorities.
The melting of the ice cap represents bad news for creatures like polar bears. A new study shows that for the first time, polar bears have been drowning in significant numbers.
What does it mean to look at a vast expanse of water that used to be ice? We ought to care about this because it has serious planetary effects. An increase of 5 degrees actually means an increase of only 1 or 2 degrees at the Equator, but more than 12 degrees at the North Pole. And so all those wind and ocean patterns that formed during the last ice age, are now up in the air.
Our civilization has never experienced any environmental shift remotely similar to this.“
“But the magnitude of environmental destruction is now on a scale few ever foresaw; the wounds no longer simply heal themselves. We have to act affirmatively to stop the harm.”
“In Manhattan, the World Trade Center Memorial is intended to be, among other things, an expression of the determination of the United States never to allow such harm to befall our country again.
But if sea levels rose 20 feet worldwide, the site of the World Trade Center Memorial would be underwater..”
“One of the keys to solving the climate crisis involves finding ways to use the powerful force of market capitalism as an ally. “
On dramatically rising oceans due to melting Antarctic and Greenland ice he predicted millions of global warming refugees: “that’s why the citizens of these Pacific nations have all had to evacuate to New Zealand”
“The Ocean Conveyor in the North Atlantic will shut down plunging Europe into an ice age. “
Some snippets of more Gore catastrophe claims from in his movie and book from: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html
Gore says that West Nile virus spread throughout the US in just two years, implicitly because of “global warming.”
Gore says that, as well as malaria, “global warming” is spreading dengue fever, Lyme disease, West Nile virus, arena virus, avian flu, Ebola virus, E. Coli 0157:H7, Hanta virus, legionella, leptospirosis, multi-drug-resistant TB, Nipah virus, SARS and Vibrio Cholerae 0139.
Gore says that, because of “global warming”, mosquitoes are climbing to higher altitudes.
Gore says half a dozen ice shelves each “larger than Rhode Island” have broken up and vanished from the Antarctic Peninsula recently, implicitly because of “global warming.”
Gore says terrible tragedies are occurring in the southern Sahara because of drought which he blames on “global warming.”
Gore says 40% of the world’s population get their water supply from Himalayan glacial melt waters that are failing because of “global warming.”
Gore says “global warming” is making the Greenland ice sheet unstable.
Gore says flooding in Mumbai is increasing, by implication because of “global warming.”
Gore says that 2004 set a new record for the number of typhoons striking Japan.
Gore says a scientific study shows that polar bears are being killed swimming long distances to find ice that has melted away because of “global warming.”
Gore says that Hurricane Caterina, the only hurricane ever to strike the coast of Brazil, was caused by “global warming.”
The selection of Gore’s claims I have listed certainly don’y address all of the claims he made which have turned out to be wrong, but the represent just a selection of his many claims of catastrophic or dangerous results of anthropogenic global warming.
Of course Al Gore was just one of the alarmists predicting man made catastrophe:
James Hansen, head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, US. Hansen strongly believes we may see several metres of sea level rise by 2100.
On refugees, the claim was made by UNEP that there would be 50m climate refugees by 2010.
Only 272 billion tonnes of carbon can be burnt before the earth crosses the threshold to dangerous climate change. That’s the prognosis from the IPCC’s climate change report.
Recent disasters such as killer heat waves in Europe, wildfires in the United States, droughts in Australia and deadly flooding in Mozambique, Thailand and Pakistan highlight how vulnerable humanity is to extreme weather, according to a sweeping new report (PDF) from a Nobel Prize–winning group of scientists, released on Monday in Japan.
The dangers are going to worsen as the climate changes even more, the report’s authors say, adding that no one on earth is immune.
“We’re all sitting ducks,” Princeton University professor Michael Oppenheimer, one of the main authors of the 32-volume report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said in an interview.
After several days of late-night wrangling, more than 100 governments unanimously approved the 49-page report summary, which is aimed at world political leaders. It contains the word “risk” an average of more than five times per page.
In 2009 Professor Penny Sackett, Australia’s Chief Scientist warns there’s just five years to avoid disastrous global warming.
The dud predictions of dangerous man made climate change made by the Government appointed Climate Commissioner Tim Flannery were many and varied. They included that the drought in northern NSW and Queensland was permanent due to climate change and the rivers would never fill. The rain came, the rivers filled and in fact many overflowed.
Flannery claimed Perth would run out of water in the near future.
He blamed bush-fires on dangerous man made global warming.
No WMC, it is not climate skeptics who created a straw man of Catastrophic climate change caused by anthropogenic global warming, it was the IPCC and their scientists, plus the likes of Al Gore, James Hansen, ‘The Team’ and in Australia the likes of Flannery and Chubbs, and Hackett.
Please don’t claim it is a straw man made up by climate skeptics again.
280
> Here are some of his claims of catastrophe
He doesn’t use the word once, let alone the phrase. You do. Stop putting words into your opponents mouths, its dishonest.
122
It takes about 1 second to come up with many references to “catastrophic” from the alarmistas
So don’t play your puerile semantic game,
The WC is still full of ****
http://www.climate.org/topics/climate-change/pentagon-study-climate-change.html
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a77a329e-9713-11e3-a274-00144feab7de.html#axzz37Thw3dyZ
http://www.climatevictory.org/intro.html
http://www.weather.com/news/science/environment/catastrophic-4c-warming-possible-2100-study-20131231
http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5340
110
And here is one that you forgot to edit on Wiki..
towards the end of first paragraph.
roflmao!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runaway_climate_change
100
> http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a77a329e-9713-11e3-a274-00144feab7de.html#axzz37Thw3dyZ
As usual, you’re making stuff up. The word “catastrophic” is in the headline, but the Ft wrote the headline. The word isn’t in anything JK said.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runaway_climate_change
You mean “Some astronomers use the expression runaway greenhouse effect to describe a situation where the climate deviates catastrophically and permanently from the original state—as happened on Venus”?
116
So you admit that the far left mouthpieces like the Gruniad use the word catastrophic and its not a realist strawman word.
And yes, there is that word “catastrophically” right there on wiki about greenhouse gases.
Thanks for quoting that here, rather than others having to look at the link.
Do you still have access to “edit” it away ??
160
“he doesn’t use the word once”
That is a pathetic cop out! – he just described catastrophe and other dangerous man made climate predictions!
