Feeding at the public trough – The Karoly dinner

English: Dr David Karoly, participating in a d...

Dr David Karoly, participating in a debate on climate change at Hawthorn, Melbourne, Australia. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

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thought Karoly should go without dinner until he publicly apologises for the errors in his last alarmist paper – since withdrawn- about “unusual” warming in Australia.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?

About these ads
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

38 Responses to Feeding at the public trough – The Karoly dinner

  1. Neo says:

    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 ?

  2. Doug Proctor says:

    “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?

  3. Bengt Abelsson says:

    I´m sure they paid the tab from their own pockets.

  4. eworrall1 says:

    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.

  5. ConfusedPhoton says:

    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.

  6. pokerguy says:

    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.

  7. Rob Dawg says:

    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.

  8. Matt in Houston says:

    [snip - blog policy violation - language - mod]

  9. John F. Hultquist says:

    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.

  10. Anthony Watts says:

    @pokerguy Which Antivirus software?

  11. Phillip Bratby says:

    Come on, what’s a mere $2,000 when you’re saving the planet from the effects of over-consumption? Hypocritical scumbags!

  12. Austin says:

    Happens all the time, Anthony. It is almost cult-like.

  13. ferd berple says:

    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.

  14. LamontT says:

    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.

  15. kakatoa says:

    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.

  16. McComber Boy says:

    Anthony,

    RE @pokerguy. He mentioned McAfee in the last line of his post.

    phh

  17. …let them eat cake……
    Alfred

  18. pottereaton says:

    “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.

  19. outtheback says:

    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.

  20. Matt in Houston says:

    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.]

  21. Kevin Kilty says:

    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.

  22. 3x2 says:

    Sustainability in action. We can sustain this, and all the other scams, right up to the point where taxpayers wise up and jail us.

  23. Walt The Physicist says:

    Feeding at the trough and the trough are much larger than that. See this: http://live.psu.edu/story/64069#nw4

  24. Gail Combs says:

    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)

  25. Mickey Reno says:

    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?

  26. “….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.”

    Sounds formal to me, but I’m a poor country boy.

    ;-)

  27. The current Green Labor Government in Australia has just allocated an extra $10 million to the state owned ABC to improve its news service. Now the ABC is full of rampant Warmists and Greenists…and that there will be an election in September, do you think there might be some connection between these two things?

  28. Michael in Sydney says:

    $135 per head – sounds like this was an important formal meeting – where is the transcript?

  29. PaulH says:

    I would turn Andrew Bolt’s last question around: If there was no government money, would there be a global warming scare?
    /snark

  30. eworrall1 says:

    kakatoa:-

    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.

    I’m sure they would be happy to spend our money buying carbon offsets against their lavish indulgences at our expense.

  31. Mike Borgelt says:

    Poker guy, reset your PC system clock and have it update from the net. G ot that a couple of days ago from a friend. Apparently a difference can trigger suspicious site warnings.

  32. King of Cool says:

    We can be joke about these things but fair dinkum the money peed up the wall during global warming alarmist extravagant lunches and dinners is literally a drop in the oceans of waste in the most futile pursuit of mankind next to war.

    * One gourmet Italian dinner

    Or

    50 families saved from poverty in Mozambique?

    https://www.oxfamunwrapped.com.au/gift/94/goat

    * One hundred delegates on a jaunt to Copenhagen

    http://www.smh.com.au/environment/australia-flies-almost-100-delegates-to-copenhagen-20091211-kmon.html

    OR

    One thousand water projects for Water Charity?

    http://watercharity.org/

    * The amount world wide wasted on global warming alarmism

    OR

    The number of children in poverty given a better life for $2 a day?

    http://trans.worldvision.com.au/childsponsorship/childsearch.aspx?lpos=CSPON_SponsorToday

    Surely it is not a question of which or whether, it is a question of when?

  33. John M says:

    Well, I’ve pointed this out before…instead of the anthropocene epoch that some intellectuals are espousing, I think we ought to call it the anthroporcine epoch.

    And dammit, I’m going to keep calling it that to claim my Google priority. :-)

  34. Geoff Sherrington says:

    Charles Gerard Nelson says: February 11, 2013 at 12:32 pm The current Green Labor Government in Australia has just allocated an extra $10 million to the state owned ABC to improve its news service. To which I would retort that the ABC no longer knows the difference between news and fairy stories.

