Australia Rejects Climate Cap-and-Trade Bill

Australia Rejects Climate Cap-and-Trade Bill — Senators voted 42 to 30 against it: “It is a dog of a plan”

Down_under_deniers

Aug. 13 (Bloomberg) — Australia’s Senate rejected the government’s climate-change legislation, forcing Prime Minister Kevin Rudd to amend the bill or call an early election.

Senators voted 42 to 30 against the law, which included plans for a carbon trading system similar to one used in Europe. Australia, the world’s biggest coal exporter, was proposing to reduce greenhouse gases by between 5 percent and 15 percent of 2000 levels in the next decade.

Rudd, who needs support from seven senators outside the government to pass laws through the upper house, can resubmit the bill after making amendments. A second rejection after a three-month span would give him a trigger to call an election.

“We may lose this fight, but this issue will not go away,” Climate Change Minister Penny Wong told the Senate in Canberra. “Australia cannot afford for climate change to be unfinished business.”

Five members from the Australian Greens party sought bigger cuts to emissions while the opposition coalition and independent Senator Nick Xenophon wanted to wait for further studies on the plan’s impact on the economy.

“Australia going it alone before Copenhagen will not make a jot of difference,” Liberal Senator Eric Abetz said. “It is a dog of a plan and we will not support it in its current form.”

Read the complete article at Bloomberg

Advertisements

144 thoughts on “Australia Rejects Climate Cap-and-Trade Bill

  1. I’m hoping the bill is rejected again after the amendments and KRudd747 is forced to call an election. Penny W(r)ong is a fool.

  2. Although Australia is a large exporter of coal and natural gas, our global export of coal is about 8% of the domestic consumption by the Peoples’ Republic of China alone. Stopping coal exports would have a quite small effect on GHG as substitution would no doubt be attempted. Besides, the coal we export is high quality and low in sulphur. Substitutes are likely to be worse.
    What was defeated by Senate vote was a grab for more money by the Government.
    The funds collected from an emission scheme were intended for distribution to people who have failed to demonstrate that their use will result in lower GHG. Of course, transaction and compliance costs would be given a place in the Government coffers, too.
    If I were to give you windfall money, I would defy you to spend it without wanting to consume more fossil fuel than you did before.

  3. So at least one developed country is prudent……..
    As a citizen of a goofy country, it’s so enviable!

  4. It’s extremely heartening to see that some elected governments have some common sense. Obviously AGW hasn’t caused as much volatility in Australia as it has in Michigan…

  5. “It is a dog of a plan and we will not support it in its current form.”
    Sirius always shows up this time of year…

  6. “Rudd, who needs support from seven senators outside the government to pass laws through the upper house, can resubmit the bill after making amendments. A second rejection after a three-month span would give him a trigger to call an election.

    “We may lose this fight, but this issue will not go away,” Climate Change Minister Penny Wong told the Senate in Canberra. “Australia cannot afford for climate change to be unfinished business.”
    Fighting climate change through some sort of carbon trading was a key election campaign issue which aided his landslide victory over Howard. This means there are far to omany Australians who believe AGW is real, is happening, is causing catatrophies and must be stopped (Via taxes).

  7. Great news!
    Hopefully the outcome is repeated at the second voting and Rudd will call a new election.
    People won’t forget Government Officials that are lying through their teeth.
    Keep on pushing and the same will happen in the USA.

  8. I’ve just got back from parliament house where this morning we held a protest rally against the ETS. To our suprise there wasn’t a warmist in sight. We got noticed, Senator Wilson Tuckey came out a gave us an inspiring talk. It was refreshing to hear a senator actually talking common sence.
    Cheers and claps all round when we heard that the bill had been voted down.
    The Rudd government won’t let this thing go so the fight is not over yet.
    Today was a good day.

  9. Well, that’s put a smile on this Aussie’s face! 😀 Now I’ll start composing a letter to all my state senators. I’ll let them know if they vote for an ETS in the next round of voting, I shall never vote for them. I won’t care if they are Liberal, Labor or Monster Raving Loony Party, they will not have my vote if they vote for this in another three months. Good grief, I actually feel some affection for Parliament House right now. The system can work even if only accidently!

  10. Unfortunately it this action will cost the opposition badly. It’s quite clear the Labor party is using this as a wedge issue. The voting public of Australia overwhelmingly support emission trading (though this is slowly changing) and both major parties went to the last election with an emissions trading bill as policy. Correspondingly you can expect in the next election the voting public will obliterate the opposition for their temerity.
    If the opposition were even vaguely competent they wouldn’t have stood in the way of this. We don’t put up with parties going back on promises here. Check out the story of the Australian Democrats if you want to see what I mean.

  11. Let’s not get too carried away or pat ourselves on the back.
    The defeat was simply a part of the politicisation of the issue. The opposition senators will, save for some notable exceptions, support some form of cap and trade. The Greens voted it down because it didn’t go far enough. The Liberals (conservatives) voted it down because it was too costly compared to their proposal and some National and independent senators voted against it because they don’t believe, quite rationally, that the science is settled and that global warming is man made.
    So the scheme will be re-submitted, probably in its current form. If it is rejected again by the Senate then Rudd will have the trigger for a double dissolution election. This means the whole of both houses of parliament are dissolved and go to the election at the same time. Usually at an election only half the Senate is up for election.
    After that Rudd can call a joint sitting of both houses (Representatives and Senate) and again put the Bill to a vote, which means it would most likely pass. Rudd would probably have the overwhelming majority in a joint sitting.
    Unfortunately, it is not over. Not by a long shot.

  12. For non-Australians it’s worth noting that Australia will get an ETS. This was a tactical defeat and is good for the skeptics. The more the issue is examined the more people start to wonder. But it is still going to pass.
    Either it will pass in November or it will pass early next year.
    It’s pretty light as well, it’s not that damaging. Silly, yes, but it’s really just another new tax.

  13. Nutty Rudd and Wong…. I hope they get voted out if there is an election in the near future. If only we can now get rid of the idiot Democrats in Washington.

  14. I watched live the session in the Australian Senate this morning when the CPRS bill was voted on. Proceedings on the matter started with an excellent speech by independent Senator Steve Fielding. The text of his speech is at http://www.stevefielding.com.au/news/details/carbon_pollution_reduction_scheme_speech/
    Senator Fielding is one of the few parliamentarians who has distinguished himself with common sense in this highly politicised debate. He deserves considerable praise for his genuine, sincere, and intelligent efforts to get to crux of the matter on behalf of the Australian people.

  15. Unfortunately this bill has been voted down due to bickering over numbers, not common sense!
    However one party, the nationals (farmers party) are totally against a carbon tax and their coalition partners, the liberals (business) are divided on the issue. Their current leader is pro-AGW but doing very badly in the polls and will hopefully be replaced soon by hopefully a anti AGW politician. fingers crossed.
    The greens voted against the bill because it wasn’t harsh enough!
    There is also the beginnings of rumblings amongst the ruling labour party’s grass roots as the unions are starting to cotton on to the fact that it will cost jobs!
    Unfortunately the Media and advisors continue to paint a picture that the bill is popular with voters and that the science is settled.