And what about all the other outrageous predictions by your team? The leader in Australia was Flannery: The seal lapping at the roof of 8 storey beach front buildings. That’s not catastrophe for the majority of coast living Australians? Perth becoming a ghost town because it will run out of water. There are just so many catastrophic predictions its not funny!
You are in denial WMC!
80
WC:
Do you agree that temperatures will warm by more than 2.0 C with CO2 doubling over preindustrial CO2 levels?
Do you agree with those who say that, if the temperatures warm by more than 2.0 C with a doubling of CO2, it will lead to species extinctions, coastal flooding, and widespread crop failures (food shortages)?
Do you agree that species extinctions, coastal flooding, and widespread crop failures would be catastrophic?
If you cannot disagree with these statements, then you are, necessarily, an advocate of CAGW.
140
> warm by more than 2.0 C
Yes.
> species extinctions, coastal flooding, and widespread crop failures (food shortages)?
Yes, Yes, Dubious (http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2009/05/04/could-food-shortages-bring-dow/).
> species extinctions, coastal flooding, and widespread crop failures would be catastrophic?
No, Not answerable with the level of information you’ve given, Yes.
021
So you don’t think that animal and plant species extinctions, coastal flooding, and widespread crop failures should be characterized as catastrophic? How would you characterize them, then?
And by the way, are you aware that there are more than 100 scientists, including 15 IPCC lead authors, who have had 3 dozen peer-reviewed science papers published—most just within the last 7 or 8 years—that have determined that climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 is going to be less than 2.0 C? In other words, it’s not going to be catastrophic even if CO2 levels reach 560 ppm.
The difference between AGW advocates and CAGW advocates is the difference between agreeing with low climate sensitivity (less than 2.0 C with CO2 doubling) outcomes or high climate sensitivity outcomes. By and large, skeptics are still considered AGW advocates, as there are very few skeptical scientists (or bloggers or even posters) who believe that CO2 does not trap heat or that CO2 amplification does not have any effect on temperatures.
60
> So you don’t think that… widespread crop failures should be characterized as catastrophic?
I specifically said that would be. Don’t you think that, if you take the trouble to ask a question and I take the trouble to answer, you might at least bother to read my answer?
> there are more than 100 scientists… climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 is going to be less than 2.0 C
Nope, I think you made that up. You provide no refs, so its hard to be sure.
05
Are you aware that there are more than 100 scientists, including 15 IPCC lead authors, who have had 3 dozen peer-reviewed science papers published—most just within the last 7 or 8 years—that have determined that climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 is going to be less than 2.0 C? In other words, it’s not going to be catastrophic even if CO2 levels reach 560 ppm.
OK, I will provide links to 3 dozen papers with low climate sensitivity (not catastrophic) estimates. More than half of them are less than 1.0 C for a doubling of CO2. The numerical ECS value in degrees Celsius is listed next to the paper.
I invite you to provide a comparable list of papers with ECS estimates in the catastrophic range so as to support what you believe to be true about human CO2 amplification causing catastrophic global warming (CAGW). Let’s see what you’ve got.
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n6/full/ngeo1836.html +1.8 (17 scientists, 14 of them IPCC Lead Authors)
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n6/extref/ngeo1836-s1-corrected.pdf
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00382-012-1375-3?LI=true +2.0
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304380014000404 +1.99
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00382-013-1770-4 +1.9
http://folk.uio.no/gunnarmy/paper/aldrin_env_2012.pdf +1.9
http://www.int-res.com/articles/cr2003/23/c023p001.pdf +1.9
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~mzelinka/Forster_etal13.pdf +1.8
http://file.scirp.org/Html/24283.html +1.7
http://www.princeton.edu/~gkv/papers/Padilla_etal11.pdf +1.6
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011GL050226/abstract +1.6
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00473.1 +1.6
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012GL051106/abstract +1.5
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1307.3706.pdf +1.35
http://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/5/529/2014/esdd-5-529-2014.html +1.3
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13143-014-0011-z +1.3
http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~douglass/papers/published_E&E%20douglass_christy.pdf +1.1
http://www.clim-past-discuss.net/8/4923/2012/cpd-8-4923-2012.html +1.1
http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/k76363u651167q65/ +0.96
http://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/4/25/2013/esdd-4-25-2013.html +0.67
http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/236-Lindzen-Choi-2011.pdf +0.67
http://www.drroyspencer.com/Spencer-and-Braswell-08.pdf +0.67
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Spencer_Misdiagnos_11.pdf +0.62
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11434-010-3258-5 +0.60
http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm +0.58
http://www.klimatupplysningen.se/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Bengtsson-Tellus.pdf +0.54
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682612001617 +0.53
http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/3678681q807n8236/fulltext.pdf?page=1 +0.51
http://www.iac.ethz.ch/doc/publications/Chylek-et-al-JGR2007-climate-sens.pdf +0.50
http://www.int-res.com/articles/cr/10//c010p069.pdf +0.40
http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf +0.39
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2006GL026355/abstract +0.29
http://www.klimatupplysningen.se/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/paltridgearkingpook.pdf +0.26
http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~douglass/papers/DK_reply_PLA_2012.pdf +0.21
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412008001232 +0.02
http://atlatszo.hu/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/article.pdf
30
> links to 3 dozen papers with low climate sensitivity
Your claim was ” climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 is going to be less than 2.0 C”.
* http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00382-012-1375-3?LI=true – says 2. Fail.
* http://folk.uio.no/gunnarmy/paper/aldrin_env_2012.pdf “Panel (a) of Figure 6 shows the posterior distribution of the climate sensitivity. The posterior mean is 2.0ıC”. Fail.
* http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~mzelinka/Forster_etal13.pdf – I think you’ve confused ECS and TCR.
Michaels and Loehle are jokes.
Strip out the ones that don’t support what you said, and the jokes, and try again.
06
So this is your “rebuttal”? I asked you to produce a comparable list of papers that support your belief in catastrophic global warming (ECS greater than 2.0 C), and your response is to point out that since I said “less than 2.0” rather than “2.0 or less,” you can say I “failed” because there are 3 ECS estimates at 2.0 C, and 2.0 C is not “less than” 2.0 C? Unbelievable! This is all you’ve got?!
