This thread is for discussion of Australian aspects of global warming.

Visits: 2172

269 Thoughts on “Australia

  1. THREAD on 18/10/2010 at 8:03 pm said:

    Who is Tony Cox? You may well ask.

    Anthony Cox is a lawyer and secretary of The Climate Sceptics.

    He has degrees in law and climatology and is a regular contributor to science blogs and the media.

    Get that?

    “degrees in law and climatology”

  2. THREAD on 22/10/2010 at 10:39 am said:

    Alice Springs: coldest day on record

  3. THREAD on 22/10/2010 at 11:41 am said:

    Sydney shivers through coldest September in five years

  4. THREAD on 22/10/2010 at 11:45 am said:

    Monster cold snap hits state of Tasmania

  5. THREAD on 22/10/2010 at 11:47 am said:

    Tasmania Cold – Google Search

  6. THREAD on 22/10/2010 at 11:50 am said:

    Record looms, and shivers it’s cold in Adelaide

  7. THREAD on 22/10/2010 at 11:52 am said:

    Adelaide Cold – Google Search

  8. THREAD on 23/10/2010 at 10:35 am said:

    Murray-Darling Basin getting drier: study

    Program director Dr David Post said these changes were linked to large-scale atmospheric circulation patterns.

    They indicated a shift in the overall climate of south-eastern Australia, similar to what has been experienced in south-west Western Australia since the 1970s, Dr Post said.

    “The research indicates that these changes can be linked to global warming, making it a likely contributor to the recent drought,” he said.

    The next three years of research will look at the extent to which the changes can be attributed to climate change, improve projections of the impacts on water resources and improve seasonal forecasting of climate and streamflow.

    The research was carried out by the CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology with financial support from the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, Victorian Department of Sustainability and Environment, Commonwealth Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, and the Managing Climate Variability Program.

    • val majkus on 23/10/2010 at 1:29 pm said:

      Yes, I saw that story yesterday but am doubtful without seeing the full paper of the reasoning behind the statement “The research indicates that these changes can be linked to global warming, making it a likely contributor to the recent drought”

      The CSIRO BOM recently published a report entitled State of the Climate which is criticised here:
      for example:
      Global Warming
      The claim by the CSIRO of greater than 90 percent certainty that man-made carbon dioxide threatens to increase global temperatures to dangerous levels is derived from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports and is not supported by statistical analysis. Moreover, it is not supported by any analysis in the CSIRO/BOM paper which provides only a graph showing an increase in carbon dioxide emissions. Without supporting analysis the statement has no value for development of policy.
      In a recent article in „The Wall Street Journal‟, R. S. Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, stated “It is sometimes claimed that the IPCC is 90 percent confident of this claim (that most of the warming of the past 50 years or so is due to man‟s emissions) but there is no known statistical basis for this claim; it‟s purely subjective.”

      Conclusion (

      The CSIRO/BOM paper provides no evidence man-made carbon dioxide has in the past, or will in the future, cause dangerous global warming.

      Past records show there is no evidence of a dangerous cause and effect relationship between carbon dioxide and atmospheric temperature.

      The simple proposition that man-made carbon dioxide determines increased global temperature fails a fundamental principle of science: that a cause must demonstrate a consistent effect.

      There is no analysis to support the claim of greater than 90 percent certainty that man-made carbon dioxide threatens to increase global temperatures to dangerous levels. In fact, there is presently no evidence to show there is such a risk.

      Methane levels have plateaued since the end of the twentieth century and therefore grazing animals and fugitive emissions from coal mines play no part in global warming.

      The selective presentation of data by CSIRO/BOM does not provide the basis for objective analysis which is required to support a Climate Policy costing the Australian community billions of dollars.

      In the absence of sound science the case has not been made for the economic costs to agriculture and industry associated with an ETS. Nor is there a case for the $30 million in the 2010 Federal Budget for a “national campaign to educate the community on climate change”, if such a campaign reflected the standard of information in the CSIRO/BOM paper. This is particularly so at a time when there are urgent and competing requirements for national resources.

      So far as the report itself is concerned I think this is it (though this is dated May)
      (quoting from p 26)
      There is strong evidence of an increasing trend in
      temperature in south-eastern Australia, which could
      be projected ahead for the next few years. Rainfall in
      the region shows substantial decadal variability and it
      is difficult to discern a long-term trend in the observed
      rainfall record, although the last decade has certainly
      been unusual in the observed Australian rainfall record.
      There is also increasing evidence that at least part of the
      current reduction in rainfall is associated with climate
      change. Global climate models suggest reduced rainfall
      across the region in future decades due to climate change.
      Based on analysis of the climate record and on model
      projections of future climate, it is therefore likely that the
      climate baseline is shifting due to the global warming.

      (Hmmm … if that is an example of reasoning … )

      I’ve e mailed Warwick Hughes and Dr J Marohasy to see if either of them have time to comment…

    • Richard C (NZ) on 23/10/2010 at 2:24 pm said:

      “it is therefore likely that the climate baseline is shifting due to the global warming.”

      Good Grief!

      They seem to be oblivious (possibly intentionally – got to keep the Climate Change Gravy Train Express chuffing along) to mid 2000’s points-of-inflexion in almost all global metrics.

      I wonder how long before the penny drops that we are entering a cool phase (see Don J. Easterbrook) in the Earths natural cycle.