  16. Only a stupid and incompetent goverment would put a huge barnacle on the backside of its economy and incur costs in excess of $75bn, as well as lose 65000 jobs, all for a reduction in temperature of less than 0.02c by 2050. Thats our share of it all.
    Unfortunately it is not all over, because the Rudd govt is just that, stupid and incompetent, and it has conned the mindless masses who will have to vote in a few months time,( compulsory voting), and Rudd will buy them off with yet more spendathons.
    Sorry to say it but like the USA our systems of Govt are failing us, and Australia in the long run, like the USA, is stuffed.
    At the top of the list has to be the GW scientific fraternity gloabally who will have a lot to answer for this craziness and crookery, and at the top of that list will be Hansen and Gore.

  17. Will this be like Ireland rejecting the Lisbon Treaty when it was put forwards for referendum. They voted NO, but the Eeropean Union keeps asking Ireland to vote again until it comes up with the correct vote that satisfies the EU.
    There is no such thing as a NO vote in the EU.

  18. Mondo,
    You’re kidding aren’t you? Fielding talking common sense? The guy doesn’t even understand the scientific method and this allows him to be led around in ignorance by the Bob Carters and the Ian Plimers of this country. He doesn’t have a shred of credibility left and that’s without touching on the fact that he is one of those all too common political leaders who talks to the sky…..
    I sure hope we can one day clean up our education system so that the nonsense and half-truths espoused by such pseudo-intellects can be discerned by most for what it is. Seems it’s still pretty easy to confuse a Senator.

  19. This page shows the results of a recent, rather limited, poll regarding AGW and the proposed CPRS (‘Carbon Pollution [sic] Reduction Scheme’).
    http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/2009/08/13/global-warming-and-cprs-polling/
    No recent polls on the topic, to my knowledge, have canvassed opinion regarding the estimated cost (about $4000 p.a. per family) or other negative consequences (unemployment, power brownouts etc.) which must be clearly exposed during any future election on the issue.

  20. The best thing that will happen is that over the next three months the Australian general public will get better exposure to both sides of the argument.
    If the legislation is voted down in November the earliest they can have an election is in March (Have to allow time to close the parliament, set the date etc.etc)
    The last time Aust. went to a double dissolution election it was over another superficially popular topic a national ID card. At the end of that election the Hawke Labor Govt just squeaked home and the topic that the election was called over was subsumed by a run for Federal Parliament by the Queensland Premier Joh Bjelke-Peterson (why is it the closer you get to the equator the more colorful the politicians are?).
    We never did get a national ID card as the voters were exposed to both sides of the argument and glaring holes were found in the legislation during the wait for the election.
    This means that the Rudd Govt. re-election is now dependant on what happens in Copenhagen in December.
    If the big emitters walk away from an international agreement then why was the Rudd Govt getting its knickers into a knot to get a ETS passed.
    If it is just a token agreement at Copenhagen, ditto.
    So Rudd’s future is in the hands of China and India.
    Extra time for the public to reflect on the increase or not of global temperature vs the increase in CO2 will not help the alarmists cause.
    And if you guy’s and gals in the Northern Hemisphere could organise a really big deep winter during the Olympics in Vancouver it would be much appreciated.

  21. mondo,
    Thanks for that link. Senator Fielding states the facts good and plain.
    We can only hope that logic will prevail.

  22. Hopefully other politicians will realise that these unscientific attempts to bludgeon western nations into cutting productivity and reduce our standards of living back to mudhuts benefit no one. But I’m not holding my breath!

  23. No one has won an election on global warming taxes; the Australian Labour will not win one on that either. Rudd got elected last time because he wasn’t John Howard.

  24. This is not the good news it seems.
    The “opposition” leader in Australia is a left wing wannabee conservative. He`s a thorough believer in AGW and has even proposed his own Cap and Trade scheme. Kevin Rudd’s popularity is higher than ever, so if this gets rejected again, and we have an election, he will win in a landslide.

  25. I still find it depressing that AGW ever got this far in the first place. Since when did so many people become altruistic planet savers? People are essentially selfish (which is fine) and I worry what these schemes like C&T are really about. A lot of people must be looking to gain money and power through it. (BTW, I’m selfish too, it is just that my goals are very small.)

  26. Big push on public awareness of uncertainty needed before the next vote.
    Time to woo some meeja celebs with big mouths.

  27. Paul (23.50.58)
    You state ‘If the opposition were even vaguely competent they wouldn’t have stood in the way of this. We don’t put up with parties going back on promises here. Check out the story of the Australian Democrats if you want to see what I mean”
    Do you recall Rudd went to the polls promising 15-20% cuts but now is asking for 5% so surely this is going back on a promise. Looking at what is happening in Australia shows the real game of global warming-money amd political popularity. The Kyoto Protocol is largely discredited so now Copenhagen is the prize. The real reason for the Australian ETS is that it gives the prime minister political glamour at Copenhagen. As for the access available from the mainstream media to information questioning AGW, it is very limited. One of the best descriptionss of the debate on AGW I’ve ever read was from a woman writing to the national newspaper in Australia today. Her comment was
    “…a debate now dominated by a toxic mix of quasi-religious dogma, feel-good faddism, extreme green ratbaggery, existential anxiety and base politics to a stubborn assertion of ideological purity by right wingers. Rationality apparently now only resides with policymakers in the thrall of an unprecedented example of group-think on a global scale”. Love it!

  28. A recent street poll in Australia asked the question “What does ETS mean”.
    Although the responses shown on TV were possibly biased towards the ridiculous responses for entertainment’s sake, they showed many people with no idea of even what the acronym stood for, never mind what the legislation would accomplish.
    So much for Australians voting for and expecting an ETS.
    I keep sending anti-AGW articles to my local Federal member of Parliament but he is toeing the party line and voting for an ETS; they just don’t want the one that the Labor party is pushing.

  29. Re: H (23:57:03) :
    I have to say he/she is pretty much on the money. Although the defeat in the Senate sounds like Australia has gotten some common sense, unfortunately, this is not so. It’s a big political game.
    Although Rudd and Wong are crazy over this issue, the fact is that Rudd got elected 18 months ago after 12 years or so of Liberal Party government. It’s a bit like the USA, after a while you give the “other side a go”. The situation in Aus would be if Obama was able to call fresh elections to have a “new term”. Obama would still romp it in if that was the case. Unfortunately, in Aus, Rudd is still immensely popular for a variety of reasons.
    If the Senate in Aus rejects the bill a second time within 3 months than Rudd (in the Aus Political system) has the grounds to dissolve both houses of parliament and there is a good chance that he will get a majority in the House of Representatives (the governing section) and the Senate (the house of Review).
    A large number of the Liberal party (the group currently in opposition the Rudd) want or support an ETS but they have concerns about Rudd’s version of the ETS.
    Unless there is some serious Climate Rationalist Debate over the next 3 months than Rudd will probably feel confident to call an early election if the Senate rejects the policy a second time. Unfortunately, I think it’s inevitable that the ETS may eventually get up but at least there is the opportunity for more debate.
    The fat lady ain’t sung yet, unfortunately.

  30. As I suspected, it is only in the UK the politicians are a bunch of self-agrandising, conceited, duplicitous, venal, mendacious, scientifically ignorant bone idle born out of wedlock half-wits with a smile on both faces, (have I missed something out?) who can’t be bothered to think things through properly! Well done Australia, you still have a sense of reality! (hard luck losing the Ashes tho’ (in forlorn hope)):-)

  31. The Greens voted against it. There will be a newer, much more substantial bill in the near future.
    You still have your fingers in your ears going la la la but the earth is warming and millions will die…

  32. Bush was banging on about terrorists, and created a global mess.
    Obama is banging on about the ecology, and is creating another global mess.
    The only winners are ecoterrorists.