And your claim that certain papers are “jokes” is childish. Perhaps you can explain why these scientists’ calculations of ECS are “jokes.” After all, their papers were published in peer-reviewed science journals.
Show me your catastrophic papers, WC. Let’s see what you’ve got.
40
WC, your “answer” to this question was…
Excuse me for not realizing that this “answer” was sequential to each of the stated catastrophes. I had interpreted the “No” as applying to all 3, as I just assumed the rest of this answer just followed a pattern of incoherence that has been previously established.
But since you don’t think species extinctions are catastrophic, did you realize that it’s predicted that one million species will go extinct by 2050—or within 35 years—because of global warming?
—————————-
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/01/0107_040107_extinction.html
According to the researchers’ collective results, the predicted range of climate change by 2050 will place 15 to 35 percent of the 1,103 species studied at risk of extinction. The numbers are expected to hold up when extrapolated globally, potentially dooming more than a million species.
—————————-
You don’t think that losing a million species is catastrophic? How would you characterize it, then? A somewhat-bad thing? A wee-bit of a problem? What?
And as far as not having enough information about coastal flooding, there are hundreds of millions of people who live in about 140 large coastal cities world-wide. Here’s a RC commentary:
For high emissions IPCC now predicts a global rise by 52-98 cm by the year 2100, which would threaten the survival of coastal cities and entire island nations. But even with aggressive emissions reductions, a rise by 28-61 cm is predicted. Even under this highly optimistic scenario we might see over half a meter of sea-level rise, with serious impacts on many coastal areas, including coastal erosion and a greatly increased risk of flooding.
So you don’t think the threatened survival of coastal cities would be catastrophic? Why?
And since you’ve acknowledged that you do think that crop failures would be catastrophic, and that this will result from >2.0 C of warming caused by amplified CO2 emissions, you therefore have admitted you are an advocate of CAGW. Even admitting that one form of catastrophe will occur because of human CO2 emissions (I didn’t even mention ocean acidification—is that catastrophic?) makes you a CAGW advocate. But I’d still like to understand why you don’t think losing a million plant and animal species by 2050 would be catastrophic.
20
> You don’t think that losing a million species is catastrophic?
No, I didn’t say that either. Your original question was far vaguer. If you want a precise answer, you’d have to tell me which species. Losing all mammalian species (say, with the exception of ourselves) would be catastrophic. The problem you have is that the questions you ask aren’t useful or fruitful.
Ditto flooding. RC provides a useful assessment. Your attempt to paraphrase it doesn’t.
> crop failures would be catastrophic, and that this will result from >2.0 C of warming caused by amplified CO2 emissions
You’re not very good at this reading comprehension thing. Go back, read what I actually wrote, and then maybe try again.
06
Aren’t you the one who is supposed to be familiar with the mass species extinctions caused by human CO2 emissions? After all, it’s your side’s theory.
OK, here’s a partial list of just some of the creatures expected to go extinct within the next several decades because of CAGW…as culled from spending 10 minutes looking at WWF and similar webpages:
polar bears, penguins, whales, sea turtles, pandas, orangutans, leopards, gorillas, elephants, tigers, dolphins, porpoises, seals, many North American birds (oriole, chickadee, goldfinches, eagles), “nearly three quarters of all bird species in northeast Australia and more than a third in Europe,” coral reefs, dozens of frog species, koalas, orange-spotted filefish, cod, pikas, several species of butterflies, several tree species, “51 percent of reptiles, 52 percent of insects, and 73 percent of flowering plants.”
————————————–
————————————–
So, losing, say, 3/4ths of all mammalian species would not be catastrophic according to you, and only losing all mammalian species (except humans) would? Wow. Do you consider yourself an environmentalist? Do you care about the biosphere?
—————————————
—————————————
No, the problem is you can’t answer my questions without contradicting yourself. For example, now you’ve got to support your contention that losing most of the mammals on earth (except for humans) would not be catastrophic. What word would you choose instead of “catastrophic” to describe how not-so-bad losing most mammalian species would be?
WC: “Losing most mammalian species due to global warming would be ________.” (Examples: Not So Good. Kinda Bad. A Bummer. Sad. Not A Big Deal. OK With Me.)
—————————————-
I didn’t “paraphrase” it. It was a direct copy/paste.
—————————————–
Read the following paragraph. Explain why you don’t think that the plight of Bangladeshians should be characterized as catastrophic.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/01/31/415742/al-gore-rising-seas-antarctica-to-bangladesh/
Then there is Bangladesh. A one-meter sea level rise – which could happen as soon as 2050 according to some Antarctic specialists – could result in between 22 and 35 million people in Bangladesh relocating from the areas in which they now live and work. Two-thirds of this nation is less than five meters above sea level. For the nation’s 142 million people packed into a small space, climate change poses a nearly unimaginable challenge. The threat of sea level rise is not simply flooding, but saltwater intrusion that hurts the production of rice, the country’s staple crop. Increased damage to rice farmers could soon put 20 million farmers out of work and force them into crowded cities.
This is what you wrote when I asked you if you thought widespread crop failures would be catastrophic:
WC:
In English, the word Yes connotes an affirmation, a confirmation.
So you necessarily agree with CAGW on the basis that you at least think that “widespread crop failures” would be a catastrophic consequence of global warming. This is what you wrote, anyway. Perhaps you’ll enlighten me as to what you actually meant by the word Yes since you believe my reading comprehension skills are so inferior.
50
> In English, the word Yes connotes an affirmation, a confirmation.
You’re still not doing the reading thing properly.
Here’s a hint: your “crop failures would be catastrophic, and that this will result from >2.0 C of warming caused by amplified CO2 emissions” is a two part statement, with the two parts separated by “and”. The first part, that widespread crop failures would be catastrophic, I agree with. And yet, I claim not to have agreed with the whole statement.
Finally, there’s my 3-part answer (“Yes, Yes, Dubious”) in 5.2.5.1.1.
Are you there yet or do you need more spoon-feeding?
05
So your “Yes” applied to crop failures being catastrophic, and yet you disagree that human emissions of CO2 will lead to crop failures. So, simply put, you disagree with the IPCC.
