Home » AGW and climate change » AGW true believers

Category Archives: AGW true believers

Dead, deceased, it is no more, it has shuffled off its mortal coil, the Carbon tax has fucking snuffed it, or death of a vile impost on our lives.

The tragedy of the Carbon tax/ETS is not in its passing but that it ever existed in the first place because it was always based on a false premise, namely that it was ever going to make the slightest bit of difference to the global climate and so many leaders, on both sides of politics have been destroyed by it.  It took out Rudd, Turnbull and Gillard in turn and it also played its part in taking out the resurrected Rudd as well. There has been more bullshit produced to promote the various incarnations of this toxic scheme than our national herd. And for what? All that it ever gave us was a wildly expensive token gesture and a rather nasty piece of socialist wealth redistribution which in layman’s language means it was a totally useless money churn.

Even if you believe the AGW proposition there is no reason to believe in the often chanted mantra that the best way to address it is through a “market mechanism” because there is absolutely no reason to believe that such a mechanism  can ever produce the desired outcome without some nasty unforeseen consequences, of which the massive spike in energy costs is a rather good example, and before anyone says “its the gold plating of the poles and wires” that caused the majority  of those price rises  I’m going to say that the “gold plating” is just another example of the same thinking that the poor long suffering consumers are an eternal milch cow that can be taken for granted by planers and ideologues just as they take for granted the idea that costs for essential commodities can rise endlessly  and no one will suffer or object.

Suffer and object we have and now the vile impost on every aspect of our lives has be dispatched to the dustbin of history and any claims that it will bring down Abbott in its passing are utterly ridiculous. The trend in technology now  is very much focused on energy being used as efficiently as possible and for that I do think that, to some extent,  we can  thank the panic merchants of the Green Religion but just as we can take from the Christian religion useful notions of community and what makes a good society without taking on the supernatural Mumbo Jumbo of that faith. So to we can take the good things that have come from the Green religion, like seeing our planet and its biosphere as a whole and complexly interconnected entity of which we are just a small part, but we can let go of its millenarian prognostications and dire predictions of doom  because no matter what life and the earth itself is far more resilient and adaptive than the doom merchants of the Green religion are willing to admit

Cheers Comrades

no_carbon_tax

The Clown Compact

click for source

click for source

Ok Comrades its time to admit that something has surprised me in politics, thankfully for my dear readers that does not happen very often. You see I did not expect the Palmer Gore love in that we saw yesterday in the media who were going on as if what was announced would be upsetting the Abbott government. First the positives the hated Carbon tax will be abolished and its repeal bills passed and also a positive is that the “direct action policy appears to be impossible to pass. The renewable energy target thing is a relatively  minor inconvenience     as is the block the government’s plans to scrap the Clean Energy Finance Corporation especially if the cost savings from no direct action policy is taken into account. The final positive is that Palmer has proven, with one fell swoop, that he is about as real and genuine as one of  his robot dinosaurs. Talk about playing both ends of the field! After this we need a brand new superlative for hypocrisy, here is a coal miner getting up  close and personal with a high priest of the Green religion, Ah well they do have utter hypocrisy in common.

What we can be sure of is that the Palmer circus is going to be entertaining us for a while yet with or without imported clowns like Al Gore

Cheers Comrades

gore pray

Clive and Al are of one mind on this

But, as Cook points out, this means that ‘only four per cent of the authors “voted”‘ which is hardly grounds to claim a consensus.

Chariots of the Dogs

Chariots of the Dogs

Here is a lovely exposition of the way that statistics can be manipulated and distorted as a propaganda tool and then cited ad infinitum as if they have some intrinsic meaning, sorry in advance to the true believers in Climate change but this may just upset your apple cart just a little next time you cite the “97% consensus” claim.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Tuesday 28 May 2014
Media Contact: Tim Black
+44 (0)207 40 40 470
tim.black@spiked-online.com

Today on spiked, Michael Cook takes apart the claim, cited by President Barack Obama, that 97 per cent of scientists are in agreement that climate change is man-made and poses a serious danger.