  33. Good news down here, but probably not for long…!
    The bill was also rejected by the greens for being too conservative, so if the greens ever control the balance of power in the future the final product could have vast reaching consequences for food production and export earnings.
    The proposed ETS scheme has been appropriately re-named by senator Barnaby Joyce to stand for “Employment Termination Scheme”.
    Thus, if this finally goes ahead we will have plenty of time sitting idly at home to contemplate where it all went wong.

  34. “Time to woo some meeja celebs with big mouths.”
    I suspect Jeremy Clarkson is unimpressed by the alarmists and he may be smart enough to read the graphs.

  35. I’ve said it before…who is Penny Wong??? And why is she in charge of such an important issue. 99% of Australians would never have heard of her before Rudd formed his front bench and if her plan goes through 22million people are going to be significantly affected. I honestly would like to know what her scientific credentials are and life experience is that equips her to hold this portfolio?
    Anyone fill me in?
    Cheers
    Michael

  36. Great news. As a sceptical Brit I wish our politicians had as much sense as the Aussies. Well done.

  37. Ian Middleton (23:38:25)
    Thank you for getting the message out there. As you may have noticed skeptical protesters got a showing on the news. Please keep up the good work.
    As an Australian I would advise other climate realists overseas that the problem in Australia is not yet over. Sadly I believe our opposition leader is a pompous buffoon with the brain of a stoat. He seems to believe that delay on ETS legislation is an appropriate response to the problem. In an energy dependant economy, the continuing threat of ETS legislation is as economically destructive as passing this totally unjustified tax grab. There are many good reasons to move away from fossil fuels, but the big lie of AGW is not one of them. The ends do not justify the means.

  38. Alan the Brit (02:17:56)
    Those aussies forgot to ‘reconstruct’ their upper house like us, and pull out all their unfortunate sharp teeth. I’d bet that our quiet exodus (below) is now set to become a torrent.
    ‘The British Foreign and Commonwealth Office has released statistics showing that with a British population of 798,800, Australia is now home to more British expatriates that France, Spain and Ireland combined.
    Second only to China, the opportunities for work in a country with an exceptional quality of life is attracting thousands of British migrants to Australia every year, a number that shows no sign of slowing down in the near future.’
    http://www.overseas-emigration.co.uk/content/view/570/392/

  39. I went to one of Prof Ian Plimer’s book signings in Sydney. He noted he was trying to get interviews with the various Members of Parliament last year to talk about the issues but got hardly any response. However, his year they’re all calling him. (After having spoken with virtually every parliamentarian he says about 80% of the Liberal Party members are on side, and all of the Nationals). So things are moving quickly. This stall in the ETS can only be good news, as time is with us.

  40. Alan the Brit (02:17:56) : As I suspected, it is only in the UK the politicians are a bunch of self-agrandising, conceited, duplicitous, venal, mendacious, scientifically ignorant bone idle born out of wedlock half-wits with a smile on both faces, (have I missed something out?) who can’t be bothered to think things through properly!
    Nope. That is an accurate description of our lot in the U.S.A. too…
    Though I think you left out vain, condescending, deceitful, and power hungry… Oh, and too lazy to actually read the laws they pass.
    (After a couple of $Trillion in non-read laws, 1000+ pages dropped on folks a few hours before the vote: I’m all in favor of a constitutional amendment to require all bills be read aloud at a normal speaking pace in session with all members of congress in attendance. We’d get a lot fewer, and much better, laws that way.)
    I once was “ground crew” on a hot air balloon. The passenger was a U.S. Senator IIRC (Kennedy sycophant wana-be named Tierny or Tunny or some such).
    We got him loaded in the basket and basic safety instruction given including pointing out the very large, very hot, and very loud burners right over his head. His brilliant scientific question: “Oh, does the hot air make it go?” The “bubble” of secret service, personal aides, and other hangers on around him would guarantee no contact with reality would ever happen…
    After a couple of added gems indicating a complete lack of understanding of anything at all related to physics, chemistry, engineering, or any other technical field; I found a reason to be somewhere that did not involve being in earshot of the guy…

  41. Realizing that the defeat of the bill in Australia may have been more the result of politics rather than a discussion of scientific issues, I sincerely hope that the Senate votes down Obama’s Cap & Trade bill.

  42. As a climate rationalist, I am relieved we have a little more time to allow many more Australians to discover what damage was, and still is, being planned to damage our nation’s economy for no sensible or scientific reason.
    The minister in question, a Ms Wong, is incapable of providing a satisfactory answer to even the most basic question about AGW, but is willing to wreak havoc on our (coal and gas dependent) economy on that basis.
    She has been unable to argue past mouthing robotic chants about the ‘science is settled’, and announcing an imminent ‘tipping point’ which keeps receding like her desert mirage.
    Both PM Rudd and Ms Wong are no friends of Australia – anyone want ’em?

  43. When this AGW fraud is eventually exposed there will be a huge outcry from the deluded masses. The politicians will blame the scientists, and they in turn will blame a hyped media.
    The msm has lost all credibility because they refuse to allow any serious debate on this issue.
    Still, the weather might be in our favor by next March, when a double disolution election could be held. With a cold PDO, a blank sun and a dwarf El Nino, it should give our side lots to cheer about.

  44. tallbloke (01:48:50) :
    “Time to woo some meeja celebs with big mouths.”
    Can anyone think of any with a brain though?

  45. Re Michael (03:14:44)
    Penny Wong’s qualifications to be Australia’s Climate Change Minister.
    A lawyer who can say a lot about nothing in a dreadful monotone.

  46. UK Sceptic (02:31:26) :
    Alan the Brit, I couldn’t have said that better. Might we be related?

    There seem to be a few Brits agreeing with Alan’s comment. We can’t all be related, can we?
    Can we???

  47. Everyone thinks that this dispute over the future of mankind will be settled peacefully thru voting, etc. It won’t be. There is too much at stake.

  48. “Second only to China, the opportunities for work in a country with an exceptional quality of life is attracting thousands of British migrants to Australia every year,”
    They have to move somewhere, GB is turning into Meca