And now that we’ve added a few more details about species extinctions and coastal flooding, it’s seems to have been established that William Connelley believes that the extinction of 3/4ths of all mammalian species (as well as 1/2 of all lizard species, and nearly 3/4ths of flowering plants) would not be catastrophic, and that the flooding of Bangladesh, the displacement of 35 million people, putting 20 million farmers out of work….would not be catastrophic either. Only widespread crop failures would be catastrophic. Ocean acidification? Not catastrophic. Deadly hurricanes? Not catastrophic.
What word or words would you use to describe these events instead of catastrophic, William?
40
WMC…
Sorry about the misspelling of your name.
The theatrical ‘sigh’ isn’t necessary—I recognize the device as a diversion used amongst others on RC as a prelude to sneers and smears delivered instead of answers, in reply to legitimate questions from a wide variety of people.
So you say it isn’t about the science and you knew that at the time of AR4—ie in 2007.
That was when the alarmism was really stepped up in Australia and around the world—as the Copenhagen Conference approached . An election was largely won on the strength of it here.
From around the world, the mantra was that the science was over–in—settled—many warmists telling us that the science had now been clear ‘for decades’.
The taxpayer-funded Climate Commission here, headed by Tim Flannery, with a brief to conduct forums on CO2-induced GW, virtually banned questions on the science or recent developments in the science, with questioners told the science was ‘in’ , and the time to talk about it had passed.
There was an official and unofficial shutdown of information and discussion on the strength of and developments in, the science—and on the Climategate emails.
The Framework for the Copenhagen Convention was out, showing huge financial obligations and oversight procedures that the COP was to induce sovereign countries to sign up to.
So by then many of us knew it wasn’t about the science, but about wealth redistribution by the UN—as you now admit, and Pachauri agrees…
[ “I am not going to rest easy until I have articulated in every possible form the need to bring about major structural changes in economic growth and development. That’s the real issue. Climate change is just a part of it.”]
Your claim that the science was ‘enough’ by 2007, isn’t supported by the Royal Society.
… in May 2010, the Society made a U-turn, saying “Any public perception that the science [of global warming] is somehow fully settled is wholly incorrect — there is always room for new observations, theories, measurements.”
This statement contradicted a comment by the Society’s previous president, Lord May, who claimed “The debate on climate change is now over.”
And your claim seems to ignore the change in the IPCC view between AR4 [ 2007] and AR5 [ 2013], in which the science weakens on almost every aspect.
The view that the science is not settled —-it’s anything but—-and that there’s anything but a consensus is supported by the IPCC reports themselves—if you read the body of the report.
But the Summary for Policymakers that governments rely on, and CAGW-believing governments use to maintain the alarm in their populations in order to justify carbon taxes and a sellout to the UN —- shows a disconnect—with an alarm not reflected in the body of the report.
AR4 attributes 20th Century warming to anthropogenic greenhouse gases, while AR5 , which admits the hiatus of more than 15 years—now more like 17years —attributes it to ‘human influence’, which I think a reasonable person would agree covers just about everything that’s happened on earth since Day1—including population increase , deforestation, land use changes etc—long before CO2 and other GHG were being generated from fossil fuels in any unnatural way..
On the vital measure of sensitivity…
The IPCC AR4 conclusion on climate sensitivity is stated as:
“The equilibrium climate sensitivity. . . is likely to be in the range 2oC to 4.5oC with a best estimate of about 3oC and is very unlikely to be less than 1.5oC. Values higher than 4.5oC cannot be excluded. .”
But the IPCC AR5 conclusion on climate sensitivity is stated as:
Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 1.5°C to 4.5°C (high confidence), extremely unlikely less than 1°C (high confidence), and very unlikely greater than 6°C (medium confidence)
On lack of acceleration in SLR..
It is likely that the rate of global mean sea level rise has continued to increase since the early 20th century. [ IPCC AR5 ]
But…the IPCC’s own graph doesn’t reflect this.
Australia’s carbon tax is ~$25per tonne and rising–so explain to us how such an impact on costs doesn’t destroy competitiveness for our products, when no comparable trade competitor has any impost even approaching it.
So CAGW proponents have an obligation to announce to the world —the G20 later this year would be a good time and venue—that the science is crumbling, but that, as you and Pachauri say, it’s not actually about the science we’ve been admonished about all these years , as we’ve been warned that we must pay up and shape up to ‘save the planet’—on the contrary, it’s all about economics and wealth redistribution by the UN, and I’ll leave you to explain to the world what role it is that AGW climate scientists are playing.
160
Just to correct a computer glitch in the pasting, where a decimal point was left out…
[ On the vital measure of sensitivity…
The IPCC AR4 conclusion on climate sensitivity is stated as:
“The equilibrium climate sensitivity. . . is likely to be in the range 2.oC to 4.5oC with a best estimate of about 3.oC and is very unlikely to be less than 1.5oC. Values higher than 4.5oC cannot be excluded. .”
But the IPCC AR5 conclusion on climate sensitivity is stated as:
Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 1.5°C to 4.5°C (high confidence), extremely unlikely less than 1°C (high confidence), and very unlikely greater than 6°C (medium confidence) ]
10
> 2007… many warmists telling us that the science had now been clear ‘for decades’.
Sounds dubious to me. “Many” decades is at least 2, and 2 decades before 2007 is 1987 which predates even the first IPCC report. And it was clear in that report that there was much still to do. But I notice you don’t provide any support for your assertion.
> about wealth redistribution by the UN—as you now admit
No, I didn’t say that. You could have a more interesting conversation if you engaged with what people say to you, rather than making things up and, effectively, talking to yourself.
> change in the IPCC view between AR4 [ 2007] and AR5 [ 2013], in which the science weakens on almost every aspect.
This, too, is wrong.
> the Royal Society… “Any public perception that the science [of global warming] that the science [of global warming] is somehow fully settled is wholly incorrect”
You seem to have a rigourous policy of never citing your sources. In this case, your source is http://undeceivingourselves.org/I-ipcc.htm which looks rather unreliable to me. The source that used appears to be http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/this-issue/climate-change/royal-society-issues-revised-statement-on-climate-change.html, but if you read that your source has misquoted: the original is “Any public perception that science is somehow fully settled is wholly incorrect — there is always room for new observations, theories, measurements”. Notice that your quote has been faked. The RS says *science* – all science – is never settled. Which is trivially true. Rewriting that to say that only GW isn’t settled is dishonest. Also, the actual statement itself (https://royalsociety.org/~/media/Royal_Society_Content/policy/publications/2010/4294972962.pdf) says none of this, instead it says the obvious mainstream:
“There is strong evidence that the warming of the Earth over the last half-century has
been caused largely by human activity, such as the burning of fossil fuels and changes
in land use, including agriculture and deforestation. The size of future temperature
increases and other aspects of climate change, especially at the regional scale, are still
subject to uncertainty. Nevertheless, the risks associated with some of these changes
are substantial. It is important that decision makers have access to climate science of
the highest quality, and can take account of its findings in formulating appropriate
responses.”