‘Do 97 per cent of scientists really agree on both propositions? Let?s do a reality check here’, writes Cook. ‘On what issue do academics reach 97 per cent agreement other than that they are being underpaid? That the sun will rise tomorrow? No, some of them will say, because the sun doesn?t rise; the earth revolves. No, because we can only assert that it is probable, not certain. No, because we might be living in a multiverse where the sun will not rise on 28 May, etc, etc.’

So how did an Australian scientist at the University of Queensland, and several colleagues, arrive at the this now famous figure of 97 per cent?

Cook discovered that the researchers had sorted through thousands of academic abstracts featuring the words ‘global climate change’ and ‘global warming’, dividing them up into four piles to indicate whether they held a position on climate change (the biggest pile (66.4 per cent) held no position)

Cook writes: ‘Of the smaller piles which did express an opinion, 97.1 per cent “endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming”.’ 

The researchers then emailed a survey to 8,547 out of the 29,083 authors who ‘endorsed the consensus position’ on climate change, of which only 1,189 responded (nearly all of whom did agree that climate change was man made (97.2 per cent)).

But, as Cook points out, this means that ‘only four per cent of the authors “voted”‘ which is hardly grounds to claim a consensus. 

Furthermore, Cook points out, ‘Obama rashly added the word “dangerous” to the claim. Not even [the Australian reseachers] dared to assert that 97 per cent of scientists believe that global warming is “dangerous”.’

Cook concludes: ‘Scientists and politicians do themselves no favours when they use shoddy statistics and public relations flim-flam to sell scientific hypotheses to the public.’ 

Read the full article:
http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/global-warming-the-97-fallacy/15069

When we are given any numerical value as a signifier of a proposition’s veracity we should, of course always ask the obvious question of just how was that number made or settled upon. Especially when it is a major  dot point in the climate change debate. In any event in scientific terms “consensus” is and always has been close to utterly meaningless, not that any of the true believers will ever admit that because to them its their ticket to ride in the Chariots of the Dogs.

Cheers Comrades

this post was produced entirely with puppy power

this post was produced entirely with sustainable  puppy power

A small virtue from the fattest man in Australian politics

Despite my Re-blogging of Yale’s Clive Palmer post and my, well, less than complementary assessment of the fat man it seems that of he is true to his word he may just be able to Save the Abbott government from itself by preventing the creation of the expensive and pointless “direct action ” climate policy .

Clive Palmer has declared the Abbott government’s Direct Action policy is “dead”, saying his Palmer United Party will use its numbers in the Senate to block the Coalition’s policy to replace the carbon tax.

Mr Palmer said on Monday the controversial policy, which aims to reduce emissions largely through payments to businesses, was “hopeless” and would be “gone” if his party,  Labor and the Greens all vote against it, as they have previously indicated.

“It’s goodbye Direct Action,” Mr Palmer told Fairfax Media.

“It’s gone.”

Mr Palmer had said earlier in the day he would not support Direct Action if the Abbott government made any changes to the pension, in light of

growing speculation that there are plans to raise the pension age to 70 and tighten eligibility requirements.

But on Monday afternoon Mr Palmer went a step further and said there would not be any circumstance in which his party would vote for Direct Action.

The government  plans to spend up to $1.55 billion over the next three years on the scheme, but several senior economists have questioned whether Direct Action can meet its emissions reduction target of 5 per cent by 2020 with that budget.

Mr Palmer said the policy did not make economic sense and questioned whether it would have any environmental effect.

“We can’t see any reason to vote for Direct Action,” Mr Palmer said.

“We think it’s hopeless.”