  49. “Allan (01:23:41) :
    The best thing that will happen is that over the next three months the Australian general public will get better exposure to both sides of the argument.
    If the legislation is voted down in November the earliest they can have an election is in March (Have to allow time to close the parliament, set the date etc.etc)
    The last time Aust. went to a double dissolution election it was over another superficially popular topic a national ID card. At the end of that election the Hawke Labor Govt just squeaked home and the topic that the election was called over was subsumed by a run for Federal Parliament by the Queensland Premier Joh Bjelke-Peterson (why is it the closer you get to the equator the more colorful the politicians are?).
    We never did get a national ID card as the voters were exposed to both sides of the argument and glaring holes were found in the legislation during the wait for the election.
    This means that the Rudd Govt. re-election is now dependant on what happens in Copenhagen in December.
    If the big emitters walk away from an international agreement then why was the Rudd Govt getting its knickers into a knot to get a ETS passed.
    If it is just a token agreement at Copenhagen, ditto.
    So Rudd’s future is in the hands of China and India.
    Extra time for the public to reflect on the increase or not of global temperature vs the increase in CO2 will not help the alarmists cause.
    And if you guy’s and gals in the Northern Hemisphere could organise a really big deep winter during the Olympics in Vancouver it would be much appreciated.”
    You (We) do have a national ID card, it’s called a driver’s license.
    “John Trigge (02:11:59) :
    A recent street poll in Australia asked the question “What does ETS mean”.
    Although the responses shown on TV were possibly biased towards the ridiculous responses for entertainment’s sake, they showed many people with no idea of even what the acronym stood for, never mind what the legislation would accomplish.
    So much for Australians voting for and expecting an ETS.
    I keep sending anti-AGW articles to my local Federal member of Parliament but he is toeing the party line and voting for an ETS; they just don’t want the one that the Labor party is pushing.”
    It surprises me not because the media here in Australia is saturated with pro-AGW propaganda. Another indicator of complete stupidity, or just a plain and simple lack of interest, of many poeple is that we recently had the pleasure of a full Moon with Jupiter shining just below it. Awesome sight, I have some great pictures of it albeit with a 50mm lens. I went to a local shop to buy some wine and asked the two young people there had they looked at the Moon this particular night as the bright star below was Jupiter. The two, he was chatting her up…so I guess they were “distracted”, looked at me as if I was from Mars, and looking at each other and then back at me through their sideways glancing eyes and in unison saying “Nnnnnnnnnno……” LOL I have to admit, afterwards I had a little laugh about it.

  50. Mondo,
    Senator fielding is an engineer, so yes he does understand the scientific method, indeed he has demonstrated this through his questioning of the science underpinning AGW. To my knowledge Fielding is one of only two members of parliament (upper or lower houses) that has any formal training in science. The other being Dennis Jenson from Western Australia and he has a PhD in Physics. Both of these men have openly questioned the science underpinning AGW. The remainder are lawyers, accountants, etc, so it is little wonder that these other members of parliament lack the background to properly question the science underpinning AGW.

  51. Michael (03:14:44) :
    I’ve said it before…who is Penny Wong??? And why is she in charge of such an important issue. 99% of Australians would never have heard of her before Rudd formed his front bench and if her plan goes through 22million people are going to be significantly affected. I honestly would like to know what her scientific credentials are and life experience is that equips her to hold this portfolio?
    She’s a lawyer.

  52. Penny Wong cut her political teeth in the NSW forests debate of the mid to late 90’s working for the CFMEU forestry division. She has a reputation as a tough negotiator and is nobody’s fool. She is also a micromanager of her staff and department, i.e. a control freak, just like her boss K RUDD. I’m reliably informed that she has her head around the portfolio including hte international aspects. However I doubt that she has a strong scientific understanding of the issue as it is well beyond her training and work experience. I also doubt her ability to think outside the square especially where scientific logic needs to be employed rahter than the legal logic of always deferring to authority.

  53. “Peter Stroud (03:16:26) :
    Great news. As a sceptical Brit I wish our politicians had as much sense as the Aussies. Well done.”
    Please don’t give credit where credit isn’t due nor justified. This “fight” isn’t over and all parties will be “negotiating a compromise”, just in time for Copenhagen.
    With this ETS, GST will rise to 12.5% in ~2013, same rate as in NZ (And all these schemes appear to be pushed to be in place but ~2015. Why? What happens in 2015? A significant solar minimum as the Russians predicted?). May even go to 15%, same as VAT in the UK. But at this stage I don’t know if this GST will be applied to every thing in Australia as it is currently in NZ. Most people who voted for this KRudd747 gummint just don’t understand what their elected reps are doing/going to do. It’s pretty scary…
    Mfg jobs are already going to China. In fact the NSW gummint actually sources it’s uniforms and cothing, now, from China when previously it was made locally. Holden received AU$200mil “corporate welfare handout” and last year Toyota Australia were given AU$36mil to develop and Austrakian made “hybrid” when Toyota *already* has the technology.
    I work for a company that has secured Govn’t contracts and must do work in Australia with an Australian workforce. I can see an ETS will allow some “room to move” on that, sending power consumption overseas (China).

  54. Jimmy Haigh (04:13:05) : Your comment is awaiting moderation
    “Can anyone think of any (media celebs) with a brain though?

    Of course I can! I was thinking about certain pop stars…

  55. Matt Bennett
    I’m afraid old chap it you that needs to change; I think if you check the comments on here it is you that’s out of step. I am reading Pilmers book now and if you think here is wrong then you are in fact calling into question thousands of peer reviewed papers, none of which have been countered scientifically. All Pilmer has done is join it altogether so we can make sense of it. Makes far more sense than anything from the IPCC or any politician infected with AGW syndrome

  56. And here is another example of the pro-AGW media here in Australia going OTT on a warm body of air moving over Sydney…
    http://www.smh.com.au/environment/sydney-to-heat-up-on-sunday-20090813-ejkv.html
    “Sydneysiders can prepare for a roast this Sunday, with the temperature expected to soar to 28 degrees.
    The temperature is forecast to be 11 degrees above the August average on Sunday, with a top of 28 degrees in the city and a possible 29 in the western suburbs, Bureau of Meteorology forecaster Steve Stefanac said.”
    Well, I guess it is possible, anything “dragging” warm air from the north will, errm, warm things up a bit. We have one or two days where it’s a bit warm, and many more days where it’s below “average”, but there is always more emphasis on the warmer days on the news and all is forgotten about the early start to Autumn and Winter, early start to the snow season and almost no flies last Summer here in Sydney.

  57. Hi Ian Middleton, don’t think we were introduced but I was among the Sceptics protesters. I thought it went pretty well. To all Aussies here I would like to see more of us at these protests if it’s at all possible for you to come.
    Ahh Matt Bennett, how nice of you to describe Rudd and Co. and half the Opposition so aptly. At least Senator Fielding can think for himself. As to the children, teach them critical thinking not politically correct dogma and seudo religious prattle that some how passes for science.
    “Scepticism is the highest of duties, and blind faith the one unpardonable sin.”
    So wrote Thomas Huxley, one of the great minds of the scientific age.

  58. DENIER POWER!
    ( I think it is time to embrace the denier label and spin the meaning, in that we denied those who would mislead us in order to gain power over us the opportunity to do so. We are the deniers! )
    Politicians are starting to get that “Roo in the Headlights” look.
    Except for Penny Wong, she will get hit by the Road Train.

  59. The only reason Cap and Trade is popular with anybody is that very few people actually know what it means but it sure doesn’t sound much like a carbon tax. Yet that’s what it is. In fact it’s worse, because there are bookies getting a percentage. If there was a poll about the popularity of a plain old carbon tax I wonder how many of these pseudo planet-savers would still be left in. In other words, just how much of that polled political correctness is pure hypocrisy?

  60. Hi Ian Middleton, don’t think we were introduced but I was among the Sceptics protesters. I thought it went pretty well. To all Aussies here I would like to see more of us at these protests if it’s at all possible for you to come.
    Ahh Matt Bennett, quote “doesn’t even understand the scientific method and this allows him to be led around in ignorance” & “doesn’t have a shred of credibility left and that’s without touching on the fact that he is one of those all too common political leaders who talks to the sky…..” unquote
    How nice of you to describe the likes of Rudd and Co. and half the Opposition so aptly. At least Senator Fielding can think for himself. As to the children, teach them critical thinking not politically correct dogma and seudo religious prattle that some how passes for science.
    “Scepticism is the highest of duties, and blind faith the one unpardonable sin.”
    So wrote Thomas Huxley, one of the great minds of the scientific age.
    And yes I borrowed that from Leon Ashby.

