Saturday, July 31, 2010
Why Labor's solar plan in Victoria is a total crock. Only likely plant has already lost investors $130m
The utter naivety of the boosters of these green cons and ponzi schemes never ceases to amaze me. No matter how many times it is pointed out to them that none of the sums add up, they keep coming back for more!
Much more here.
Time explains what the Taliban will do - and not just to girls who run away from their husbands - if it gains even more power.
It goes without saying, (or should do), that it is the Americans who have saved this young woman and she'll be sent to the United States for treatment, and may already be there. I remember seeing her story several months ago.
This is the kind of barbaric savagery that we are fighting in the form of radical Islamism.
Clearly I’ve been out of some loop for too long, but does everyone take for granted now that science sites are where graduate students, researchers, doctors and the “skeptical community” go not to interpret data or review experiments but to chip off one-liners, promote their books and jeer at smokers, fat people and churchgoers? And can anyone who still enjoys this class-inflected bloodsport tell me why it has to happen under the banner of science?
Hammering away at an ideology, substituting stridency for contemplation, pummeling its enemies in absentia: ScienceBlogs has become Fox News for the religion-baiting, peak-oil crowd. Though Myers and other science bloggers boast that they can be jerky in the service of anti-charlatanism, that’s not what’s bothersome about them. What’s bothersome is that the site is misleading. It’s not science by scientists, not even remotely; it’s science blogging by science bloggers. And science blogging, apparently, is a form of redundant and effortfully incendiary rhetoric that draws bad-faith moral authority from the word “science” and from occasional invocations of “peer-reviewed” thises and thats.
Under cover of intellectual rigor, the science bloggers — or many of the most visible ones, anyway — prosecute agendas so charged with bigotry that it doesn’t take a pun-happy French critic or a rapier-witted Cambridge atheist to call this whole ScienceBlogs enterprise what it is, or has become: class-war claptrap.
Via Watts Up With That?, where there is more comment.
Friday, July 30, 2010
Peter Van Onselen is right, if we knew what we know now back in 2007, we'd have re-elected John Howard
Sigh. Three years on and I basically feel ambivalent about being proved completely right by subsequent events.
An electorate that had had it too good for too long airily decided it wanted a change and voted out a competent, (though not perfect), government for an opposition leader who cynically and dishonestly marketed himself as a younger version of John Howard.
In Nikki Savva's devastatingly accurate words, some time in 2007 Kevin Rudd slithered into John Howard's skin, only to shed it once it had done its job and got him elected.
Basically, the Labor Party won the 2007 election on false pretences.
The problem for me is that it was all so bloody obvious three years ago. Nothing that has transpired about the character and failings of Kevin Rudd, (or indeed the Labor government itself), has come as a surprise. It was all there to see back then, but few wanted to see. Too many people, especially in the media, wanted Howard gone (for various reasons) and were not going to let troubling reality spoil things for them.
But there's the rub, no? Reality can only be spurned for so long before it crashes the party and wrecks it.
Three years later we are left with what might have been. Essentially the record of Labor is three wasted years and tens of billions of dollars of public debt that is going to have to be paid back with interest.
Why professors of cultural studies are as useless as tits on a bull. Gillard racist for kissing a white baby! #ausvotes
What do you say? Every time I hear somebody from the universities go on about how they are under funded boo hoo hoo, I think about this kind of asinine drivel and conclude that they are in fact over funded if they have money to waste on this kind of pseudo-academic rubbish.
From Andrew Bolt:
Suvendrini Perera, associate professor of cultural studies at Curtin University, is alarmed that Julia Gillard kissed a white baby:
Some people should really get over themselves. [And get out more?] Has she considered that Gillard simply kissed whatever baby was pushed at her, and to refuse a kiss to a white one - as Perera seems to demand - might have seemed not just racist, but a sign of madness?
Oh, and it hardly needs saying, but this article appeared in The Age. Foucault is quoted, which is always a giveaway.
Astounding stuff. But no more than what I and other people have been saying for weeks now. Oil gushing into the ocean is not a good thing. I don't like to see birds and animals covered in oil and doomed to die a horrible death.
But the fact remains that very few have actually been killed by the oil spill. Certainly only a tiny percent compared to those killed after the wreck of the Exxon Valdez all those years ago.
In terms of the Earth itself the Gulf spill is a minor and temporary irritant that will disappear, in Earth time, very quickly.