I am of  course assuming that Palmer also helps Abbott abolish the Carbon taxes. It can only be a win win situation for all of the climate change  panic  fueled nonsense to be removed from our political agendas. Oh the loopy Greens will definitely have conniptions and tell us yet again that the sky will definitely fall and that Palmer is an agent of Big Coal (Duh, like who cares?)  Just think it through Comrades imagine an economy where the government does not have to waste time and treasure on any “response to climate change” (won’t Joe Hockey love that?) but where Tony Abbott can legitimately  say that he tried to  do something about it but he just could not do it due to Palmer!
Politics is the ultimate game and its the bit players trying to punch above their weight that can throw up some interesting scenarios for the polity to admire or abhor, thus it was the pernicious influence of the Loopy Greens that saw Gillard ultimately undone over the issue of Climate Change and that silly silly promise made and then broken. Now we may end up seeing the total flip-side of that scenario  with Abbott able to abandon a policy that can only ever be a rather empty gesture.
Oh and finally, I managed to get up another tweet on QandA! which I cite because it has the vaguest connection to the topic.

Its a nice bit of sport for a Monday night Comrades

 

willow-green-wings-animated

 

The IPCC now says it’s OK to adapt to ‘climate change’

Find below an excellent piece by Don Aitkin about the shift in the IPCC focus from mitigation to adaptation, which is something that I have been rabbiting on about for many years both here and elsewhere. I republish it here under the  terms of its creative commons licence. Further this post is dedicated to PKD  who still has not produced that long promised essay on Climate change.

When I first became interested in global warming ten years ago what puzzled me at once was the insistence on ‘mitigation’ — reducing or abolishing carbon dioxide emissions — and the  almost complete indifference to ‘adaptation’ — preparing in advance to deal with droughts, floods, high temperatures, and all the rest of the climate possibilities. We seemed to  be doing something in that direction, but hardly enough.

Professor Bob Carter, one scientist that has been sceptical from the beginning of the global warming scare, suggested long ago that Australia adopt  and adapt the New Zealand civil defence management system, which is built around the ’4 Rs’ — Reduction, Readiness, Response, Recovery. As any Australian of mature years knows, we are prone to natural ‘disasters’, and our SES system is one form of our own preparedness.

But the IPCC has never been interested. For it the key thing has been to get carbon emissions down before disaster overwhelms us. As I have argued many times, this strategy has three weaknesses: it is practically unfeasible to do it quickly, it cannot be done on a global scale, and the outcome of whatever any country does will have no discernible effect on temperature there. Given ‘the pause’, now approaching 18 years on one measure, one could also argue that there is no immediate need to do anything at all in the mitigation department. Isn’t it time, for example, that we built some more ‘flood-proofing’ dams?

Well, the IPCC has now given what seems to be a cautious go-ahead to adaptation. According to Chris Field , one of the co-chairs of the new report,

The really big breakthrough in this report is the new idea of thinking about managing climate change… Climate-change adaptation is not an exotic agenda that has never been tried. Governments, firms, and communities around the world are building experience with adaptation. This experience forms a starting point for bolder, more ambitious adaptations that will be important as climate and society continue to change.

Dr Field also declaredThe natural human tendency is to want things to be clear and simple. And one of the messages that doesn’t just come from the IPCC, it comes from history, is that the future doesn’t ever turn out the way you think it will be… being prepared for a wide range of possible futures is just always smart.

Does this mean that the IPCC is giving up on ‘mitigation’. No. But, at least it seems to me that, the IPCC may well be coming to the view that if it is to survive, it will have to have more than the mitigation arrow in its quiver. If I am right, then we can expect more IPCC papers on how best to adapt. Judith Curry devoted her 30 March blog to this subject, which drew 787 comments at last count. She cited an article by Andrew Lilico she had read in the Telegraph (London), which put forward the following:

… the global GDP costs of an expected global average temperature increase of 2.5 degrees Celsius over the 21st century will be between 0.2 and 2 per cent. To place that in context, the well-known Stern Review of 2006 estimated the costs as 5-20 per cent of GDP. Stern estimates the costs of his recommended policies for mitigating climate change at 2 per cent of GDP – and his estimates are widely regarded as relatively optimistic (others estimate mitigation costs as high as 10 per cent of global GDP). At a 2.4 per cent annual GDP growth rate, the global economy increases 0.2 per cent every month.