  61. Good for the Australians. I like to see a smug government get a surprise; more often the better. But here is the problem.
    This issue is never, never going away, and the reason is what some people on this thread will never admit. Some of the science of this issue is settled–CO2 is an IR-absorbing/-radiating gas as are a couple of other gases associated with industry and our modern lifestyle. That much of this argument shouldn’t even be debated. We can even calculate, quite accurately, what is the direct effect of thse gases.
    There are several levels in this entire debate, each one being more murky and complex than the one before it:
    1) The direct effect of greenhouse gases related to modern economies and industry.
    2) Feeback effects of 1).
    3) The over-all result of 1) and 2) on the climate system and its effect regionally in particular.
    4) The impact of 3) on various natural earth systems that we depend upon for support services.
    5) Schemes by which we can mitigate the problem of releasing the naughty gases in the first place.
    6) The ultimate impact of these schemes on the direct problem.
    7) The cost of these various schemes to the economy, jobs, etc…
    8) A decision to perform any one of many different schemes or do nothing at all.
    I claim the science of step 1) in this long chain is settled, but each successive level is more complex and more difficult to comprehend. Probably the issues at step 2) aren’t fully comprehended. Unfortunately global warmists have step 1) as a settled issue and that is a nice trump card to be carrying when no one else is certain what the rest of the deck contains. Opportunists (politicians and certain businessmen) jump now to step 5) ; and the media and demagogues jump all the way to step 8) as though everything else in between is clear and settled. We need to hammer away, very clearly, about things we know for certain in steps 6) and 7); and emphasize in some way the void in knowledge in other steps as well.
    For example, we know these schemes do almost nothing to alleviate the direct problem. 0.02C is laughable as salvation from a “dire crisis”, but the general public are so innumerate that they can’t see it. Journalists have trouble just calculating percentages for pete’s sake. Many people who do understand this have other agendas in mind, and so don’t care.
    Someone else, earlier in this thread talked about a “carbon services bubble” developing over carbon emissions legislation. This is in step 7) and we have a little taste of what can occur here. Go read a report of the carbon services/green economy bubble that developed in Spain, which you can find at http://tinyurl.com/d7z9ye. It is sobering to say the least. I worry the damage we might do to ourselves is incalculable.
    Meanwhile, it’ll be fun to go read the Wall Street Journal on-line and see what folks like Barrie Harrop have to say today!

  62. Trevor (02:14:09) said:
    “The situation in Aus would be if Obama was able to call fresh elections to have a “new term”. Obama would still romp it in if that was the case.”
    As a US citizen I closely follow US politics and it is not at all clear that Obama would be reelected. It can be argued that Obama’s is a man of destiny who arrived on the scene during a national crisis popularly blamed on the Republican party. Although Obama’s personal popularity is still over 50% he is rapidly losing personal support and his policies poll at less than 50% (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/). More importantly he cannot accomplish anything without the votes of a Democratic house and particularly senate. Both state and national polling show his party losing generic polls. It remains to be seen if he can get Cap and Trade legislation passed even with his popularity and significant majorities in the House and Senate. I would be pleased to be educated on how this compares to “Aus” politics.

  63. Mondo:
    Independent senator Steve Fielding should have been mentioned in the main article. He has been the most sane in this debate, asking questions of Penny Wong like we might ask on this blog….no one else has been so forthright.

  64. UK Sceptic:-)
    Glad to hear that there is some sanity left in that North-Western Province called the United Kingdom in the Peoples Democratic Republic of the European Union!
    Britannic no-see-um:-)
    Australia is very tempting, but then again anywhere is at the moment!
    Looks like global warming has started again, the sun is out!

  65. Fantatastic!
    Well done you lads down under. You are all an inspiration to the rest of the civilised world.
    Yes we can. We can repel this nonsense they are trying to ram down our throats.

  66. Climate Heretic (06:26:31) :
    DENIER POWER!
    ( I think it is time to embrace the denier label

    That is a good idea and, at the same time, to establish some “force ideas” like:
    -CO2 is transparent (many believe it is black)
    – CO2 is the gas we all exhale and plants and trees breath
    – CO2 it is an enviroinmental friendly gas, it promotes life on the earth.

    Make all your suggestions to build the deniers’ decalog!

  67. BTW
    Have a look at this – I’ve also posted the link on the tropical storm post made earlier! Guess who is doing it again – & again?
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8197191.stm
    It’s really funny in many ways as especially thay have the right Mann for the job. It’s incnclusive in my mind, with crass statements like “it’s the worst in 1,000 years” followed by “or perhaps not”! Monty Python eat your heart out, you’re no patch on these guys for lunacy!

  68. “E.M.Smith (03:52:45) :
    After a couple of added gems indicating a complete lack of understanding of anything at all related to physics, chemistry, engineering, or any other technical field; I found a reason to be somewhere that did not involve being in earshot of the guy…”
    Get this man a VB!

  69. “Alan the Brit (07:18:23) :
    UK Sceptic:-)
    Glad to hear that there is some sanity left in that North-Western Province called the United Kingdom in the Peoples Democratic Republic of the European Union!
    Britannic no-see-um:-)
    Australia is very tempting, but then again anywhere is at the moment!
    Looks like global warming has started again, the sun is out!”
    No, please, we don’t need no more of them there POMEs, ok?

  70. Kevin,
    I have had a quick look at the Spanish study you linked. Their findings come as no surprise really. Take the nonsense oft spoken by Obama about the millions of “green jobs” that will be created. The report referred to Bastiat, the French economist who famously produced the fallacy of the Broken Window.
    Bastiat asked the reader to imagine a shoemakers shop where a child had broken the window. Onlookers gather around and notice that the shoemaker enlists the services of the glazier. The glazier has repaired the window, and with the money received made purchases of his own. The onlookers conclude that the child has benefited the economy by creating jobs and wealth. Bastiat showed that the fallacy arose because the onlookers based their conclusions only on what they can see with their eyes, not with what is unseen. What remains unseen, is that the money spent by the shoe maker on repairing the window would have been used for something else. Maybe he would have purchased a new coat. That purchase is lost forever.
    The point of the Spanish study is that policy makers are thinking as the crowd of onlookers. They forget that these green jobs can only occur by taking jobs from somewhere else. The study goes further and shows that it’s far worse than one job lost for job created. They found actually 2.2 jobs lost for each green job created. How could this be?
    The reason is due to efficiency loss. Green energy is less efficient and costs more to produce. This means the economy is able to produce less goods for the same cost of purchased inputs. The end result is economic contraction.

  71. Alan the Brit (07:18:23) :
    The Peoples Democratic Republic of the European Union
    That invention seems to be near its end, if we take into account the last election for the TPDREU parliament.
    Now, for example, France has a by far a better economic position being energy independent, if France would turn back into the Franc currency it would have a greater value than the TPDREU “euro”.
    Energy is the key political element of the future. If you choose Windmills you are a sure candidate for dependency.

  72. Good going Australia. Now start working the people to wake up to the hoax. The media will only come around kicking and screaming. They will hate to admit they were in the wrong bed.