15
WMC…
You claim I don’t provide evidence, but you seem to be the worst example of that here—you’re too busy reprimanding people on minutiae in order to dodge answering inconvenient questions.
You assert that there’s no weakening between AR4 and AR5, but don’t even address the comments from those reports on the hiatus, climate sensitivity and SLR, that clearly show the difference.
You don’t comment on the fact that a $25.40 per tonne carbon tax makes a huge impact on the competitiveness of business and industry, with no comparable country having such an impost .
It was written in answer to your own claims that ‘this level of carbon tax wouldn’t destroy anyone’s industrial base.’
‘Carbon tax now!’ you cry.
Some businesses paid many millions, so what makes you think they would be able to pay that every year and rising, and remain competitive enough to not risk losing markets ?
To assert that, you would have to believe that no business or industry has to worry about competitiveness—ridiculous.
I didn’t alter the Royal Society quote, and if someone has added the words in brackets, it’s not dishonesty but for clarification—probably due to context.
The comment was made in May 2010, after the RS , early in 2010, was accused by 43 of its Fellows, of refusing to listen to dissenting views about man-made causes of global warming.
But in any case the version you provide , doesn’t materially change the point, but just makes it more strongly —that science is always open for alternative views and research —-unless you believe that GW science is a special case that doesn’t belong to the category of ‘science’ and does become settled , and ‘over’ , as we’ve been told by your colleagues all over the world on numerous occasions—and before the research is actually done.
The difference with climate science as it’s been managed by a coterie of CAGW scientists over recent decades, is that so militant are CAGW scientists , and so insistent that the science is settled that , along with a lot of other gatekeeping measures to prevent it from being unsettled by any research they don’t agree with—– they have expressed their intentions to go to the lengths of corrupting the peer review process in order to shut out any research from dissenting scientists —and that’s expressed in their own words in the Climategate emails.
They have also shut down questioning by the taxpayers who fund their research , saying the ‘science is settled’ and saying the time is past for discussing the science.
Your next assertion seems to be saying that the quotes I included are not from the Royal Society, even though you cite a link to the Royal Society.
Your next quote and link is dated September 2010, so it appears to be their attempt to quell the controversy, with the broadest of categories ‘human activity’, in which CO2 is only one part—the other elements ,land use changes and deforestation mentioned, but unmentioned is the huge increase in population, with all of the other impacts that accompany that.
Your objection to the word ‘catastrophic’ is just a diversion. As you would well know, the word has been used a million times around the world to describe AGW—as have numerous other equally alarmist terms.
If your claim is that it’s just the ‘meeja’, then that’s not so, but anyway, it’s the alarmists who feed their messages of catastrophe and tipping points etc to their ‘meeja’, so the ‘meeja’ being almost 100% in the tank with the alarmists, can spread the propaganda for them and keep the funding coming.
You mention the Arctic melt and Greenland, but you never mention the impact of black carbon there and on glaciers permafrost etc.
From the World Bank…
[ ‘BC emissions have a disproportionate influence on the warming of the Arctic. Temperatures in the Arctic have risen twice as fast as the global average over the past 100 years, and BC may be a major contributor to this excess warming.
It has been estimated that a given amount of BC causes twice as much warming in the Arctic as it does in the rest of the world (Hansen and Nazarenko 2004).
Despite its short atmospheric lifetime, the global warming effect of a quantity of BC is huge relative to
an emission of the same mass of CO2. Over roughly its two-week lifetime, one ton of BC can absorb over a million times more radiative energy than a ton of CO2.’ ]
BC is much more easily mitigated than CO2 for almost immediate effect, so why are the ‘consensus’ scientists , who are the ones with the ear of every government in the world and the UN—not using their[ your] clout to get a massive effort going to mitigate that—especially when you’re writing scary stories in Wikipedia like the Runaway Greenhouse Effect story?
Could it be because you don’t want the world to see that mitigation of that impact will lessen the hysteria you require for your real agenda—to use the CO2 alarm to turn the world inside out —destroy resource countries—
If climate scientists really believed the alarmist story they’re flogging, why would they be doing all the gatekeeping and all the time trying to get scientists who disagree with them sacked or sidelined—doesn’t indicate any good intentions at all, I’m afraid.
30
So you really are “That [snip] Connolley”!
[We try to keep it civil here. Mod]
50
Given that the IPCC is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, I detect infinite recursion.
The IPCC determines the science that fits the policy. And a Pachauri stated at a door-stop interview with Deutsche Welle; their purpose is to make up scary stories.
160
WC 5.2: “in the real world GW is about economics and, inevitably, politics…….the science, IPCC has provided that, not all of it of course, but enough”.
That, of course, was the purpose for which they were created.
They have fulfilled their destiny, and, incredibly WC has grown honest – “then is doomsday near”(Hamlet; Act II scene ii)
70
In the real world, it is about science. in the world of politics it is about money and economics. No wonder you have no clue. You have lost any semblance of differentiation between reality and gamesmanship.
80
2 Observations.
#1 – If money is involved, Banks will be.
#2 – The concept of property rights in a Ponzi Scheme do not exist. If you get suckered, it is an expensive lesson. However, when a Ponzi Scheme involves the government, they create imaginary rights out of thin air. They also make it legal, so lawyers love it.
150
Bill Shorten, the banker’s friend, has nailed his colours to the ETS mast.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/14/australia-has-a-choice-join-others-to-combat-climate-change-or-stand-alone
90
Shorten only prefers an ETS because it helps gives the impression that he understands finance and he can toss about words like ‘market mechanism’.
100
Exactly, hes desperately trying to appear to have a policy position, when its clear from watching him speak that he wished it would all just go away so he doesn’t have to continue supporting a position with no votes in it.