So the mitigation deal has become this: Accept enormous inconvenience, placing authoritarian control into the hands of global agencies, at huge costs that in some cases exceed 17 times the benefits even on the Government’s own evaluation criteria, with a global cost of 2 per cent of GDP at the low end and the risk that the cost will be vastly greater, and do all of this for an entire century, and then maybe – just maybe – we might save between one and ten months of global GDP growth.

Whereas previously the IPCC emphasised the effects climate change could have if not prevented, now the focus has moved on to how to make economies and societies resilient and to adapt to warming now considered inevitable. Climate exceptionalism – the notion that climate change is a challenge of a different order from, say, recessions or social inclusion or female education or many other important global policy goals – is to be down played. Instead, the new report emphasised that adapting to climate change is one of many challenges that policymakers will face but should have its proper place alongside other policies.

Our first step in adapting to climate change should be to accept that we aren’t going to mitigate it. We’re going to have to adapt. That doesn’t mean there might not be the odd mitigation-type policy, around the edges, that is cheap and feasible and worthwhile. But it does mean that the grandiloquent schemes for preventing climate change should go. Their day is done. Even the IPCC – albeit implicitly – sees that now.

It’s all too soon to say where this is going. But it would seem to me that the Abbott Government could pick up the drift and win a brownie point or two by talking sagely about ‘adaptation’ — and quote the IPCC in so doing.

The latest from the IPCC

As is my want I have been dabbling with commenting at the Guardian and its an interesting game of cat and mouse to see just what I can get past the moderators  who are quite amusingly incredibly politically correct.  They have a most incredibly biased moderation and they give free reign to the Millenarian catastrophe fans of the  parsimonious Green persuasion. its the sort of challenge that I enjoy a great deal . Quite predictably they are having a sort of masturbatory online orgasm with the releases of the  IPCC  and treating this political document as if its John Smiths golden pages or the stone slabs brought down from the mountain by Moses but from what I have seen its very much a case of “same old same old” tosh that they have been peddling for years. About the only tick that I can give the document is that it does seem to contain a tacit concession that mitigation can not be made to work at a global level. Considering how long they have had to prepare this political document it don’t amount to much.  James Delingpole has a lovely satirical take on it:

click for source

click for source

The really scary thing about James piece is that many of the misanthropic Greenies are dreaming of  the predicted apocolypse with a sort of sadomasochistic delight at the prospect that their predictions  will mean millions dead dying or suffering unremitting misery. I am only surprised that they have not yet decided that things like the Ebola outbreak in Africa is a good thing and that it may just be a damn good idea to propagate similar  pandemics around the world to cure the planet of the human disease

Cheers Comrades

are you ready to fight the horrors of the climate apocalypse?

are you ready to fight the horrors of the climate apocalypse?

50 to 1

Worth a look Comrades

Climate-change-new-survey-001

Evan Keith Beaver , RET and Twitter

solar-panels-being-installed-on-a-residential-roof

I never wanted to be the sort of blogger who writes about their Tweeting stoushes but the exchange that I had yesterday was both amusing and revealing about the nature of the devotees to the Green religion,

Evan Keith Beaver@evcricket 

We’re in a democracy, so now to hold the LNP to account we get organised and stick a fork in them. If you want renewables TELL THEM LOUDLY

@evcricket why should I be paying for your renewables through my power bill

@evcricket because if you want them then you should pay for them

@evcricket Now you are copping out! Either justify the subsidies for renewables or admit its unfair to bankroll the Green vanity

@theiainhall Or option 3: don’t debate obstinates on twitter.

@evcricket You assume that renewables are a virtue if so what do they even need subsidies?