      As for the conclusion.

      Similar can be said for NZ and the rest of the world (although it has been pointed out a couple of times in obscure parts of the blogosphere).

    • Richard C (NZ) on 23/10/2010 at 3:00 pm said:

      And they could do worse than take a peek at UNISYS; Current Sea Surface Temperature Anomaly Plot

      When La Nina pushes all that warm water West, guess what?


      We in NZ even saw a TVNZ clip “Lake in a desert” (surprize!).

      Doesn’t CSIRO-BOM get OZ news in OZ?

    • val majkus on 23/10/2010 at 4:07 pm said:

      Ha! I’ve heard from Dr J Marohasy – she’s busy today and will do something tomorrow

      Here’s her bio by the way

      Dr Marohasy is a biologist, Adjunct Research Fellow in the Centre for Plant and Water Science at CQ University, columnist for The Land newspaper (Rural Press), founding member of the Australian Environment Foundation and past Chair. She has a PhD from the University of Queensland and has worked for the Queensland sugar industry, the Melbourne-based Institute of Public Affairs and as an entomologist for the Queensland Department of Lands where she was instrumental in the successful biological control of the North Queensland weed, rubbervine (Cryptostegia grandiflora) following six years of field work in Africa.

      Dr Marohasy is concerned that public policy on environmental issues is increasingly driven by moral crusading, rather than objective science or need.

      Jennifer Marohasy is sceptical of the consensus position on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) and gives informative talks on climate change, agricultural and environmental topics.

      So some cred there

    • val majkus on 23/10/2010 at 8:41 pm said:

      Here’s Dr Marohasy’s take:
      (produced in less than 5 hours from the time I asked her:)
      On Thursday the New South Wales Government officially declared the nine-year drought ended. The very next day the CSIRO released a report warning that the ‘current drought’ appears to be at least partly linked to ‘climate change’.

      The CSIRO report entitled ‘Climate variability and change in south-eastern Australia’ is an initiative of the South Eastern Australian Climate Initiative, SEACI, lead by CSIRO with input from the Bureau of Meteorology and the Murray-Darling Basin Authority.

      The report forecasts a future decline in rainfall and works from the assumption there is already long term decline.

      The first diagram, Figure 1, however, only shows historical rainfall data for the period 1997 to 2009 excluding the last very wet ten months. The first graph, Figure 2, shows inflows, not rainfall, across the Murray Darling Basin without explaining that many variables impact inflows that have nothing to do with rainfall including changes in land management, salt interception and drainage schemes etcetera.

      A scientific report of this kind might have begun with a discussion of the complete historical rainfall record and avoided confusing inflows with actual rainfall.

      The report’s forecast of a drier future could come to pass, but the track record of Australian climate scientists for predicting rainfall even one season ahead is dismal. The Bureau incorrectly forecast below average rainfall for spring this year for the upper Murray catchments just before the region was flooded. Last year the forecast for a hot and dry summer resulted in drought breaking rains across the upper Murray Darling Basin.

      Rainfall – the most significant climate variable – is spectacularly changeable and non-robust from one climate model to the next.

      Professor Gareth Paltridge in his book ‘The Climate Caper’ (Connor Court, 2009, pg 21) makes reference to an Australian National University study of the various simulations of rainfall as produced by the IPCC models. The simulations of average Australian rainfall apparently range from less than 200mm per year to greater than 1000mm per year. The actual measured value is 450mm. Considering the forecasts for the late 21st Century, apparently more than half the models predict an increase in rainfall over Australia, and the rest predict a decrease. The most extreme decrease is from the CSIRO IPCC model which suggests that average rainfall over Australia 100 years from now will be 100mm per year less.

      At the global scale, according to AGW theory, an increase in carbon dioxide should lead to an increase in water vapour concentrations and therefore more cloud. But there is some empirical evidence to suggest that water vapour feedback is in fact negative, not positive.

      In summary, there is no reason to suggest that the new SEACI forecast for a decline in rainfall across south eastern Australia will be any more accurate that previous CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology seasonal and long range forecasts that have proven unreliable. Furthermore it is of concern that the report purportedly about south eastern Australia, released in October 2010, makes continual reference to the ‘ongoing drought’ and ‘current drought’ when south eastern Australia is no longer in drought.

      Dr Marohasy says ‘Be careful not to confuse rainfall with runoff.’ and “runoff is calculated by climate modelling’

      check Dr Marohasy’s site for her credentials

    • Richard C (NZ) on 24/10/2010 at 10:17 am said:

      A very astute analysis.

      “many variables impact inflows that have nothing to do with rainfall”

      ‘Be careful not to confuse rainfall with runoff.’ and “runoff is [sic – as?] calculated by climate modelling’

      Have raised “coefficient of runoff” previously, in regard to SSL.

      “At the global scale, according to AGW theory, an increase in carbon dioxide should lead to an increase in water vapour concentrations and therefore more cloud. But there is some empirical evidence to suggest that water vapour feedback is in fact negative, not positive.”


      “Considering the forecasts for the late 21st Century, apparently more than half the models predict an increase in rainfall over Australia, and the rest predict a decrease. The most extreme decrease is from the CSIRO IPCC model which suggests that average rainfall over Australia 100 years from now will be 100mm per year less.”