But the actions of most environmental groups, as well as large sections of the media, need to be examined and they need to be held to account for the lies, misinformation and exaggeration they have engaged in.
One of the reasons for this I believe is that the sceptics tend to be nicer and more polite than those pushing the global warming barrow.
Anthony Watts from Watts Up With That? is a perfect example of this.
Polite, cautious and prepared to allow space on his blog for people he may not agree with.
But see how one recent example of this is dealt with by Joe Romm from the Climate Progress blog:
And thus the hysterics lose the battle of public opinion. They really do seem to be a very nasty and bitter bunch of people.
Anyway, you can read the rest of Anthony's reflections on this latest milestone here.
Five to be paid $300,000 a year to make sure Labor's 'Citizen’s Assembly' reaches the "right" conclusions #ausvotes
I knew it. It was always going to be a set up leading to a predetermined conclusion. But at the end they'll be able to say that they have "consulted" with the community!
Five lucky climateers are set to earn almost as much as the Prime Minister:
It’s a four-year deal, so these temperature talkers will be rolling in it. The hours don’t sound too difficult:
Who will be the chosen five?
UPDATE. Henry Ergas on the citizens’ assembly:
But it will make five clowns rich.
UPDATE II. The global warming movement is kaput! Finito! Done!
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Great news, and a present for the many readers of WUWT. The “Our Climate” iPhone App has made it through Apple’s review process unscathed and the App is now available for download on the iTunes Store worldwide.
Here’s what the menu screen looks like:
From the website:
Our Climate is your “go-to” climate information resource. It is the most comprehensive, fun and informative climate education resource available for Apple® iOS devices, such as the iPhone® and iPod Touch® platforms.
You have all the information at your fingertips, wherever you go, to help you get a more complete picture on what is happening to our climate!
Our Climate features a number of “bite-size” climate information nuggets that you can absorb without needing a PhD in climate science! These information nuggets offer you rapid insight to some of the most interesting aspects of our climate, both today and in the past.
Try your hand at our fun climate quiz, where the answers are never really what you think at first! See if you can get your score up to that of a professional climate scientist…
With literally dozens of built-in tutorials, Our Climate will help you understand how basic climate science operates and, most importantly, help you distinguish between climate facts, climate theories and popular misconceptions.
Once you feel familiar with the basics, why not participate in our anonymous global poll on attitudes towards Global Warming? When you have expressed your views, you can then see by region how the rest of the world’s users of Our Climate have voted.
Since climate issues do feature heavily in the news, you also have a climate-centric news feed directly on the App. This offers you quick access to some of the top climate stories of the day.
Finally, Our Climate comes packed with a large number of very recent climate datasets that you can browse at your own pace, or perhaps use to settle a debate with friends! Each dataset comes with a detailed set of comments to help you understand what the data is all about.
The App’s main website is here: ourclimate.info
Full article at The Sydney Morning Herald:
Underbelly actor Daniel Amalm is one of several young Australian celebrities who appear in Prostate Cancer Foundation advertisements to say that prostate cancer can kill men "just like me".Amalm is 31. The ads urge all men older than 50, and those older than 40 with a family history of the disease, to get tested. Yet, of the 75,433 men who died from prostate cancer between 1968 and 2007, just two were aged 30-34.Given that no government anywhere in the world, no peak cancer control agency, and no high-level, independent review has ever supported screening, it is important to question the foundation's campaign and consider what it might achieve if it was wildly successful.The foundation repeatedly emphasises that men need to make informed decisions about being tested. Here's some uncontestable information that you won't find on the Prostate Cancer Foundation's website, nor in its TV ads.First, prostate cancer is a disease that far more men die with rather than from.
Via the Food & Health Skeptic
From Andrew Bolt:
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Review from the Geological Society of "The Hockey Stick Illusion - Climategate and the corruption of science"
In 1998 a graph, which was to become famous as the ‘Hockey Stick’, made its debut in the pages of the prestigious journal Nature. The graph, constructed by climate scientist Michael Mann and colleagues, purported to show that late 20th Century temperatures were unprecedented in at least 1000 years. For many this was the smoking gun of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). Before long the Hockey Stick became the icon of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and took (unacknowledged) centre-stage in Al Gore’s film An Inconvenient Truth. The scientific community immediately, and virtually unanimously, accepted the Hockey Stick at face value, even though it eliminated such familiar episodes of climatic history as the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age; these were explained away as regional or diachronous phenomena.Not everybody, though, was prepared to take this new climate history on trust. Foremost among these sceptics was a Canadian mining engineer, Steve McIntyre. Over several years, in the teeth of resistance from the paleoclimatological community, he laboriously collected the raw data (mainly tree ring measurements) from which the Hockey Stick was derived. McIntyre identified numerous shortcomings with the reconstruction. The charges included cherry picking of data, use of invalid proxies and poor statistical techniques, which together produced a picture of exceptional 20th Century warming that was not present in the underlying data. The response of the ‘Hockey Team’ (as Mann and colleagues came to be known) was to circle the wagons. McIntyre was dismissed as a crank, or a flunkey of the oil companies. Attempts were made to prevent publication of his analyses in the scientific press. When these tactics failed to silence him, the Hockey Team claimed that many independent studies confirmed their results. McIntyre, though, was able to show that these ‘independent’ studies used the same flawed data sets and techniques as the Hockey Stick and inevitably reached the same erroneous conclusions. The debate eventually reached Washington where two congressional committees concluded that Mann’s statistics could not support the conclusions he drew from them. Nonetheless the Hockey Team, with the support of the IPCC, pressed ahead with their depiction of the Hockey Stick as ‘settled science’. Andrew Montford tells this detective story in exhilarating style. He has assembled an impressive case that the consensus view on recent climate history started as poor science and was corrupted when climate scientists became embroiled in IPCC politics. His portrayal of the palaeoclimatology community is devastating; they are revealed as amateurish, secretive, evasive and belligerent. But the most serious charge is that they have simply failed to demonstrate any scientific integrity in confronting McIntyre. The University of East Anglia emails, which appeared just as Montford was completing his book, suggest that the Hockey Team were more interested in knobbling McIntyre than in addressing his arguments. The wider scientific community does not escape criticism. No serious effort was made to subject the Hockey Stick to independent scrutiny, despite its profound implications for the future of the planet and its inhabitants. In response to external challenge the scientific establishment’s reflex action was to side with the paleoclimatologists without bothering to check the evidence. This approach, no better than that of any other vested interest group, should dismay everyone of genuine scientific spirit. Montford’s book ends on what is perhaps an inevitable low note, because the Hockey Team has not conceded that its temperature reconstructions are seriously flawed. However, if The Hockey Stick Illusion provokes a truly independent review of the evidence it will have served its purpose. SOURCE
From Greenie Watch
From ABC News:
For 86 days, oil spewed into the Gulf of Mexico from BP's damaged well, dumping some 200 million gallons of crude into sensitive ecosystems. BP and the federal government have amassed an army to clean the oil up, but there's one problem -- they're having trouble finding it. At its peak last month, the oil slick was the size of Kansas, but it has been rapidly shrinking, now down to the size of New Hampshire.Today, ABC News surveyed a marsh area and found none, and even on a flight out to the rig site Sunday with the Coast Guard, there was no oil to be seen. "That oil is somewhere. It didn't just disappear," said Plaquemines Parish President Billy Nungesser.Salvador Cepriano is one of the men searching for crude. Cepriano, a shrimper, has been laying out boom with his boat, but he's found that there's no oil to catch. "I think it is underneath the water. It's in between the bottom and the top of the water," Cepriano said.Even the federal government admits that locating the oil has become a problem. "It is becoming a very elusive bunch of oil for us to find," said National Incident Cmdr. Thad Allen. The numbers don't lie: two weeks ago, skimmers picked up about 25,000 barrels of oily water. Last Thursday, they gathered just 200 barrels.Still, it doesn't mean that all the oil that gushed for weeks is gone. Thousands of small oil patches remain below the surface, but experts say an astonishing amount has disappeared, reabsorbed into the environment."[It's] mother nature doing her job," said Ed Overton, a professor of environmental studies at Louisiana State University.The light crude began to deteriorate the moment it escaped at high pressure, and then it was zapped with dispersants to speed the process along. The oil that did make it to the ocean's surface was broken up by 88-degree water, baked by 100-degree sun, eaten by microbes, and whipped apart by wind and waves.Experts stress that even though there's less and less oil as time goes on, there's still plenty around the spill site. And in the long term, no one knows what the impact of those hundreds of millions of gallons will be, deep in the waters of the Gulf of Mexico.SOURCE
Via Greenie Watch
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
From Andrew Bolt:
The Age chooses warming alarmist Tim Flannery as one of 10 “leading Australians” to lead “an informed debate about our future”. So Flannery writes:
I have long argued that we should develop a city in the Cooper Basin — a Geothermia — as a hub for minerals processing dependent entirely on clean renewable energy.