  73. collapsing wave (02:33:45) :
    “You still have your fingers in your ears going la la la but the earth is warming and millions will die…”
    It’s good to see another rational AGW proponent joining in the discussion…
    Here’s a You Tube video of Aussie Professor Bob Carter lecturing on AGW. I’m sure many on WUWT have seen it before but I hadn’t – it’s from 2007. Maybe, once collapsing wave has finished watching the teletubbies he might want to watch this for his continuing education?…

  74. Vincent (07:38:09) :
    Many people have got the statistic of 2.2 jobs destroyed per “green job” created, I suppose by reading various summaries of this report; but one of the little discussed aspects of the Spanish effort is that the government has sold what are effectively 25 year bonds carrying a guaranteed yield of 17%, when market interest rates aren’t one-third of that. Who will pay this? Why the average Spaniard of course. So, there are many, many insults that the Spanish economy will suffer for a very long because of this. The report is really well worth reading fully.

  75. Seems like you’ve got a couple too many stars on the flag there mate.
    Oh well, we believe you did the right thing; time to turf those weenies out, and get back to basics.
    REPLY: What makes you think I have the wrong Australian flag?
    Here are my two references:
    http://home.vicnet.net.au/~rasigsau/australian_flag.htm
    http://www.australianflag.org.au/
    I fail to see where I have made any error in choosing the correct flag in the photo above
    – Anthony

  76. “”” Kevin Kilty (06:44:10) :
    Good for the Australians. I like to see a smug government get a surprise; more often the better. But here is the problem.
    This issue is never, never going away, and the reason is what some people on this thread will never admit. Some of the science of this issue is settled–CO2 is an IR-absorbing/-radiating gas as are a couple of other gases associated with industry and our modern lifestyle. That much of this argument shouldn’t even be debated. We can even calculate, quite accurately, what is the direct effect of thse gases. “””
    We can ? so how come we keep on getting the wrong answers. The CO2 keeps on going up, but the temperature doesn’t seem to tfollow it, but now insists on going the other way.
    And by the way; in the part of the atmosphere where CO2 does any significant amount of absorbing (yes it does) it does virtually zero radiation.
    The excitation energy absorbed out of the long wave surface IR is dissipated as “heat” in collisions with N2 and O2 molecules, or an occasional Ar atom. Remember it’s in transit so it must be “heat”, right ?
    The thermal radiation from the atmosphere is a product of the ordinary atmospheric gases, it does not come from the CO2, and the energy to heat that atmosphere more than likely comes from water vapor rather than CO2 or any other trace gas. At higher altitudes some of it comes from ozone absorbing in the 9-10 micron band; but that ozone is also absorbing some in coming solar energy as well so it also contributes to cooling of the surface. It is only at very high altitudes where the mean free path is long and the mean time between collisions is less than the lifetime of the excited CO2 state, that the CO2 itslef becomes a radiator, and then it is so rare, that the amount of energy being radiated is negligible.

  77. collapsing wave (02:33:45):

    “You still have your fingers in your ears going la la la but the earth is warming and millions will die.”

    What ‘collapsing wave’ sees in the mirror: click
    Fill this form out, and you’ll feel much better.
    And for our friends in Oz: click. You made us smile today!

  78. Kevin Kilty (06:44:10) :
    Some of the science of this issue is settled–CO2 is an IR-absorbing/-radiating gas as are a couple of other gases associated with industry and our modern lifestyle. That much of this argument shouldn’t even be debated. We can even calculate, quite accurately, what is the direct effect of thse gases.

    I’ll bite.
    CO2 is 380+ppm of the atsmosphere. Water has 4 times the effect. Disregarding the wavelength saturation, what is the direct effect of CO2 calculated from empirical data?

  79. Collapsing Wave – I’ve got news for you. In little more than 100 years, EVERYONE alive today will be dead. That’s 7bn people. Do you think you can fix that with a tax rise?

  80. collapsing wave (02:33:45) :
    The sun is in a “collapsing wave” you’ll feel it soon and it doesn’t matter how much CO2 you exhale it won’t heat up. Your mother land will prefer being covered with ice than being subjected to your prophet’s designs.

  81. All I can say is, it is far more important that cap-and-trade dies than healthcare reform. At least with healthcare reform, we’ll be getting something to benefit Americans (even though it’ll probably be rationed and of lesser quality) vs passing cap-and-trade which is going to result in wealth, technology, and technological know-how being transfered to foreign countries.

  82. “”” George E. Smith (10:12:02) :
    Seems like you’ve got a couple too many stars on the flag there mate.
    Oh well, we believe you did the right thing; time to turf those weenies out, and get back to basics.
    REPLY: What makes you think I have the wrong Australian flag?
    Here are my two references:
    http://home.vicnet.net.au/~rasigsau/australian_flag.htm
    http://www.australianflag.org.au/
    I fail to see where I have made any error in choosing the correct flag in the photo above
    – Anthony
    Not to worry Anthony; just a littel regional elbowing. We Kiwis only have four of the Southern Cross Statrs on our flag; I think ours are red too instead of white. NZ is also giving the bum’s rush to the cap and trade crowd. Their intesive tree farming makes NZ a net carbon sink just like the USA.
    Anyway I’m a Yank now; so I don’t look at other flags that much any more.
    So no foul; green flag; sail on !
    George

  83. Mr Green Genes (11:29:45) :
    “Collapsing Wave – I’ve got news for you. In little more than 100 years, EVERYONE alive today will be dead. That’s 7bn people. Do you think you can fix that with a tax rise?”
    A little older, but data is still current:
    [url]http://www.theonion.com/content/news/world_death_rate_holding_steady_at[/url]

  84. Anthony ,your Aussie flag is perfectly OK. Those of you who saw the protest at Parliament House it was organised by The Climate Sceptics Party of Australia ( http://www.climatesceptics.com.au ). Those Australians who read this and have not joined TCS please consider doing so. We are very close to being registered as a political party only needing a few people to make that a reality.
    For those of you from outside of Australia, take heart at the results we are starting to see from our actions and coordination with other politicians who are sceptical of the AGW Hypothesis. You will be able to watch and learn from us and maybe consider setting up the same party in your countries.
    Keep up the fight for calm, rational and informed debate.

  85. That Spanish study reminds me that there’s only ever one thing more depressing than a climate scientist pretending he knows how the climate works, and that is an economist who pretends he knows how economies work. When have either set of loons ever been right about anything? They both distort history to fit their ideologies and then makes predictions based on overly-simplified models which are always, repeat always wrong. At least though some progress is being made in climate science – largely by skeptics it would seem. Economists though are a lost cause – stimulus doesn’t go far enough, it goes too far, government not doing enough, it’s doing too much. For that reason alone i’d expect that Spanish report to be 100% wrong and that there’ll be green jobs aplenty. Tthen they’ll say it’s more inefficient because green tech uses too many workers.

  86. Congratulations OZ! Always liked your independent spirit. Be ready for the follow on by keeping an eye on science confirming the disconnect between AGW CO2 and temps. As that more clear the purpose in “capping CO2” becomes ever more barmy.

  87. Good on yer mates! Intelligence and common sense prevails over sheer suicidal idiocy.
    Cap and Trade would commit millions of dollars to fight a problem that doesn’t exist, by means unscientific, to an extent that the even the fabricated science says is woefully inadequate and crosses the borders of the ridiculous in one giant leap.
    Yesterday I had the unpleasant experience of listening to a Greens party lady on radio saying how important it was for “us” to “fight” global warming and how we (New Zealand) must do our bit no matter that China and India were spewing out many times the CO2 that we would ever hope to produce.
    The reason? We were the highest per capita producers of GHG’s, thanks to our cattle and sheep flatulence (and hers possibly?). She said of course India and China SHOULD produce more CO2 and they were “allowed” because they had more people. The total numbers didnt matter to her – per capita was what she was most concerned about.