      Obviously a warm bias in the CSIRO model that (I’m guessing) uses IPCC RF methodology (ACO2 major climate driver).

      I will be putting up links and info re the CSIRO model under “CLIMATE MODELS” eventually, but at the moment NIWA’s Supercomputer and its UKMO UM Climate Model takes precedence.

    • val majkus on 24/10/2010 at 11:01 am said:

      Another puzzle (to me) is reported at WUWT
      which relates to an article in Quadrant Online by Tom Quirk (quoting)
      In the last two years some 900 mm of rainfall have been removed from the rainfall record of the Murray-Darling Basin. This startling discovery was made by comparing the annual Murray-Darling Basin rainfall reported on the Bureau of Meteorology website in August 2008 and the same report found yesterday.

      Anthony went to some trouble to run graphs to illustrate the difference between the ‘before removal’ data and the post removal data and his conclusion ‘I notice the peaks post 1950 seem to be reduced, but the lows are not’

      Fig 1 in the CSIRO/BOM report shows historical rainfall data for the period 1997 to 2009; is there some difference to the historical data – I don’t know

    • Richard C (NZ) on 24/10/2010 at 11:49 am said:

      Good point Val – I’d forgotten about that.

      The beauty of this forum is that we can bring together the various components of the “puzzle” – I love it, like a kid in a candy store.

      From WUWT:

      “The Bureau is already on record adjusting Australian temperature measurements and they now appear to have turned to rainfall, making the last 60 years drier than previously reported.”

      Another astute observation.

    • val majkus on 24/10/2010 at 11:54 am said:

      And here’s Warwick Hughes take on the CSIRO/BOM report dated May 2010
      Warwick’s comment is no 7 on that page

      Warwick’s credentials are impressive and I have mentioned them before on this site so just search for his name without quotes in the search room

      anyway from what each of Warwick Hughes and Dr Marohasy say I would have serious reservations about the contents of the BOM/CSIRO report linked above

    • Richard C (NZ) on 24/10/2010 at 1:48 pm said:

      What a bizarre chain of events.

      Thanks for the Warwick Hughes link Val – very enlightening.

      I like this bit

      “Anyway – the May 2010 “South Eastern Australian Climate Initiative” is a mish mash of the usual doomster predictions by the assorted collection of taxpayer funded Greenhousers – who in this case have all fallen spectacularly on their faces as there has been notable useful rains from the time the report was issued and the MDB runs from top to Murray-mouth. Any half-critical media would laugh at them – trotting out this failed report.

      We can be sure that whenever the “expensive water lobby” – Wentworth Group – CSIRO – BoM – and assorted other members of the broad climate change cabal – want to get their views in the MSM – then the ever faithful GreenMSM obediently makes space and any critical faculties are suspended.”

      Warwick’s analysis of “the issue of runoff/inflows and the unreliability of constructing long term time series of river data modeling so beloved by the “expensive water lobby”” is comprehensive too.

      The participation of BoM in this “Initiative” provides no comfort leading up to the release of the results of BoM’s audit of the NZTR.

    • val majkus on 24/10/2010 at 1:55 pm said:

      Particularly as NIWA denies there is an official or formal NZTR; it would be interesting exactly what BOM has been asked to audit (in NIWA’s words)

    • val majkus on 25/10/2010 at 1:22 pm said:

      Another matter of concern to me in the CSIRO BOM report is the reliance upon modelling particularly for past run off and for future weather and run off predictions
      Niche Modelling has a nice article upon the deficiancies of computer modelling
      referring to a review by Roger Pielke Sr of a paper showing the abuse of models
      (quoting from the article which has a link to the paper)
      In the opinion of the editor Kundzewicz (who has served prominently on the IPCC), climate models were only designed to provide a broad assessment of the response of the global climate system to greenhouse gas (GHG) forcings, and to serve as the basis for devising a set of GHG emissions policies. They were not designed for regional adaptation studies.

      To expect more from these models is simply unrealistic, at least for direct application to regional water management problems. The Anagnostopoulos et al conclusions negate the value of spending so much money on regional climate predictions decades into the future, for example on the South Eastern Australian Climate Initiative and the Queensland Climate Change Centre of Excellence. ”

      It’s relevant to this topic because of the reliance upon modelling in the CSIRO/BOM report

    • THREAD on 25/10/2010 at 2:42 pm said:

      Thank you Val – I’ve been searching all over for that link.

      Climate model abuse
      – Niche Modelling.

      Roger Pielke Sr. reviews another very important new paper showing the abuse of models.

      “To expect more from these models is simply unrealistic, at least for direct application to regional water management problems. The Anagnostopoulos et al conclusions negate the value of spending so much money on regional climate predictions decades into the future, for example on the South Eastern Australian Climate Initiative and the Queensland Climate Change Centre of Excellence. ” – Niche Modelling

      I note that although “South Eastern Australian Climate Initiative” does not seem to be a bona-fide scientific paper, this (possibly) related paper “Key findings from the Indian Ocean Climate Initiative and their impact on policy development in Australia” has 21 citations and “Enhanced greenhouse climate change and its potential effect on selected fauna of south-eastern Australia: A trend analysis” has 98! (also possibly related).

    • Richard C (NZ) on 25/10/2010 at 3:16 pm said:

      “Climate variability and change in south-eastern Australia” is merely a report also but Google Scholar brings up a paper “A discussion on aspects of the seasonality of the rainfall decline in South-Eastern Australia”, Timbal – CAWCR Research Letters, 2010. No citations to date.

      It’s part of this series:

      Evaluation of low latitude cloud properties in ACCESS and HadGEM AMIP simulations, C. Franklin and M. Dix

      Real-time seasonal SST predictions for the Great Barrier Reef during the summer of 2009/2010, C. Spillman, D. Hudson and O. Alves

      A discussion on aspects of the seasonality of the rainfall decline in South-Eastern Australia, B. Timbal

      Evaluation of ACCESS-A Clouds and Convection using Near Real-Time CloudSat-CALIPSO Observations, A. Protat, L. Rikus, S. Young, J. Le Marshall, P. May, and M. Whimpey

      Available here – [PDF] from

      So just like the NZTR, there’s a lot riding on these reports and papers (that are based on what?) and BoM is in the thick of it.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 25/10/2010 at 3:26 pm said:

      Also in “Real Science”

      The Key Ingredient Of Climate Legislation

      In order to get climate legislation passed, it is essential to exaggerate or fabricate crises. A good example is Australia, which is widely reported by the MSM to be in an historic drought due to global warming.

      The Australian BOM shows about 3% of the country in drought over the last three years. Meaning that 97% of the country is not having a drought.

    • THREAD on 25/10/2010 at 3:52 pm said:

      We better keep this in mind:

      CAWCR Research Letters

      Issue 4, July 2010
      P.A. Sandery, T. Leeuwenburg, G. Wang, A.J. Hollis, K.A. Day (editors)

      Copyright and Disclaimer

      © 2010 CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology. To the extent permitted by law, all rights are reserved and no part of this publication covered by copyright may be reproduced or copied in any form or by any means except with the written permission of CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology.

      CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology advise that the information contained in this publication comprises general statements based on scientific research. The reader is advised and needs to be aware that such information may be incomplete or unable to be used in any specific situation. No reliance or actions must therefore be made on that information without seeking prior expert professional, scientific and technical advice. To the extent permitted by law, CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology (including each of its employees and consultants) excludes all liability to any person for any consequences, including but not limited to all losses, damages, costs, expenses and any other compensation, arising directly or indirectly from using this publication (in part or in whole) and any information or material contained in it.

    • val majkus on 25/10/2010 at 3:54 pm said:

      Thanks Richard; another problem though less so in my view in respect to the CSIRO/BOM report in respect to past rainfall is measurement of precipitation see WUWT Errors in global precipitation measurement

    • Richard C (NZ) on 25/10/2010 at 4:53 pm said:

      Yes, the specific link is

      Errors in global precipitation measurement

      I’ll put a thread header in “Economics” for this.

      Go to “Economics”: “Errors in global precipitation measurement – Economic Impacts”

    • Richard C (NZ) on 25/10/2010 at 8:35 pm said:

      “Beware of false phrophets in a scientific guise” – The Australian

      THE angst in Murray-Darling Basin communities about proposed water regime changes belies Australian farmers’ record in adopting research.

      Economic discussion here

  9. THREAD on 23/10/2010 at 7:06 pm said:

    First carbon victim is the truth – smh

    “Cutting through the climate change rhetoric has been Elaine Prior, the senior environment, social and governance analyst at Citigroup.

    Last week, in the wake of a Greenpeace report on lending to the coal industry in Australia (covered previously here), Prior and her colleagues tried to quantify the exposure of our big four banks if a price on carbon were to wipe out the value of their loans to coal-fired power stations.

    This is not far-fetched. The banks are definitely worried – especially in the Latrobe Valley of Victoria, where the first plant shutdowns are expected.

    Bank shareholders are worried too. ”Investors, including super funds, have expressed concern about bank exposures to coal-fired power,” Prior says, ”more than about the banks’ internal carbon footprint.””

  10. THREAD on 23/10/2010 at 7:35 pm said:

    As one drought ends, hope dries up in west

  11. THREAD on 25/10/2010 at 9:18 pm said:

    “The only consensus on climate change is to chose the wrong policy” – The Australian

    Geoff Carmody, October 25, 2010

    THOSE advocating policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are pestered to reveal their views on the effects of human activities on climate change.

    Well, I don’t know for sure. I’m just an economist. I’m told the science is subject to uncertainty. I start by assuming there might be a man-made problem. Given that assumption, what is the most cost-effective way to respond? That’s a question we economists can examine.

    • val majkus on 25/10/2010 at 9:52 pm said:

      I’m not a fan of the precautionary factor which Penny Wong in her later days in the last Govt used to advocate

    • Richard C (NZ) on 25/10/2010 at 10:14 pm said:

      I wouldn’t be either if I was an Aussie, Val.

      Especially given this brain-dead approach:

      “I’m just an economist. I’m told the science is subject to uncertainty. I start by assuming there might be a man-made problem”.

      Unfortunately for us Kiwis, we are already subject to the “precautionary factor” due to a similar approach but another important “factor” in the equation is NZ’s European trading markets.

      I don’t detect a similar driving force in the Australian debate – unless I’m missing something.