@theiainhall Look, you don’t think carbon pollution is a problem so I really couldn’t care less what you think of energy policy

@evcricket whay should what I do or don’t believe oblige me to pay for Green vanity?

@theiainhall Iain, are you impaired? I think I’ve made it pretty clear I’m not going to waste my time on you

@evcricket In the last decade my energy bills have more than doubled, some due to gold plating & Green subsidies. Zero effect on climate

@theiainhall Okay you won’t answer the question. Thanks for playing.

@evcricket Evan, the collapse of renewables energy subsidies coming for a long time, it has become too popular&expensive and unsustainable

@theiainhall Whatever. Like I said, I don’t care what you think of energy policy

@evcricket but you still want ME to subsidize renewables??

@theiainhall Exactly. Same reason you pay for cancer research yet know nothing about it. Experts do, let them make decisions

@evcricket your faith in “EXPERTS” is so delicious in its naivete, If an expert suggests you suicide for the sake of the planet would you?

@theiainhall What is a suicide expert Iain? Anyway, can you answer my question?

@evcricket your “question” is no question btw

@evcricket A question has to have a particular form and your tweet is no question

@theiainhall ok I get it. Being a dickhead just comes naturally.

Evan Keith Beaver@evcricket 13h @theiainhall What evidence would convince you that we need to do something about CO2 emissions?

@evcricket AT Last! Strewth that was worse than pulling a bad tooth with rusty pliers!

@evcricket Firstly I would need to know what that “something” is and that the act would be more than just symbolic.

@evcricket secondly I would need to be convinced with empirical evidence that the “something” would be cost effective.

Iain Hall@theiainhall

  • @evcricket Thirdly that enduring global cooperation for the next millennium (or longer) could be achieved

Isn’t the attitude of my interlocutor just so cute? He really believes that everyone should be happy that policies like the Renewable Energy Target raises the cost of energy for ordinary people, I have no doubt from previous writings of the author that he believes that the Carbon Tax is the best thing since sliced bread and its immanent repeal will be a terrible sin against Gaia. But most sadly amusing is his intense faith in “Experts” and is total suspension of any reasoning when it comes to what they say. Its what the faithful used to say about the clergy when they held far greater sway over the lives of the people the sad thing is we are consonantly told by the trendies and social media wonks that this is the age of the individual who is both connected and contribution to our collective wisdom through the wonders of social media.  To the likes of Evan Keith Beaver though all that matters is that those  with the “correct” political orientation, the cultural elite that he sees himself as part of, should impose their ideas and values upon the rest of us. Notions of social democracy go straight out the window so  his “experts” are to remain unchallenged.

I actually like the idea that social media can be an important tool in a vibrant and active democracy but it saddens me that so many of the leftists who have been its early adopters now think that it should forever be their instrument of control, that their clicktavissm should be supreme and anyone who dissents from their orthodoxy is to be derided and ignored. The irony is that the review of the Renewable Energy Target has been scheduled since before the last election, in fact its part of the legislation under which the target was created in the first place so there is no reason at all to think that it means that this article of faith for the Green religion is, of necessity , going to be abolished. Personally I think that having a diverse variety of energy sources has great virtue. However the quest to achieve this through subsidies and overly generous feed in tariffs and other incentives   has had some rather nasty consequences for those who are least able to afford them. I am talking about those who rent, those who can not afford to put the solar panels on their roof, the poor who struggle to pay their energy bills all of these people subsidise the likes of Evan Keith Beaver ‘s religious belief in Climate Change while he and his Latte sipping cronies think that they are “doing their bit” for climate change the poor and downtrodden in our country are struggling to pay those ever increasing energy bills. Its not just , its not fair and the hypocrisy of minions of the left who think like this is just breathtaking.

Cheers Comrades

Pay for your own bloody renewable energy!!!

Pay for your own bloody renewable energy!!!

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 256 other followers

%d bloggers like this: