Andrew Bolt at the Herald Sun tips me to this story in the Australian which makes me wonder why we never hear about posh expensive dinners for the all those #big oil funded skeptics. /sarc – Anthony
A DOZEN Climate Change authority executives dining out at a posh Italian restaurant to get to know each other better left tax-payers with an almost $2000 bill.
The dinner was held so the executives of the outfit created in July to review and make recommendations about the carbon tax and other federal government green schemes could meet in “an informal setting” to better their “collective decision making” capacity.
Executives dined at swish Melbourne eatery The Italian Restaurant and Bar on a $135-a-head menu of New Zealand king salmon, calamari, caprese salad, southern supreme beef, gnocchi with oyster mushroom and vanilla panna cotta with dark chocolate.
…
Authority members at the dinner included Bernie Fraser, Lynne Williams, John Marlay, Professor David Karoly, Heather Ridout, Elana Rubin, Professor John Quiggan and CEO Anthea Harris, the spokeswoman said.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/climate-boffins-dine-out-on-1740-taxpayer-dollars/story-e6frg6n6-1226574910208
Bolt writes:
I’d have thought Karoly should go without dinner until he publicly apologises for the errors in his last alarmist paper – since withdrawn- about “unusual” warming in Australia.
Moreover, should Quiggin still be on the authority after vastly exaggerating the estimated effect of the government’s global warming policies on the temperature?
And one last question: if there was no global warming scare, would such people get the government money allowing such fine dining?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
If these folks really believed the stuff they push, this would have been via teleconference.
If these folks are serious about their own “carbon footprint”, why should I ?
“And one last question: if there was no global warming scare, would such people get the government money allowing such fine dining?:
Answer: “Yes.”
Dinners, trips, talks – all this is not policy or subject conditional. They are simply venues for the powers that be to talk and determine who will support whom. They are also part of the reason powerholders want to have power.
The things that cost them nothing and give them both importance in the eyes of other lesser mortals and pleasure in the moment: what is not to like about “public” service?
I´m sure they paid the tab from their own pockets.
I once put it to a wind farm engineer why, since he believed in global warming, he used a big petrol driven chainsaw, while I used a feeble little Electric for my occasional tree lopping needs.
His reply was that, in his opinion, through his work he contributed enough to the environment to compensate for his carbon footprint.
These people believe they are entitled to whatever carbon footprint they want, whatever lavish indulgence at our expense they can secure, because we should be grateful that they are out there working to save us from ourselves.
They are only following in their religious masters’ footsteps
Al Gore with his fine condo by the sea and his energy extravagant mansion
Jim Hansen flying first class to spread the word and getting rewards for being a good greenie
Who can blame the AGW order’s minions for wanting some of the cake.
O.T. and apologies, but for the last day or so I’ve been getting “blocked content” notifications from my anti-virus software and indications of WUWT being “dangerous” or “supicious site.” Of course, I’m very happy you’re dangerous and suspicious from a political/social point of view, but I don’t think that’s what McAfee is talking about.
@pokerguy Which Antivirus software?
Not so fast. They were clearly just researching the least sustainable foods list in order to better understand what they will be forcing other people to abandon.
Whining and dining for a living. Got to be a good gig:
http://talkingabouttheweather.wordpress.com/2012/01/07/whining-and-dining-part-1/
[snip – blog policy violation – language – mod]
It is interesting to learn that other governments can waste money just as fast or almost as fast as the one in Washington, D.C. The USA is completing a report — the Federal Advisory Committee Draft Climate Assessment Report — a 1,146 page CO2-based fantasy “attributed” to a team 5 dozen folks representing agencies, NGOs, and companies to be enriched when the recommendations they make are followed. There would also be the supporting personnel that do the planning, work, and support. Someone tally the cost of one of this group’s meetings.
On Tuesday, my wife is taking me to lunch with “an informal setting” to better . . . our “collective decision making” capacity. This will be at a successful retail establishment with soft drinks and 100% beef hotdogs or “polish” sausages sold near the checkout lines. The cost is USD $1.50 per person. If you wish to join us, bring your “big oil” check along.
Come on, what’s a mere $2,000 when you’re saving the planet from the effects of over-consumption? Hypocritical scumbags!
Happens all the time, Anthony. It is almost cult-like.