There are two things that, yet again, are missing from Flannery’s spruiking of geothermal power and this particular site. First, he is an investor in the geothermal test plant in the Cooper Basin, and, second, his plant has beencrippled by technological difficulties. As I noted when I interviewed him on MTR: Bolt: You’re an investor in geothermal technology , aren’t you? Flannery: Yeah, I am. Indeed. Bolt: How come you don’t declare that.
Bolt: You’re an investor in geothermal technology , aren’t you?
Flannery: Yeah, I am. Indeed.
Bolt: How come you don’t declare that.
Flannery: Well, I’ve just done it.
Bolt: You just did because I told you. You said that geothermal , which you are in investor of, you’ve got a plant, you’ve invested in a plant in Innamincka and you said the technology was really easy. How come that plant....
Flannery: Not really that easy.
Bolt: Well, yes. It’s actually had technological difficulties and it’s been delayed two years because it’s not that easy, after all, is it?
From http://john-ray.blogspot.com/ It was precisely the imperfect takeup of vaccination that caused the death below. Universal vaccination would have made any whooping cough transmission very unlikely. So the fanatics do bear some responsibility for the death reported. In the circumstances, it is no wonder that they were very defensive When their four-week-old baby daughter Dana died from whooping cough Toni and David McCaffery sought love and healing to ease their grief. Instead, they say they were subjected to a campaign of harassment and abuse at the hands of anti-vaccination campaigners, a group who were yesterday labelled a serious threat to the public's health and safety.
It was precisely the imperfect takeup of vaccination that caused the death below. Universal vaccination would have made any whooping cough transmission very unlikely. So the fanatics do bear some responsibility for the death reported. In the circumstances, it is no wonder that they were very defensive When their four-week-old baby daughter Dana died from whooping cough Toni and David McCaffery sought love and healing to ease their grief. Instead, they say they were subjected to a campaign of harassment and abuse at the hands of anti-vaccination campaigners, a group who were yesterday labelled a serious threat to the public's health and safety.
AUSTRALIAN of the Year and mental health advocate Pat McGorry says he is "devastated" by the detail of Julia Gillard's mental health policy announced today.
The Prime Minister's pledge to inject nearly $280 million into mental health and suicide prevention services has been slammed by experts who say the issue has been airbrushed over yet again.
Professor McGorry told The Australian he was “devastated' with today's announcement and believed Ms Gillard was continuing to show “a lack of leadership”.
“John Mendoza and I handed the Prime Minister a clear blueprint that was endorsed by all in the mental health sector,” Professor McGorry said.
“But she just seems to have contacted the same old advisers and rolled out policy that really is just a drop in the ocean.”
...Tony Abbott last week announced a $1.5 billion boost to the sector, including 80 mental health treatment centres, with 60 serving young people.
I suppose Mr Rudd is now aware of just to what extent he is loathed and hated within the Labor Party, and may feel he's got nothing to lose from leaking damaging stories about Ms Gillard to Laurie Oakes. (Tee hee.)
Monday, July 26, 2010
Ancient Pagan Gnostics sought to warn humans about “MCBs” or in other words “mechanically-controlled biological entities”. Specifically, ancient Pagan Gnostics apparently referred to MCBs as “artificial man”.
MCBs include entities which appear to be human, but in effect, act as receptacles for alien manipulation according to David Icke.
Michael Cremo in his book Human Devolution documented humans as having origins in a multi-dimensional elevated consciousness. Cremo suggests that humans have been “de-evolved” into a state of consciousness that can only consciously perceive linear time. This has made humans vulnerable to lower dimensional MCBs which can exist beyond human perceptions of linear time by means of “controlled human appearing entities”.
However, according to David Icke, MCBs which operate through “fake humans” with alien controlled minds can be discerned from the lack of empathy for the welfare of Earth’s spiritual-biological consciousness.
Read on, it only gets better: Who lack "empathy for the welfare of Earth’s spiritual-biological consciousness?" Cripes, does this mean I'm one of these fake humans? Hey ho, that's the way it goes I suppose.