    • val majkus on 25/10/2010 at 10:23 pm said:

      yes, you’re missing something Richard but it’s not in the headlights at the moment; the current battle is the CSIRO/BOM debate; the RET and the Govt’s Climate Change committee

    • Mike Jowsey on 27/10/2010 at 8:52 am said:

      An interesting piece at Jo Nova’s this morning on temperature record shenanigans in WA

  12. THREAD on 25/10/2010 at 9:40 pm said:

    The Sydney Morning Herald

    Climate INDEX

  13. THREAD on 26/10/2010 at 7:24 pm said:

    By 2020, power bills will shock

    # Keith Orchison
    # From: The Australian
    # October 26, 2010

    If the carbon price process that Julia Gillard has initiated delivers the thumbs-up for a scheme targeting electricity generation as a start to decarbonising Australia, the bad news for users is that they should expect their bills to rise by another 25 per cent this decade, in addition to other increases.

    Once the carbon tiger’s tail is grasped, there is no letting go.

    If, for example, there is a global agreement on a post-Kyoto treaty and Australia’s abatement target has to be put up to 15 per cent below 2000 levels (a step offered by Kevin Rudd and requiring abatement in 2020 to reach about 250 million tonnes a year), industry analysts expect a carbon price of about $50 a tonne to be needed, helping, along with network charges and other factors, to push end-user bills towards treble what they were in 2008 when the cost surge really got going.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 03/11/2010 at 6:30 pm said:

      Victoria facing electricity crisis, says opposition

      * From: The Australian
      * November 03, 2010 11:30AM

      POWER cuts and brownouts will hit Victorians because of government red tape, the shadow energy spokesman Michael O’Brien has warned.

      And he has placed the blame for soaring energy costs – power bills have risen by about 20 per cent in Victoria in the last year – squarely on the shoulders of the Brumby Labor government.

      But energy minister Peter Batchelor has dismissed the warning and defended his government’s record.

      Mr Batchelor, who is retiring at this election, said power prices for Victorias were some of the lowest in the country and attacked the federal Liberals and Greens for walking away from putting a price on carbon.

      In a radio debate on 3AW this morning, Mr O’Brien said there was a “very real risk that Victorians are going to see brownouts’’.

      Power bills had risen by 55 per cent in the nearly three and a half years since John Brumby took over as premier, he said.

      “We are going to see problems, particularly on those really hot summer days we have seen disruptions to supply and we need to have new electricity generation coming online,’’ he said.

      “The government has put all its eggs basically in the wind basket, there have been a lot of wind farms approved but not many operating and the government is actually holding up the development of a lot of gas-fired electricity which would be better, cheaper and cleaner.’’

    • Richard C (NZ) on 21/12/2010 at 12:25 pm said:

      NSW power prices will rise again

      # From: The Daily Telegraph
      # December 21, 2010

      HOUSEHOLDS face even higher power prices from January 1 as electricity retailers recover the $360 million cost of the federal renewable energy scheme.

      About 370,000 AGL electricity customers will be the first hit.

      From next week a 3.8 per cent increase in charges will push up customers’ annual bills by $54.

      It’s the first case of a NSW provider jacking up charges to recoup the cost of buying small-scale technology certificates, or STCs, which the Federal Government is introducing to help fund a shift towards green energy.


  14. THREAD on 28/10/2010 at 9:24 am said:

    Power blame game heats up

    * From: The Australian
    * October 28, 2010 12:00AM

    THE states face pressure to wind back schemes that pay households to generate electricity using rooftop solar panels.

    This comes after NSW slashed its scheme in the wake of a surge in installations that threatened to add $2.5 billion to power costs by 2016.

    Premier Kristina Keneally attributed the blowout in the scheme to the “windfall” gains participants experienced as a flood of cheap imports from China and Spain caused the cost of solar panels to halve since last year.

    The unanticipated uptake has sent the cost of the scheme – recouped by electricity retailers from all customers – skyrocketing from an estimated $1.5bn over the six-year life of the scheme to about $4bn.

    Ms Keneally was unwilling to say how much the scheme had pushed up the cost of power for the average household, but said the figure would be between $80 and $130 a year if the scheme were not pared back.

    • THREAD on 28/10/2010 at 11:03 am said:

      Solar rate cut to stop costs going through the roof

      Brian Robins and Ben Cubby, October 28, 2010 – smh

      The state government has reined in its popular solar panel scheme, saying it would otherwise have cost a crippling $4 billion, or more than twice the original estimates.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 30/10/2010 at 7:59 pm said:

      Same topic from smh:

      Power price to rise unless carbon price is set soon

      October 30, 2010

      THE federal government has been warned electricity prices will rise further unless power generators get a clear carbon price by 2012, and that Australia’s greenhouse gas reduction targets are already ”difficult to achieve”.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 09/11/2010 at 7:01 pm said:

      Solar power plan without a carbon price is too good to be true

      November 9, 2010 – smh

      When Julia Gillard and Hillary Clinton announced they wanted to ”make solar power competitive with conventional power sources” within five years, they left out one important detail.

      Their goal was based on solar being competitive with coal-fired power after a carbon price had been imposed.

      When you think about it this is obvious – if solar power could provide electricity as cheaply as coal-fired power without putting a cost on the emissions from coal, then we wouldn’t need to impose that cost. The problem would be solved. We could forget the whole carbon price thing, because the only reason to have one is to give a leg-up to more expensive, low-emission sources of power.
      Advertisement: Story continues below

      But according to the executive director of the Australian Solar Institute, Mark Twidell – who will be managing the $50 million the federal government has stumped up for the initiative – cost-competitive solar without a carbon price sounds too good to be true because it is too good to be true.