  88. This is a big win for democracy and the rights of the citizens of Australia. However, this is only the first major salvo launched and more needs to be done to keep intelligent debate going to help the majority understand the issues involved.

  89. Matt Bennett (01:09:17) :…..
    You attack Steve Fielding personally without addressing his questions…. All Mr Fielding did was ask Penny Wong, the Australian Minister for Climate Change and Water, three simple questions which She and the AGW pro active scientists are unable to answer…. Just as you do.
    ————————————————————
    [The questions Fielding put to Minister Wong were as follows:
    Question 1:
    Is it the case that CO2 increased by 5% since 1998 whilst global temperature cooled over the same period (see Fig. 1)?
    If so, why did the temperature not increase; and how can human emissions be to blame for dangerous levels of warming?
    Question 2:
    Is it the case that the rate and magnitude of warming between 1979 and 1998 (the late 20th century phase of global warming) was not unusual in either rate or magnitude as compared with warmings that have occurred earlier in the Earth’s history (Fig. 2a, 2b)?
    If the warming was not unusual, why is it perceived to have been caused by human CO2 emissions; and, in any event, why is warming a problem if the Earth has experienced similar warmings in the past?
    Question 3:
    Is it the case that all GCM computer models projected a steady increase in temperature for the period 1990-2008, whereas in fact there were only 8 years of warming were followed by 10 years of stasis and cooling. (Fig. 3)?
    If so, why is it assumed that long-term climate projections by the same models are suitable as a basis for public policy making? ]
    ———————————————————-
    For this you call him stupid and uneducated….. No sir. The fault lies with you.

  90. There is still a long way to go here in Oz. As a country we account for only 1% of global GHG’s and nearly half of that comes from agriculture including livestock. The majority of the population have been deluded by the new federal government to believe that the ETS will actually reverse climate change locally and set an example that the rest of the world (including the main GHG emitters) will follow. So although this looks like a first round victory for common sense the majority of Australians still very much believe in Santa Clause and the tooth fairy. This is evidenced in the opinion poles that have Kevin Rudd > 60% approval rating. The Labor party’s belief in AGW is such that it would probably take icebergs to flow into Sydney Harbour before they questioned it, and even if they did their course of action would be to invite TV and media stars and sporting personalities to form a new high powered intellectual committee for some high powered brain storming.
    I think NASA should be investigating the new and rapid growth of deep space – between the ears of this planets human inhabitants.

  91. The battle is a very, very long way from being won in Australia. I am wondering if a suggestion of an emissions trading scheme for oxygen would be a help. It would mean starting the work all over again and might show up the mistakes which have been made with carbon trading. 🙂

  92. E.M.Smith (03:52:45) :
    Alan the Brit (02:17:56) : As I suspected, it is only in the UK the politicians are a bunch of self-agrandising, conceited, duplicitous, venal, mendacious, scientifically ignorant bone idle born out of wedlock half-wits with a smile on both faces, (have I missed something out?) who can’t be bothered to think things through properly!
    Nope. That is an accurate description of our lot in the U.S.A. too…
    Though I think you left out vain, condescending, deceitful, and power hungry… Oh, and too lazy to actually read the laws they pass.
    Duly noted:-)
    As I suspected, it is only in the UK the politicians are a bunch of self-agrandising, conceited, duplicitous, venal, mendacious, vain, condescending, deceitful, power hungry, too lazy to actually read the laws they pass, scientifically ignorant bone idle, born out of wedlock half-wits with a smile on both faces, who can’t be bothered to think things through properly! Oooh that felt good second time around. Surely they cannot possess any other noble attributes?
    We have the same over here too then. It’s like the tax threshold for the low paid, & the taxing of polder cars, they voted for it, then 12 months later realised what they had done & couldn’t reverse it, making a few million poor worse off, at the same time baying for blood but not their own! Do you have a Party Whip in the States, one who makes all party members tow the line? That’s party politics for you.

  93. Re: PMH (06:45:16)
    “As a US citizen I closely follow US politics and it is not at all clear that Obama would be reelected..”
    I wouldn’t want to divert this thread too much by discussing politics of US vs Aus system. Suffice to say, I fully understand that Obama is basically in for 4 years and so my analogy was a “what if”. In the Australian political system, Federal (National) elections are every three years. The Lower House of Parliament (House of Representatives) is the House that Governs the country. The political party that gets the majority in the Lower House is the Governing party. Currently the Labor party has the majority and the labor leader of the lower house is Kevin Rudd (Krudd). He is the Prime Minister. Labor is politically Left to Middle. The current minority party in the Lower House is the Opposition. (Made up of two parties in a coalition, Liberals Middle to right and the Nationals – Further right who generally represent rural voters and farmers etc.) John Howard, our previous PM was the leader of the Liberal Party, he was a great mate of Bush (the younger).
    The lower house runs the show. Any policies they make have to be “rubber stamped” or reviewed by the Upper house or senate in which currently the Labor party does not have a majority. If the senate rejects the same Lower house legislation twice within 3 months the PM can call an early election and dissolve both houses of parliament. In other words all seats are “up for grabs”.
    Because Krudd if still popular he may do this although I think this may be unlikely now.
    I heard on the radio today Rudd stating categorically, that he was elected to serve for 3 years and that is his intention. He seemed very adamant about not calling an early election. I think he fears calling an election over an ETS as the trigger issue as this will allow a lot of debate on this single issue. I expect that Rudd may wait until late 2010, have the normal election, probably get in. It means he will may have to wait an extra year to get his ETS across the line but he will avoid the election being on a single issue.
    On a side issue, today as I was travelling, the ETS is big discussion. One radio station in 30 minutes did a “straw poll” on whether people are against or for the ETS. The result was amazing, 40 callers against the ETS, 2 for the ETS.
    I was unaware that Obama is losing popularity so rapidly. Does that mean you’ll elect Palin in 2012? 🙂

  94. @ Collapsing Wave – According to John Holdren , Obamas Science Czar, that is a good thing. In fact it’s not nearly enough. He wants the population to be around 2 billion. Such a sweet heart isn’t he?

  95. Vincent,
    Bastiat’s “negative railway” is another good example of his thinking. When railroads were being built through France, the residents of one town called for a gap to be made in the railroad there, arguing that it would create employment for porters, taxis, hotels, shops, etc, as travellers disembarked at one rail terminus and made their way to the other one. Bastiat seized on this, and called for a railway that consisted entirely of gaps – a “negative railway”.
    The logic of Green “job creation” schemes is the same. It leads back to the Stone Age. Which is, of course, exactly what they want.

  96. I sure hope we can one day clean up our education system so that the nonsense and half-truths espoused by such pseudo-intellects can be discerned by most for what it is.
    I sure hope that doesn’t sound like what I think that sounds like.

  97. I have always like the Aussies. I knew their good-natured common sense would prevail. Now, throw another AGW alarmist on the barbie! And open another can of that delicious CO2-fuming Fosters!!!
    (This is meant to be humor. The writer does not advocate actual barbequeing of the wizards who have drunk the AGW Kool-Aid. The writer does, however, advocate the consumption of CO2-fuming bevvies, even if there are..uh..eventual collateral CH4 emissions.)
    Ozzie, ozzie, ozzie! Oy, oy, oy!!!!!!