Who lack "empathy for the welfare of Earth’s spiritual-biological consciousness?" Cripes, does this mean I'm one of these fake humans?
Hey ho, that's the way it goes I suppose.
Can we let more of these people in? At least they aren't full of sanctimonious moral vanity like your typical white middle class refugee "advocate."
You can't sail a boat to Mirrabooka, but if you could, you're unlikely to be welcome, especially if you sailed in through a back port.
Mirrabooka is home to a large population of African and Middle Eastern refugees. A selection of that demographic is jumping on the Tony Abbott ship because of a perception he will stop the boat people.
Tall and striking Gatwech Thoan, 28, proudly displayed a Stop Racism T-shirt. He came to Mirrabooka from Sudan via a refugee camp seven years ago. He lives with his sister and brother. While he supports migration, he said "we need to stop the boats, they are illegal".
Like many of the Sudanese immigrants, his opinion was carefully thought out. Many have an interesting sense of fair play and expressed dislike for Julia Gillard because of the way she displaced Kevin Rudd.
Lucky Lyttle, from Sierra Leone, spent seven years in a refugee camp in Ghana and is now married to Australian-born Serena.
"We're both voting for Tony," the couple said. However, they believe the country should let in more refugees. "We need people here, but we don't need them coming from the boats."
Sunday, July 25, 2010
The Maldives have become a symbol of the dangers of global warming, amid fears the low-lying nation could disappear as a result of rising sea levels. But one team of scientists believes the truth is more complicated. The Maldives coral islands, they postulate, may be growing with the rising waters.
Saturday, July 24, 2010
I will thank Channel 7 for one thing though.
It has proved my argument that the excuse lefties use when they can finally no longer deny that the ABC is hopelessly biased towards the Left, ie that this forms a "natural" balance to the conservative bias of the commercial media, is nothing more than delusional bullshit.
The media as a whole is, (and as I'm in a generous mood this morning let's extend the love to David Marr and his honest admission of this), overwhelmingly Left-wing in orientation and bias.
This is why Julia Gillard is given one free-pass after another while someone like Tony Abbott has the media forensically prosecuting the case as to why his physical fitness is somehow wrong and an reason to be against him.
Gillard has consistently lied about her past with the Socialist Forum and was the "other woman" that lead to the break up of Labor minister Craig Emerson's marriage. But what's the bet that Channel 7 will stay well clear of that little tit-bit?
What exactly did we do to deserve such a poor excuse for a media in this country? Just how badly are we served by these biased hacks dishing up idiotic non-stories as if they were important?
Noel Pearson explains why 'Closing the Gap' is just another white middle-class wank doomed to failure
If we agree on anything we agree that the egregious position of indigenous Australians is intolerable and must be remedied. If it would be wrong to disagree with this intent, it is completely correct to have vigorous debate and disagreement about how this intent might be effected.
Closing the Gap as currently conceived does not have the philosophical and policy rigour to achieve its stated intent. The philosophy and policies falling under the rubric come from the traditionally dominant progressive centre and left of Australian thinking about policy towards the natives, and they are wrong.
It is time to make plain something which Australian liberals have been too long reticent to declare: there is no closing any gap without Adam Smith.
The rest here.
Friday, July 23, 2010
You read the full article from The Australian here.
I know it's from 1996, but this recollection by a former ABC staffer does beautifully sum it all up:
And no children, this is not excusable because it 'balances' a pro-Coalition bias in the commercial media.
For one thing, the people who make the news there are by and large just as Left-wing and "progressive" as their fellow journalists at the ABC.
Anyone who doesn't think this bias shows in the commercial media is, to not put too fine a point on it, an idiot.
Either that or they don't watch the commercial channels and don't read newspapers.
The Fairfax media, publishers of The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald, is overwhelmingly left of centre in its orientation.
Plus, some of the most nakedly anti-Coalition pieces I have seen on TV have been on the commercial channels. As I say, the world-view of most journalists is left of centre and it shows.
UPDATE: Luboš Motl finds some interesting tidbits about the state of science at Sb, see below the “Continue reading” line.
UPDATE2: PZ Myers ends his “strike” and flames me.
Many WUWT readers are familiar with some blogs that reside at Sb. For example there’s Wikipedia edit master, William Connolley’s “Stoat-taking Science by the throat“, Tim Lambert’s “Deltoid“, and some others like the well known Pharyngula by the ever grouchy PZ. Myers. It’s all good fun to read.