The carbon tax in Australia will make it cheaper to burn Australian coal in China than to burn it in Australia. Of course the CO2 will come back to Australia, but the jobs won’t. Australia’s sacrifice will not change the climate to any degree that can be measured, except by its effect on the Australian economy.
In the meanwhile, the politicians, scientists and business interests that are taking their skim off the top of the tax are more than happy to do so at the expense of the average Australian. They are, after all, saving the planet and getting rich in the process.
They planned to do good, and they did very well indeed.
RE antivirus – It might be google instead. They also appear to block pages claiming a virus was detected when my McAfee doesn’t see anything. I’ve a couple of times had google somehow blocking my access. Mind you that you can go on to the site in that case and even complain about the block if you want.
eworrell1 says-
“…These people believe they are entitled to whatever carbon footprint they want, whatever lavish indulgence at our expense they can secure, because we should be grateful that they are out there working to save us from ourselves..”
Now that this esteemed group of individuals have been called on the carpet, they have to opportunity to follow Vice President Gore’s approach to his rather large carbon footprint- carbon offsets. Carbon offsets sound a bit like how the aristocracy used to take a pass on going to war, as it’s a messy business, by buying their way out of it.
Anthony,
RE @pokerguy. He mentioned McAfee in the last line of his post.
phh
…let them eat cake……
Alfred
“We are a newly established agency, we have got nine authority members from diverse backgrounds and locations to date they have had one opportunity to meet informally,” she said.
$135 a head does not constitute an informal gathering. Informal gatherings are when people go out for a beer and pretzels and pay for it themselves.
I can understand that they dine on New Zealand salmon, some years ago I tried the Australian version there and that really was not worth it.
On the other hand there was more carbon produced to get it onto their plate so they really should have stuck with locally produced food.
In the mean time I understand that the Australian prime minister jet setted to New Zealand, creating an even bigger carbon footprint on behalf of the Aus people, to talk with her NZ counterpart, surely they could have Skyped.
Perhaps she went to collect salmon for the next dinner party.
Having said all that, $135 odd, per head is not outrageous in that part of the world when eating at a reasonable quality eatery rather then one of the franchise shops. Plus the advantage is that there are no further taxes or tips, voluntary, on top of that, so say about US$100 per head nett if you want to compare and the Aus government will receive the already included sales tax back from the eatery.
If I am correct with the expense claim regulations there, it will have been paid for by one of the attendants from out of state so it can be claimed as a tax deductible travel expense, otherwise it becomes a non deductible cost.
Let’s give them a bit of slack. Plenty of hot air will have been generated during that dinner to float a balloon for carbon free transport back home.
Hahaha, well this is a first for me here. I am slightly perplexed as to why my post was snipped, I didn’t intend to violate any rules. Having reviewed the policy I still don’t understand it, but it is your house to rule and as such it is your decision- It will be less amusing when the tyrants have finished sinking the ship because the rest of us were too wrapped up being PC. I guess wishing them to experience accidentally that which they are actively intending the rest of us is a faux pas.
“It’s discouraging to think how many people are shocked by honesty and how few by deceit.”
-Noel Coward
All said, this is still the best place for discussion of CAGW and the political and scientific ramifications thereof. All the best.
[Reply: Some mods are quicker to pull the trigger than others. I prefer to approve all comments, unless there is a serious breach of site Policy. — mod.]
In Wyoming we have an open meeting law that would have nixed the dinner, unless the press and public were invited as well. Imagine the bill.
Sustainability in action. We can sustain this, and all the other scams, right up to the point where taxpayers wise up and jail us.
Feeding at the trough and the trough are much larger than that. See this: http://live.psu.edu/story/64069#nw4
pokerguy says:
February 11, 2013 at 7:44 am
O.T. and apologies, but for the last day or so I’ve been getting “blocked content” notifications from my anti-virus software and indications of WUWT being “dangerous” or “supicious site.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I got the same thing yesterday. (I have Ubuntu not Windows and uses Opera)
What about Ms. Gergis? Are we to infer that Joelle Gergis wasn’t invited to the dinner? Were the numerous errors in the now infamous, withdrawn then rejected “Southern Hemisphere Hockey Sticks” paper, of which she was the lead author, too embarrassing to the rest of the climate alarmist elite hois and pollois to permit her a place at the strategic public energy restriction policy research and culinary engorgement table? Or was she invited, but couldn’t attend because she had to wash her hair?
What has happened to quality journalism these days?