      Solar is getting cheaper but the prediction that it could enter the market as a competitive alternative in 2015 is based on the assumption that conventional forms of power will be also more expensive by then for a number of reasons, and one important reason would be a carbon price,” he said.

    • val majkus on 09/11/2010 at 9:56 pm said:

      Gillard and Clinton don’t know what they’re talking about
      It makes me furious when people who have no idea what they’re talking about
      and sheep follow them
      Peter Lang on the other hand is a retired geologist and engineer with 40 years experience on a wide range of energy products throughout the world, including managing energy R & D and providing policy advice for government and opposition. His experience includes coal, oil, gas, hydro, geothermal, nuclear power plants, nuclear waste disposal, and a wide range of energy and end use management projects.
      start with this site;
      here’s the abstract and link to the paper
      This paper provides a simple analysis of the capital cost of solar power and energy storage sufficient to meet the demand of Australia’s National Electricity Market. It also considers some of the environmental effects.

      It puts the figures in perspective by looking at the limit position, the paper highlights the very high costs imposed by mandating and subsidising solar power. The minimum power output, not the peak or average, is the main factor governing solar power’s economic viability. The capital cost would be 20 times more than nuclear power. The least-cost solar option would require 400 times more land area and emit 20 times more CO2 than nuclear power.

      Conclusions: solar power is uneconomic. Government mandates and subsidies hide the true cost of renewable energy but these additional costs must be carried by others.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 10/11/2010 at 11:02 am said:

      Val, thanks for this – some interesting issues arise here.

      I’ll put the 2 blogs (co2 insanity and BraveNewClimate) under “Climate” “Science Blogs”.

      Solar is not an issue in NZ that I can see but obviously is in OZ.

      The article links to a website BraveNewClimate that carries this post “Who crippled the Murray Darling Basin?”

      The issues that do arise that are common to NZ and OZ (and the rest of the planet) are:-

      * Water use and water quality

      This is becoming THE issue in NZ and has been big in OZ for some time, but guess who’s seen the potential in the crisis aspect – the UN. This is a big issue for NZ’s biggest earner – dairying.

      * Deforestation

      The impacts of deforestation just have not been given the prominence they deserve due to the “climate change” fixation. There’s all sorts of problems in NZ because of this – hill country erosion and harbour sedimentation just for starters. I agree with Greenpeace to a degree on this also (I’m a closet greenie) although not Greenpeace NZ – they haven’t got a clue.

      * Hydrological models – Stochastic/Hydrological vs Global Climate Models/Regional Climate Models

      The SEACI study really has brought this issue to a head so keep an eye on this space in the lead-up to AR5. It has a bearing on CSIRO and NIWA, both of which employ Regional models based on the warm and dry biased UKMO. CSIRO jumped the wrong way IMO when they dropped CSIRO Mk3 and went to ACCESS/POAMA.

      To catch up with this follow this thread (it’s on-going):

      And particularly down-thread of this:

      And this:

      Both Andy and I have got access to CESM/CAM and we are getting our heads around this model for this reason that you will come to at the bottom of the second thread:

      “If I’ve got this right, this is HUGE because this model is not hard-wired for CO2 and can be tuned to mimic the last decades plateaued temperatures where other models, notably Hansen’s ModelE can not. I suspect that CO2 ramping would be minimal to do so.

      I will need to ask the right questions to the right people to confirm this but I will really get my head into this before doing so as time permits although there’s plenty of time to do this before AR5.

      This could make the CMIP5 results an explosive issue and might even bring down AGW conclusively.”

      We may even be able to provide competition for CSIRO and NIWA.

      I’ve left a comment and link at Jennifer Marohasy’s SEACI blog post alerting her that we are into this but whether she’s interested or not, I don’t know.

    • val majkus on 10/11/2010 at 3:45 pm said:

      Fascinating Richard; I’ll keep an eye on your and Andy’s progress

    • Richard C (NZ) on 12/11/2010 at 6:26 pm said:

      Water plan will cost a tsunami

      * From: The Australian
      * November 12, 2010 12:00AM

      THE Murray-Darling Basin policy has so far lacked any rational economic foundations.

      Start with the facts. Far from destroying irrigation communities, the commonwealth is spending $4.4 billion in so-called water-saving initiatives that will fund irrigation upgrades. That spending is remarkably inefficient. Estimates suggest the benefits, in terms of additional water available, amount to barely $1bn: so that of every dollar of expenditure spent, more than 75c is pure waste.

      Since 1992, more than $20bn has been allocated for the Murray-Darling. Even in the crowded field that is Australian public policy, rarely has so much been spent to achieve so little. No wonder, for the policy has lacked any rational economic foundation. Until that changes, expect a trickle of benefits from a tsunami of costs.