But, now there’s quite an exodus occurring at the scienceblogs.com conglomerate.
Though I wouldn't describe P Z Myers as grouchy. Nasty, vicious and petty yes. Grouchy doesn't come close to capturing what a nasty piece of work he is.
From Watts Up With That?:
Guest post By Ben Herman and Roger A. Pielke Sr.
During the past several months there have been various, unpublished studies circulating around the blogosphere and elsewhere claiming that the “greenhouse effect” cannot warm the Earth’s atmosphere. We would like to briefly explain the arguments that have been put forth and why they are incorrect. Two of the primary arguments that have been used are
Both of the above statements are certainly true, but as we will show, the so-called “greenhouse theory” does not violate either of these two statements. (we use quotation marks around the words “greenhouse theory” to indicate that while this terminology has been generally adopted to explain the predicted warming with the addition of absorbing gases into the atmosphere, the actual process is quite a bit different from how a greenhouse heats).
The rest here.
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
The Food & Health Skeptic comments:
Sounds like "The Ghost who Walks" is in big trouble! Seriously, though, the article below does point out that the evidence is conflicting.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
I am starting to wonder.
Been following today the latest "gotcha" moment in the media, ie the supposed ultra-embarrassment of Tony Abbott when he blundered into a fruit & veg shop run by a Vietnamese refugee.
You get it - he wants to stop the boats and who does his incompetent campaign, (which according to Channel 7 already has the wheels falling off of it after a couple of days), put him in front of? A boat person.
Oh how they laughed and tittered and guffawed. It gelled so, so perfectly with what your average Lefty member of the media so wanted to see.
Except for one tiny little problem.
Mr Tran, apart from saying he'll probably vote for Mr Abbott anyway, wasn't a boat person.
He fled from Vietnam to Indonesia, where he claimed asylum and then spent time in a camp waiting his turn to be accepted for resettlement in Australia.
*Bangs head on desk*
And there are still people who think "renewable" energy makes sense. Astounding.
Monday, July 19, 2010
Dr Ray from Greenie Watch http://antigreen.blogspot.com/ writes: Prof. Spencer is an eminent climate scientist and points out many reasons why the case for human emissions causing warming is at least "not proven". He has however always in the past accepted the theory that CO2 COULD cause warming. A recent upwelling of dissent on that point by physical scientists has however obviously jarred him so you will see from the rubric below (under his "7" heading) that he is now reserving judgment on that point. He is leaving open the possibility that the whole theory was misconceived from the beginning and in fact contravenes the laws of physics. Good heavens, this almost seems a step too far for even me. Could we have got the whole thing about the greenhouse effect wrong (or at least partly so)? There's much more here:
Prof. Spencer is an eminent climate scientist and points out many reasons why the case for human emissions causing warming is at least "not proven". He has however always in the past accepted the theory that CO2 COULD cause warming. A recent upwelling of dissent on that point by physical scientists has however obviously jarred him so you will see from the rubric below (under his "7" heading) that he is now reserving judgment on that point. He is leaving open the possibility that the whole theory was misconceived from the beginning and in fact contravenes the laws of physics.
Good heavens, this almost seems a step too far for even me. Could we have got the whole thing about the greenhouse effect wrong (or at least partly so)?
There's much more here:
And of course increase the cost of everything dependent on that power, ie just about everything.
… a carbon tax would lead to power shortages and blackouts. It would kill any prospect of the new coal-fired power stations that are the only - the only - way to provide the increased power needs of a bigger population Australia....
So exactly how much extra would we have to pay for our electricity? ...
According to calculations by the Institute of Public Affairs’ Alan Moran, a $40 a tonne carbon tax would pretty much double the cost of power.... But a really meaningful carbon tax would have to be more like $100-$125 a tonne. That would at least triple your power bills. The $1000 cost would become $3000....
And I haven’t begun to detail what that would do to jobs, to investment, to all your basic living situations, such as access to healthcare and schools. You just need to look at Spain which has embraced so-called renewable energy more than any other major country and has a 20 per cent jobless rate and is teetering on a Greek-style financial meltdown....
(Yet) if we reduced our emissions to zero, it would make absolutely no difference to the world’s climate. Today, tomorrow, ever.