40
So the Guardian invokes the consensus argument. (A string of ducklings following the mother is also an example of a consensus.)
I think Tony’s too smart to fall for that one.
80
“There’s no utility in engaging in any significant way with those groups because trying to persuade anyone out of their source of income is obviously doomed to be a waste of effort.”
http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2014/01/17/the-coming-shape-of-2014/
Nobody’s listening to the fanatics nowadays, it’s only the breadheads who’re left in the game. Getting their snouts out of the money trough is the problem.
Pointman
170
Yes pointman but as fast you put one on the spit another takes it’s place at the trough.
20
A I sensing a shift in WC extreme ideologies? LOL
60
No WC is re-inventing himself as “devils Advocate”, to show that he was on your side all along! He has read the writing on the wall and has seen the inevitable collapse of the AGW narrative over the next year as the BRIC nations give the finger to “emission reduction” leaving Obama and the EU like beached whales bleaching under the “neglected sun”. China and India have declared “no deal” rendering the decarbonisation agenda an exercise in futility. See Pointman’s essay – the only driver left is cupidity.
90
Am I… should have been…
10
And now you know why Malcolm Turnbull is such a big supporter of such schemes……,
110
Bill Shorten basically capitulated yesterday. Lots of long bow BS about how Tony has doomed the planet, then a complete squib on what the ALP’s future direction will be, so at least hes realised flogging a dead horse does in fact get boring after a while.
Meantime…. Climate adjusted death toll zero for the greens. Anyone dies in a fire and granny Milne is all over TV reminding us the planet is melting, 3 people die in the snow this year and you can only hear crickets shivering.
Warmists have now in my opinion officially earned the title of deniers.
130
More from the Hockey Schtick, telling us what any real scientist already knows.
Solar and Ocean cycles are the MAIN DRIVERS OF CLIMATE.
CO2… basically INSIGNIFICANT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
121
***Anita obviously doesn’t go to pubs! this is rich coming from BBC, the CHAMPIONS of ****minority views on everything. mind u, are CAGW sceptics in the minority these days? not in my experience:
14 July: UK Telegraph: Anita Singh: Climate change sceptics ‘must be heard on the BBC’
BBC shouldn’t “squeeze out” climate change sceptics just because scientists say they’re wrong, says editor of Today programme
The BBC must air the views of climate change sceptics even though they are in the ****minority, the editor of Radio 4’s Today programme has said after he was criticised for allowing Nigel Lawson to feature in a debate…
But Jamie Angus, editor of Today, said Lord Lawson deserved to be heard despite holding a minority view…
***“People always raise flat earth at this point, but if you go into a pub on Oxford Street you won’t find anyone who says the earth is flat, but you will probably find a couple of people who are unconvinced by the science of climate change.
“Clearly the BBC has to reflect what is a relatively settled view of the majority of scientists… but absolutely should not squeeze out alternative points of view, and we haven’t.”…
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/10965729/Climate-change-sceptics-must-be-heard-on-the-BBC.html
desprate to keep the meme going that the YOUNG believe:
14 July: UK Telegraph: Matthew Holehouse: People who claim to worry about climate change use more electricity
People who say they are concerned about climate change use more electricity than those who say the issue is ‘too far away to worry about’, government-commissioned study finds
Those who say they are concerned about the prospect of climate change consume more energy than those who say it is “too far into the future to worry about,” the study commissioned by the Department for Energy and Climate Change found.
That is in part due to age, as people over 65 are more frugal with electricity but much less concerned about global warming.
However, even when pensioners are discounted, there is only a “weak trend” to show that people who profess to care about climate change do much to cut their energy use.
The findings were based on the Household Electricity Survey, which closely monitored the electricity use and views of 250 families over a year. The report, by experts from Loughborough University and Cambridge Architectural Research, was commissioned and published by DECC…
The researchers wrote: “Taken all together, householders who strongly agreed they were not worried about climate change because it was too far in the future in fact used less electricity rather than more, counter to the hypothesis that households concerned about climate change use less electricity.
“However, we found this was largely due to the effect of age, as older households were much more likely to agree with this statement, and also had lower energy consumption.
“When we separated the pensioner households from the younger ones, there was no significant relationship between this statement and energy use in the pensioner group, and only a weak trend among younger households.”…
***The findings will strengthen the case of those who argue that more coercive methods are needed if people’s energy consumption is to be reduced…
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/greenpolitics/10965887/People-who-claim-to-worry-about-climate-change-use-more-electricity.html
***”more coercive methods are needed”…LOL.
40
I hope the banks get stuck with those bits of worthless paper.
On another note…I believe July 15 will be known as ‘Repeal Day’. All indications point to such. I’ve decided not to work today in the view of celebrating.
Still, much more to be done and I see that Labor will take an ETS to the next election. Fools, the lot of them!
120
“I hope the banks get stuck with those bits of worthless paper.”
As Jo pointed out, that’s what happened in the GFC. The Big Money Boys had been calling for ‘deregulation free trade get the government out of business” and all that stuff. They got the deregulation, and promptly went mad.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzJmTCYmo9g
(Clarke and Dawe did an explanation too, but I can’t find a working link.)
It fell apart, and they were suddenly all in favour of government welfare payments to the banks (screw the pensioners, the sick, etc.) in order to keep their grotesque bonuses coming in. And the governments complied. (Though Iceland didn’t. Tossed bankers in jail, instead. Economy recovered quickly.)
What makes you think it will be any different with the LGCs?
30
What makes you believe under a different government, a completely different fiscal environment that it would be the same?
20
It probably wouldn’t be the same under the Icelandic government, but under an Australian Coalition or Labor government, I can’t see any reason to expect any difference. The Coalition set up the LGC system, Labor didn’t take it down, and they all suck up to the banks.
20
Is this it? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJYWyTwhxo0&feature=kp
00
Looks like the repeal might be not dealt with today. Possibly tonight or tomorrow.
Talk about stringing it out!
30
Meanwhile in africa…
Britain to fund South African carbon trading experiment
http://af.reuters.com/article/topNews/idAFKBN0FJ1F120140714
(Reuters) – Britain will expand funding for a programme to help coal-rich South Africa develop a carbon trading market in an attempt to rein in its rising greenhouse gas emissions.