    • val majkus on 12/11/2010 at 9:16 pm said:

      This is what Warwick Hughes says about the MDB
      These are some essential points I have made re the ACT that mostly apply to the MDB too.
      [1] Trends derived from the time series of historic inflow numbers so beloved by ACTEW and the doomsters and proponents of expensive water, the Wentworth Group etc – are nowhere near as credible as trends from long term rainfall data.
      [2] Stream gaging was not common a century ago. Stream gaging was much more widespread post the 1940’s than pre 1940’s and equipment costs mean the networks are more sparse than rain data networks.
      [3] Stream gaging has been carried out by a multiplicity of methods and techniques and can involve quite expensive equipment to be installed in remote areas – whereas measuring rainfall has always been relatively simple and cheap.
      [4] The Queanbeyan rain history shows with crystal clarity that the last decade has NOT been exceptionally dry compared to the 1930’s-40’s and 1890’s thru to WWI.
      [5] It also must be noted that there are NO reliable long term rain data from high up the vital Cotter catchment – so we are stuck with using Queanbeyan as a guide to ACT historic rain trends.
      [6] So when the ACT Govt promulgates their inflows history which show the last decade to be exceptionally dry – in conflict with the Queanbeyan rain data – I say “..the ACT inflow data – not worth the paper it is printed on in terms of being an accurate comparison of recent inflows with late 19C and early 20C inflows..”
      [7] When you also feed in the facts that the ACT Govt are promulgating this dubious inflow history and they are advocates of CSIRO climate modeling – my conclusion in 6 is reinforced.

      If anybody can show me a 139 year long stream gage record from an ACT/MDB high country stream – using the same equipment throughout – no gaps and missed data – that would indeed be an interesting discovery.
      Other facts worth stating that illustrate the complexities behind trying to make long term time series of inflows;
      Changes in vegetation cover have a marked impact on inflow rates or catchment efficiency – more vegetation = less runoff / inflows.
      So periods in our history when land clearing was dominant – say after settlement and post WWI and WWI soldiers block schemes- would have tended to increase runoff.
      Other opposing factors such as post WWII soil conservation programs – reversion of marginal land to scrub – the huge increase in timber plantations in post WWII decades – the “plant a billion trees” campaign launched by PM Bob Hawke over 20 years ago – would have all acted to reduce runoff and inflows.

      There is another neglected factor affecting our SE Australian rainfall and that is the post WWII airborne cloud seeding that ran intermittently for several decades – I think to the early 1990’s in some areas. This time series of NSW rain from 1900-2009 shows the huge jump in rain in 1950 –

      which happened to be when cloud seeding started. The implications of this are that rain data for a wide area must be skewed upwards to some extent by cloud seeding which makes the BoM – CSIRO analyses even more worthless than they already are. Enough for now.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 13/11/2010 at 9:05 am said:

      Yes, big difference between working with rainfall data and run-off (inflow) data.

      I once assisted a Hydrologist stream gauging a hydro power catchment in the middle of the Kaingaroa Forest – ever tried to find a small white stake in an overgrown ditch in a working forest?

      When all the MDB assumptions and formulations are then hidden in a model (an inappropriate one for hydrology) and the policy makers are given this in the SEACI summary:-

      “…..there is considerable uncertainty in the future climate projections, and the modelled changes in long-term mean annual streamflow in the southern MDB and Victoria range from -30 per cent to +10 per cent for a 0.9 °C global warming (2030 relative to 1990).
      The fact that the projected streamflow (and rainfall) reductions for 2030 across the region are smaller than the observed declines over the last decade raises important issues about how best to use the climate change projections – in particular, how to characterise the ‘baseline’ climate (in light of natural decadal variability in climate) to which the future projections should be applied………”

      Then a 25c benefit for every $1 spent is not surprising and may even be a good outcome given the rubbish analysis.

  15. THREAD on 28/10/2010 at 11:09 am said:

    Greens accuse gas industry of hiding real effect of carbon emissions

    Tim Lester National Bureau Chief, October 27, 2010 – smh

    The Greens have accused Australia’s gas industry of ‘cooking the books’ to hide a huge carbon emissions problem.

    WA Greens Senator Scott Ludlam says a new analysis of publicly available industry figures, reveals “a massive expansion in Australian greenhouse gas emissions within six years if all proposed new LNG projects go ahead.”

    The claims have opened up a war of words with the gas industry. It has hit back, accusing the Greens of “in essence declaring their support for coal to continue to dominate electricity generation.”

    According to Senator Ludlam “the companies behind these gas projects claim that gas is a clean energy, but they don’t talk about the massive emissions that are caused when gas from high-CO2 gas fields is processed and that CO2 is stripped out and vented to the atmosphere.”

    The Greens claim one joint venture alone, James Price Point hub, near Broome, will emit 32 million tonnes a year of greenhouse gases – equal to five per cent of Australia’s current greenhouse gas emissions, or all of New Zealand’s total annual greenhouse gas emissions.

  16. val majkus on 28/10/2010 at 1:18 pm said:

    Nice article by John McLean in Quadrant Online
    John is a member of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition and the article is about IPCC procedures

  17. val majkus on 28/10/2010 at 1:23 pm said:

    I’ve put this comment on Jo Nova’s blog but it’s (I hope) worth repeating here:

    Did anyone see the article in the Australian Climate change sceptics lose battle as onus of proof shifts
    It’s about the precautionary principle which I anticipate Julia Gillard will start to talk about shortly; As the article says ‘The principle appears in Article 3 of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change 1992. It is one of the four principles of ecologically sustainable development. Those principles have been absorbed into Australian environmental law at commonwealth and state levels since 1991.’
    “the precautionary principle operates to shift the evidentiary burden of proof as to whether there is a threat of serious or irreversible environmental damage,” “Where there is a reasonably certain threat of serious or irreversible damage, the precautionary principle is not needed and is not evoked . . . “But where the threat is uncertain, past practice had been to defer taking preventative measures because of that uncertainty.’
    This has been changed by the absorption into Australian law of the precautionary principle which “… operates, when activated, to create an assumption that the threat is not uncertain but rather certain. “… if there is a threat of serious or irreversible environmental damage and there is the requisite degree of scientific uncertainty, the precautionary principle will be activated.”