The NOAA is taking the liberty of declaring 2010 the hottest ever, even though it’s only July! So what’s all the hurry? Well, you have to get them scary global-hotting headlines out while you can, and any way you can. When you’re desperate - you’re desperate.They’ve seen their own forecasts for the rest of the year, and so they know it’s their last chance. Just check the leading climatic indicators on my homepage and you’ll see why. Now on Arctic sea ice, allow me to use the same NOAA “scientific” method and declare that the Arctic has experienced the slowest July ice melt ever! (Well, at least so far). Look at the ice melts from June 30 – July 15 for the following years, taken from AMSR-E. Sea ice melt Year 6/30 to 7/15 ......... Daily rate 2002 1.126 million sq km 75,000 sq km / day
2003 1.014 ................ 67,000
2004 1.019 ................ 68,000
2005 1.152 ................ 77,000
2006 1.210 ................ 80,000
2007 1.742 ................ 116,000
2008 1.216 ................ 81,000
2009 1.413 ................ 94,000
2010 0.807 ................ 54,000 Never has ice melted so slowly in mid summer as it has this year. Indeed sea ice melt in July 2010 is less than half the melt rate in 2007. It’s far below anything we’ve seen on record. Would the NOAA already call it a record low melt for the month? And as Lubos Motl pointed out 3 days ago here, total global sea ice is above normal. Also see here. Indeed sea ice is rebounding, and surprisingly just at a time when it’s supposively the “hottest ever”. Someone is wrong, obviously. Do you think anyone in the media is going to run this story? SOURCE
New Scientist on the #Climategate enquiries - "Incredibly, none looked at the quality of the science itself"
From Watts Up With That?:
This is a week of extremes in quotes about climate. On one end of the scale we have professor Steven Schneider with a set of quotes so beyond the absurd, that he now has his own “jumping the shark” TV sitcom moment.
On the other end, we have the New Scientist, shocking warmists and skeptics alike with some hardcore doubt about the outcome of the Muir-Russell and other Climategate inquiries. They write:
Full article here at The New Scientist
Sunday, July 18, 2010
Media article here:
Why it is probably bullshit:
The numbers in this study are crazy. The researchers admit that their population as a whole was vitamin D deficient yet when only 50 out of 3,173 people (1.6%) got Parkinson's over a 29 year period, they conclude that Parkinson's is caused by low levels of vitamin D! Words fail me beyond that point.
|Kids can now buy Carbon Credits at the museum from the flatlining Chicago Climate Exchange, which Gore and Pachauri are advisers for.|
They may as well just throw their money down the toilet as CCX is now in EPIC FAIL mode. Sure, take money from the kids, why not?
The months of flatlining at the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) should be a hint to the rest of the world that carbon trading is dead. Time to take it off life support. Even at 10 cents a ton, nobody wants it. At it’s peak in July 2008, it traded for $7.50 per ton of CO2.
Chicago Climate Exchange close on June 30th, 2010 – click for source
See who is on the CCX advisory board here
Watts Up With That?
Dear oh dear. The rest here.
Saturday, July 17, 2010
We really need to have another look at all the public health "experts" and activists and reassess whether or not they are actually doing more harm than good.
Not talking about doctors or nurses, but the various academic departments set up to promote public health and outfits like Healthways here in Western Australia or the several organisations set up to "advocate" for assoted diseases and maladies.
The trouble is, in my view, that these people and bodies become institutionalised. That is, they take on an institutional life of their own and protecting this and the benefits it brings them, (think about all the community groups for a moment - they all have at least one person on a substantial salary, as well as other paid staff), becomes increasingly the driver of their actions.
You can see this with the Cancer Council now peddling very dubious claims about diet and cancer. The evidence may be weak, but it keeps them in the public relations competition as they compete for money from governments and the general public, (which of course is necessary to pay the CEO and several managers, provide cars for them etc etc).
It also explains why here in Australia these groups insist on pushing for the introduction of nanny-state measures designed to force people to be 'virtuous,' whether they want to be or not, such as the traffic light code system for food or restricting what is sold at school tuckshops, despite the fact that all of them have already been tried overseas and failed.
And nowhere more than with diet and fat is this nannyish need to engage in a moral crusade against latterday "sin" seen at its proscriptive and hysterical worst.
From the Food & Health Skeptic:
Okay, I admit it, that's talking things up a bit, but here we have both sides of the debate in what is essentially the same newspaper.
From Watts Up With That?