The British High Commission in Pretoria last week said it will fund a pilot emissions trading programme from next year to help companies prepare for a 120-rand-per-tonne ($11.21) carbon tax that is expected to come into force in 2016.
The value of the grant was not disclosed.
The launch of South African’s carbon tax, which would apply to major emitters including steel giant ArcelorMittal, utility Eskom [ESCJ.UL] and petrochemical group Sasol, was delayed by one year to allow more time for planning and consultation with stakeholders.
30
Isn’t the Australian Government taskforce due to report in August on the future of the RET?
Will they be the ones to come clean on what the RET is costing us in higher electricity prices?
I’ve tried asking Greg Hunt and he evades the question.
It’s a simple proposition really – if wind and solar are competitive, then there is no need for government regulation through the RET.
40
Answers.
Yes.
Yes.
Why would the Minister pre-empt the taskforce? Especially when the left poses as supporters to trip him up.
30
john –
re your South African link:
– The British High Commission’s grant, awarded through its Prosperity Fund, will for a second time go to Johannesburg-based Promethium Carbon.
“Funding from the Prosperity Fund will assist to fast track the development of a local carbon trading system in preparation for the carbon tax,” said Robbie Louw, a director at Promethium… –
Promethium Carbon South Africa – History
Promethium Carbon was started in the late 1990’s as a corporate finance consulting company. By 2003 the decision was taken to refocus the business to environmental finance. We started doing carbon finance work based on linking the Kyoto Protocol mechanisms to the European Union Emission Trading Scheme even before the Kyoto Protocol came into force. Promethium Carbon contributed to the establishment of a global carbon market by developing a number of new methodologies on the basis of which projects can be developed under the Clean Development Mechanism of the Kyoto Protocol.
During 2009 the company focus was further developed when we disinvested from all activities that were not focused solely on carbon and climate change. From 2009 onwards Promethium Carbon has been a pure-play carbon company…
http://www.promethium.co.za/company-history/
May 2013: Business Day Live: Nick Hedley: Carbon tax ‘a burden to commercial property’
Robbie Louw, a director at carbon advisory firm Promethium Carbon, said last week the carbon tax liabilities of commercial property owners would be captured “largely in the electricity bills when Eskom passes through the tax they pay through to consumers”.
The impact would be just below 5c/kWh, Mr Louw said. “The impact on the property owners will depend on how they handle the electricity cost in the lease agreements — I suspect they will pass the cost on to their tenants.” In the case of property developers, Mr Louw said the carbon tax would “put pressure on building materials — especially cement”.
“If we assume that the cement manufacturers pass through the carbon cost in full, the impact should be in the order of R1.50 to R3 per bag, depending on the grade of cement…
“The property industry has been investing in sustainable technologies — often without return, and this additional tax will ironically have an impact on our ability to improve our sustainability,” Mr de Klerk said.
“I believe it is punitive on the industry and a deterrent to local and foreign investment.”
http://www.bdlive.co.za/business/property/2013/05/27/carbon-tax-a-burden-to-commercial-property
30
14 July: All Africa: South Africa Launches One of Africa’s Biggest Wind Farms
Built by a consortium led by British company Globeleq, the 138 megawatt (MW) wind farm is one of Africa’s biggest – larger than the 120 MW Ashegoda windfarm that was unveiled by Ethiopia in October 2013, though not as big as the Tarfaya wind farm in south-western Morocco, which started producing energy in April and will eventually generate up to 300 MW of electricity…
The Jeffrey’s Bay wind farm, comprising sixty 80-metre high turbines spread over 3 700 hectares, will supply enough clean, renewable electricity to power more than 100 000 homes a year, helping South Africa to avoid production of 420 000 tonnes of carbon dioxide annually.
The facility was built under the government’s renewable energy programme for independent power producers, which aims to add 3 725 MW of wind, solar photovoltaic and concentrating solar power to South Africa’s energy mix.
In May, Globeleq and its local and international partners unveiled the 50 MW De Aar and 50 MW Droogfontein solar photovoltaic plants in the Northern Cape. Also part of the government’s programme, the two plants represented a combined investment of R3-billion…
Globeleq is the majority shareholder in the consortium that built the three facilities, the others being Ireland-based Mainstream Renewable Power, Thebe Investment Corporation, South African engineering firms Enzani Technologies and Usizo Engineering, and local community trusts…
http://allafrica.com/stories/201407142158.html
.pdf: WarOnWant: Globeleq: The Alternative Report
Introduction:…
This report looks at the international power company Globeleq. Globeleq was set up in 2002 by the UK government’s Department for International Development (DFID) as part of its strategy of “promoting the private sector in the developing world”. The company remains wholly owned by DFID through its private sector promotion arm, CDC. Globeleq now has operations in the energy sectors of 16 countries in Africa,Asia and Latin America, and is actively pursuing further acquisitions in its bid to be “the fastest growing power company in the emerging markets”.
In the process it has transferred over US$1 billion of UK aid money to US power companies wishing to exit those markets. Yet the involvement of international power companies in the energy sectors of developing countries has been deeply problematic.As shown by previous research conducted by the Public Services International Research Unit and others, the poor have often found themselves excluded from access to privatised electricity as prices have spiralled out of their reach…
DFID’s global power empire
Globeleq is primarily a power generation company, producing electricity from a variety of sources including natural gas, fuel oil, coal, geothermal and hydroelectric power…
Although Globeleq functions as a private company with its own board of directors, it differs from other power companies in one significant respect. Globeleq was set up by the UK government’s Department for International Development (DFID) as part of its strategy of “promoting the private sector in the developing world”. DFID launched Globeleq in 2002 as the power sector arm of its own CDC Group (see box), and in January 2004 separated Globeleq off as a stand-alone concern to run CDC’s power portfolio.
Globeleq still returns 100% of its net profits to CDC as its sole shareholder, and seeks additional capital from CDC as and when needed for expansion purposes.
Globeleq is wholly owned by CDC, which is in turn wholly owned by DFID…
Energy privatisation and poverty
World Bank commentators have acknowledged that privatisation will indeed entail significant price rises, and that their
impact will fall especially hard on the poor…
Electricity privatisation has proved hugely unpopular in many of the countries in which Globeleq operates. In Arequipa, southern Peru, mass protests erupted when the government attempted to privatise two electricity companies in 2002, with two people killed and 150 injured.