    Most Australian Universities have clubbed with the CSIRO to form a blog named “The Conversation”. http://us.yhs4.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search;_ylt=A0oGdOawwxlR0AIA5qml87UF?p=Australia%20blog%20%22The%20Conversation%22&fr=altavista&fr2=sfp At the bottom right of its home page we see the Charter.

    We will:
    •Give experts a greater voice in shaping scientific, cultural and intellectual agendas by providing a trusted platform that values and promotes new thinking and evidence-based research.
    •Unlock the knowledge and expertise of researchers and academics to provide the public with clarity and insight into society’s biggest problems.
    •Create an open site for people around the world to share best practices and collaborate on developing smart, sustainable solutions.
    •Provide a fact-based and editorially-independent forum, free of commercial or political bias.
    •Ensure the site’s integrity by only obtaining non-partisan sponsorship from education, government and private partners. Any advertising will be relevant and non-obtrusive.
    •Ensure quality, diverse and intelligible content reaches the widest possible audience by employing experienced editors to curate the site.
    •Support and foster academic freedom to conduct research, teach, write and publish.
    •Work with our academic, business and government partners and our advisory board to ensure we are operating for the public good.

    The catch is that one has to be associated with a University before being allowed to write lead articles. This seems to be a specific move to exclude skeptics from the headers. It’s contradictory. The Charter says “free of commercial or political bias” and then gives an article to Ross Garnaut, bless his pure and neutral soul, free of commercial and political bias.

    Given that the funds come from the public, would you say that this blog is an unfair use of public funds? How does it happen that some university guys are allowed to decide which way the cake can be cut?

    Strangely, one of the listed contributors, among the myriads of academics, is – wait for it –
    Foundation for rabbit free Australia.

  35. Martin says:

    I see this was published in The Australian. Most readers of The Australian will be scratching their heads wondering what the fuss is about.

    $135/head for a full meal with trimmings is chicken feed by the standards of the business world. Not exactly the most expensive place in Melbourne.

    Now if the article had been published in the Herald Sun or New Idea, it might have got a few raised eyebrows from people who regard fish and chips at the corner shop as an evening out. $2000 cost for a seminar session is doing it on the cheap compared to if they had the meeting arranged such as venue hire, air fares, sitting fees, food and accommodation.

    Still, I guess any opportunity to try to topple tall poppies, which is a favourite pastime of many down under.

  36. johanna says:

    Martin, it’s not the amount (although your average working stiff would only drop that much on a meal for a birthday or other special event) – it’s the fact that it’s taxpayer money.

    If they needed a getting-to-know each other session, what’s wrong with a few drinks and packets of chips in the bar? They get paid travel and meal allowances, as you point out, so they wouldn’t be personally out of pocket.

    It’s the sheer arrogance and disregard for the efforts of people who work in boring or dirty jobs and whose taxes fund these knees-ups that is so galling. They are special snowflakes who can’t get to know each other in the way that ordinary people do – they need a fully funded meal in an up-market restaurant to facilitate even basic social interaction.

  37. Mervyn says:

    Each time I have heard Karoly talk on TV, he has unashamedly blamed weather events (e.g. the Quuensland floods; Australian heat wave; etc) on man-made global warming, and emphasised the urgency to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

    Don’t these guys, including Karoly, ever look at the real world observational data on climate?

    Aren’t they embarrassed by the failure of the climate models to get any ominous scenarios/predictions right?

    Aren’t they ashamed of all the adverse revelations about the IPCC and its reports by people like Donna LaFramboise?

    How does Karoly sleep at night knowing that despite rising CO2 emissions over the last two decades, temperatures have followed a flat trend over the last 15 years?

    Can someone get Karoly to cite just one peer reviewed study that confirms human induced CO2 – actually lets include all human and natural CO2 entering the atmosphere each year – drives temperature and is causing catastrophic warming?

    Karoly is one man that can never fool me. Tim Flannery is another. As for Ross Garnaut… well he is the man behind Australia’s ‘carbon tax’ and who claimed he’d checked out the climate science and it was fine. Don’t these guys make you laugh?

    The sad thing is, these guys all have letters after their names… but in reality, they really have no credibility! They’re all riding shot-gun on the global warming gravy-train!

Comments are closed.