  98. Trevor (03:29:26)
    Thanks for the education: it helps understand what is realy happening.
    US politics is very dynamic and the US electorate have a very short memory: Typically more interested in “what have you done for me lately” than “what did you do for me last year”. As for 2012 I’m putting 50% on Obama, 50% on Palin, and 50% on someone whose name we don’t even know. Congressional elections next year should sharpen this bet.
    As for the topic of this thread: as of Friday July 14, the betting ( http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=ah3CTKEw4HQco ) is that the senate will take up energy legislation this year but not cap-and-trade.

  99. There’s a new threat to Australia now, according to Landline (I think that’s the name, not sure TBH) program on TV this morning and that’s the water footprint. Yes people it’s true, Australia is sufferening from global drying. Our water footprint will be highlighted soon by “green” groups….unlike air, water is already taxed here.

  100. So far as I could see there was only one scientific paper against AIDS being caused by a virus. Nothing like the opposition today against the AGW hypothesis, whose science has been clouded by lies, manipulation and concealment.
    This is another case of a person in another discipline, to be admired for his work in his discipline, pontificating about AGW.

  101. StevenY (11:32:01) :
    I have always like the Aussies. I knew their good-natured common sense would prevail. Now, throw another AGW alarmist on the barbie! And open another can of that delicious CO2-fuming Fosters!!!
    We like you back, however we don’t really drink Fosters Lager. Fosters is export only really with a couple of bars on Oxford street is Sydney selling it on tap.
    Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

  102. Excerpts From: Global Warming, a Mass Mania
    “Global Warming is the mania of our times. While there is good scientific evidence that atmospheric carbon dioxide is increasing from the burning of fossil fuels, and that carbon dioxide does indeed absorb infa-red heat radiation of certain frequencies, it is purely speculation that this will cause a climate catastrophe.”
    “The ongoing political waffle over setting targets for differing percentages of emission reductions at various points decades in the future is about as useful as debating over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.”
    “Unfortunately, the academics, activists, politicians and bureaucrats leading the push for carbon dioxide taxation and use of renewable energy are non-producers who are woefully ignorant of both the economic reality of productive activity and the practical limits of technology. They are techno-economic-illiterates with a cargo cult understanding of production. Their prescriptions amount to a ritualistic belief that admitting sin (GW) and making an appropriate sacrifice (carbon dioxide taxes) will in some undefined (magical) way bring forth all the right changes, discoveries and implementations that are needed to effect a bright new world of clean endlessly renewable energy with minimal inconvenience to anyone.”
    The full article – well worth a read: http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2009/08/walter-starck

  103. Tim Clark (10:55:59) :
    “Kevin Kilty (06:44:10) :
    Some of the science of this issue is settled–CO2 is an IR-absorbing/-radiating gas as are a couple of other gases associated with industry and our modern lifestyle. That much of this argument shouldn’t even be debated. We can even calculate, quite accurately, what is the direct effect of thse gases.”
    I’ll bite.
    CO2 is 380+ppm of the atsmosphere. Water has 4 times the effect. Disregarding the wavelength saturation, what is the direct effect of CO2 calculated from empirical data?

    MODTRAN shows the direct effect of doubling CO2 from 375 to 750 ppm, in a dry atmosphere, with surface temperature of 294K and standard atmosphere lapse rate, to be 3.8 W/m^2. It is really not a large effect, but it does increase the power absorbed on the surface. There isn’t any doubt about this. MODTRAN operates on measured spectra of CO2 from 6 to 1000 micrometers wavelength, and it has been used by the Navy and Air Force, and lots of other folks for a long time–plenty well validated in technical systems.
    Now the next step in the chain is the effect of the additional 3.8 W/m^2 on water vapor, and this is where things begin to become very complicated.

  104. George E. Smith (10:26:27) :
    “”” Kevin Kilty (06:44:10) :
    Good for the Australians. I like to see a smug government get a surprise; more often the better. But here is the problem.
    This issue is never, never going away, and the reason is what some people on this thread will never admit. Some of the science of this issue is settled–CO2 is an IR-absorbing/-radiating gas as are a couple of other gases associated with industry and our modern lifestyle. That much of this argument shouldn’t even be debated. We can even calculate, quite accurately, what is the direct effect of thse gases. “””
    We can ? so how come we keep on getting the wrong answers. The CO2 keeps on going up, but the temperature doesn’t seem to tfollow it, but now insists on going the other way.

    Yes, but the temperature is not going down because the behavior of CO2 is somehow different–it involves more complicated issues. My point is that
    we would help our argument if we could get away from simplistic statements like “CO2 doesn’t warm the Earth.”

  105. Erratum: A couple of posts back I said that MODTRAN calculates from 6 to 1000 micrometers, and in fact it goes from 6 to 100 micrometers.

  106. Patrick Davis (00:00:23) :
    It’s how academics get grants these days: by studying nature and blaming it on man. Now that it’s ‘climate change’ anything goes. I still call it global warming because that’s what it’s all about: that’s what started this whole fiasco off.
    Ah well. It’s the last Ashes test match this week at the Oval. Maybe global warming will make the ball swing and favour England and we’ll win the Ashes back? I can see the headlines: “Global Warming Wins The Ashes for England”.
    Unfortunately, the probability is that the headline will be: “Global Warming Helps Aussies Retain The Ashes”.

  107. “Patrick Davis (00:00:23) :
    It’s how academics get grants these days: by studying nature and blaming it on man. Now that it’s ‘climate change’ anything goes. I still call it global warming because that’s what it’s all about: that’s what started this whole fiasco off.
    Ah well. It’s the last Ashes test match this week at the Oval. Maybe global warming will make the ball swing and favour England and we’ll win the Ashes back? I can see the headlines: “Global Warming Wins The Ashes for England”.
    Unfortunately, the probability is that the headline will be: “Global Warming Helps Aussies Retain The Ashes”.”
    That’s if they can keep the seaguls off the pitch and stop them from flying off with one of the bails.

  108. Good on the Aussies!
    Oz is the only country in the world I’ve ever been where the taxi drivers assault you with extremist liberal, eco-crusader points of view. That alone is worth the trip! (Unless an American contributor can tell me this is the same in e.g. San Francisco ? 🙂
    Thx for a great blog – just don’t move the centre (sic) of gravity too far toward the factual until my novel’s published – my AGW-believing baddie is a key protagonist ! ..

  109. I find it hilarious when American try to miss quote situations they don’t seem to want to understand, this story is rubbish. A closer look at the facts would reveal that of the 30-42 vote, 5 votes are from the greens, they voted against it because they want high (not lower) targets, when push comes to shove and the second vote comes on this issue they will vote for it rather than see it fail. So all the denier back slapping above is pretty pointless.
    In all honesty the opposition here is in such a mess they can’t afford to go to an election over this issue (and they know it) plus they on the verge of another leadership change and Senator Nick Xenophon already has a history of using such locked votes to get things for his own electorate as he did with the water bill to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. I also notice that Mr Watts fails to mention that the opposition here “the Liberals” lead by Malcolm Turnbull actually support the theory of AGW so what ever Mr Watts thinks he sees in this vote simply isn’t there.

Comments are closed.