The Dominican Republic saw mass demonstrations after the privatisation of electricity led to an increase in tariffs and left the government more than US$135 million in debt to private firms.
Scrambling for Africa…
http://www.waronwant.org/past-campaigns/extra/inform/16393-globeleq-the-alternative-report
30
J-Bay to be infested with bird jammers … there goes one of the world’s best surfing breaks, despoiled by green power.
30
Do people realized that: Industry supposedly released 24 tonnes of CO2 per year.
average human release 374 tonnes of CO2 by breathing alone (data: 10liter breathed per minutes, with 4% CO2), CO2 is 44g/mole, 1 mole is 24.7L.
Average human excrement is 30g of carbone (or a stagering 10 tonnes a year…
without comment (please let me know if I missed a data)
Anselem. What do you mean 24tonnes per year? Is that meant to be Gt? Is that worldwide, or Australian? – Jo
00
source:
http://www.carbonneutral.com.au/climate-change/australian-emissions.html
I made a mistake, the 24.4 tonnes of CO2 attributed to each Australian are for the first six month of 2012.
Still, I ran the data on human biology originated CO2 again, and they seem correct.
Thanks for the link. I see what you mean: “our national inventory emissions per capita were about 24.4 tonnes carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) per person. “- Jo
00
forgot to conclude that they will soon succeed in taxing us for breathing.
00
Why does nearly every thread recently turn into the Will Connolly show?
Jo, Clearly you must be onto something if this blog is his new obsession.
60
Just scroll past, I do because reading the trash is a waste of time.
Jo, you missed a zero in your graph but I could live with a 2% RET.
60
We could probably reach the 5% target just by updating our COAL fired power stations to new combined cycle processes.
All these “non-alternative” wind turbines etc are just a waste of time and money.
30
We could reduce our so called ’emissions’ by demanding that our 30% of combustion/natural bushfires be removed from accounting.
I had this out with Combet’s office years ago when Labor stated we were the highest emitters per capita. Remember that? It lasted less than a fortnight after I took them on…CC-ing Tony of course.
I’m a bad, bad boy.
20
I would like to know why he insist on trying to promote his blog here,given that why would you waste your time posting on it,as in one instance it’s highly likely that your post,if it contradicts his theory won’t make it past moderation,and it’s likely it would be given the same treatment as happens on the Skeptical Science site as well. Why would any sane person tolerate that kind of behaviour?
20
Michael, if you post on his blog he gets your email address. Could lead to an avalanche of abuse, spam and other consequences.
I’ve been dealing with these f@#$ers for years. Got to sink down to their level to beat them at their own twisted game. Best not to go there.
10
> gets your email address
Don’t be silly, of course I don’t. I just get whatever email address you’ve chosen to provide, which can be faked if you choose. What blog-owners actually get is your IP address, unless you go to considerable lengths to hide it.
> won’t make it past moderation
Pretty unlikely. Unlike WUWT (http://stoat-spam.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/wuwt-why-climate-change-doesnt-scare-me.html) and BishopHill (http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2014/05/21/adventures-in-the-denialosphere/) I don’t censor comments (even rude nonsense gets published, albeit off to the side. E.g. http://stoat-spam.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/you-all-are-demonstrable-painful-stick.html).
03
William Connelly Perhaps you should take a little more care with what you write as it gives the impression, which I’m sure is entirely false, that you are a sneering, mealy mouthed, condescending prig with some IT skills who believes these skills give him the right to patronise others. You sneer at Kenneth Richard for using the term the average as this is statistics for children. In your view if someone uses the term average should the SD and/or SEM be included to make it more statistically acceptable? You replies give the impression, again I’m sure one that is false, that you and you alone are privy to the secrets of the universe. I note that in your condescending discourse regarding what the RS did or did not say about “science” being settled that the Royal Society stated ““There is strong evidence that the warming of the Earth over the last half-century has been caused largely by human activity, such as the burning of fossil fuels and changes in land use, including agriculture and deforestation. The size of future temperature increases and other aspects of climate change, especially at the regional scale, are still subject to uncertainty’.” That doesn’t really give the impression that the “science is settled” regarding climate change. And perhaps you would advise how much of the “warming of the Earth over the last half-century” is due to the burning of fossil fuel and how much to changes in land use. As you probably are aware the focus of climate scientists and other computer modellers has been virtually entirely on the burning of fossil fuels but what if changes to land use are of greater relevance? Could they be? If not why not? I look forward to your response and hope you will regard my comments in the spirit in which they were made as I am sure a little attention to your writing skills would entirely eradicate the impression of a bumptious bully that your comments to date have created.
10
That’s exactly what happens on WC’s dunny blog.
30
The sensible long term solution to finite fossil fuels is nuclear fusion as we have copious quantities of deuterium in the sea but Au has a lack of physics graduates.
When Uni of W Sydney needed more science students they offered scholarships. Through this program my son was enticed and assisted through his degree and stepped directly into a power station chemistry position and the various taxes he’s now paying will soon have repaid Australia’s investment in him.
The process is simple and there are plenty of bright enough school students out there but we need to trick some buffoon in government to pave they way for Au to have a long-term nuclear physics resurgence.
I’d be happy to pay a fusion research tax on electricity providing it did not circulate through a bank or government department where it could be eroded down or mis-used. Energy companies could be obliged to fund, support and encourage X number of individuals on a contractual arrangement each year. My son had a summer holiday job as an apprentice in the power station where he now has a job. It seems this is their way of sourcing new staff.
The current layers of money transfers are generally from the less able to afford it within Au society, to those who don’t really need it and a huge amount is wasted on unnecessary bureaucracy and we are all aware that it now has zilch to do with climate. It’s time to bull-doze the fake system and take an entirely fresh view of energy security.
30
William Connolley..what a splendid example of the The Dunning–Kruger effect,(thats the illusory superiority bit Bill) 🙂 but with a dash of Poes law. 🙂
30
Point 3 seems to be particularly applicable to the WC…
“3.fail to recognize the extremity of their inadequacy;”
20
Well the bankers all over the world are going nuts
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-07-14/chinas-secret-money-laundering-story-goes-mainstream-promptly-censored
The Chinese are buying up Australia – among other places.
10