    The author goes on to say ‘In Australia, the climate sceptics have failed. No political party is arguing that the threat does not exist or is negligible. The only argument now, in accordance with the precautionary principle, is determining what preventative measures have to be taken to reduce emissions.’

    But she fails to explore the possibility that the threat does not exist or is negligible; just because political parties are not arguing that the threat does not exist or is negligible does not mean the threat does not exist or is negligible; I’m still firmly of the belief that a Royal Commission should be held to determine this issue for Australia;

    • Andy on 28/10/2010 at 1:42 pm said:

      Senator Penny Wong’s mantra “the science is certain” was unnecessary — the effect of the precautionary principle is that the science supporting the theory does not have to be certain, but the case against the theory does.

      This is leading us down a very dark and disturbing path.

      Thanks for posting, Val

    • val majkus on 28/10/2010 at 1:55 pm said:

      Andy astute words; the substantive issue still remains whether or not there is a threat of serious or irreversible environmental damage
      I do recall a speech of Wong (in Queensland I think) in which she spoke of the precautionary principle and one of our national newspapers (The Australian) recently ran an editorial espousing it in connection with carbon pricing

    • val majkus on 28/10/2010 at 2:25 pm said:

      Andy a commenter on Jo Nova’s site has referred me to the comments at Climate Realists as well:

      This is Bulldust’s comment:
      I like the first comment by Stephen Wilde:

      It is also uncertain as to what damage will be caused by the application of policy decisions based on the precautionary principle.

      “Therefore the precautionary principle must be applied to itself and such damage regarded as certain.

      Thus the burden of proof is reversed back again and the precautionary principle is negated.

      Some people just don’t know enough basic logic to think things through.

      A simple illustration:

      The environmental damage and faster resource depletion from an unwise pursuit of solar and wind energy systems at the current levels of inefficiency will cause more environmental damage than the emissions that they seek to reduce.”

      I have always hated the enormous arrogance that comes along with those that spout the Precautionary Principle. It is loaded with the pretense that the spoutee is in the right and it is up to you to prove otherwise. It is a lazy approach to debating and has no place whatsoever in science. It is the last resort of the ignorant.’

      That’s certainly something to take into account

    • Richard C (NZ) on 28/10/2010 at 2:41 pm said:

      I stumbled on this on a thread at JoNova while looking for something else:

      August 24th, 2010 at 6:46 pm

      Beware the Precautionary Principle!! comment 61

      Bulldust gas a bit to say too.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 28/10/2010 at 2:51 pm said:

      “This is leading us down a very dark and disturbing path.’

      Andy, in the same vein, I put this in “Controversy”

      Futuristic climate schemes to get U.N. hearing

      By Alister Doyle, OSLO | Wed Oct 27, 2010

      (Reuters) – Futuristic schemes for slowing climate change such as dimming sunlight are fraught with risks but will get a serious hearing from the U.N. panel of climate scientists, a leader of the panel said on Wednesday.

  18. Mike Jowsey on 28/10/2010 at 3:08 pm said:

    The Sydney Morning Herald is running a poll about showing An Inconvenient Truth in Australian schools.

    All vote NO now!!!

    • Richard C (NZ) on 28/10/2010 at 3:34 pm said:

      Is there a remote possibility that the film could be constructively used to teach critical thinking?

      The article says:

      “It is not a required text but will be used by English teachers to “analyse the way language and emotion can be used to convince viewers of a particular position”, the spokesman said.

      Students may also be directed to undertake their own research on the film’s claims, he said.

      If the second part is undertaken, I think it is a good thing and a Yes vote.

      Big “if” though.

    • val majkus on 28/10/2010 at 3:52 pm said:

      Too big Richard

    • Andy on 28/10/2010 at 4:05 pm said:

      It is not a required text but will be used by English teachers to “analyse the way language and emotion can be used to convince viewers of a particular position”

      Isn’t that the definition of propaganda?

      Propaganda is a form of communication that is aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position.

      As opposed to impartially providing information, propaganda, in its most basic sense, presents information primarily to influence an audience. Propaganda often presents facts selectively (thus possibly lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or uses loaded messages to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented.

    • Mike Jowsey on 28/10/2010 at 4:41 pm said:

      Your key words are “remote possibility”. The majority of teachers, underpaid and overworked, will let the video do the talking. Some discussion, maybe an essay as homework…. Without explaining that this video has been found, in a court of law, to misrepresent at least nine pivotal matters in the argument. Without explaining that this is a political piece which exaggerates and warps the science to its own ends. Do you think the majority of teachers, much less their students, have the bandwidth to dig into each claim this video makes and decide for themselves whether the claims actually stack up? Surely the students and teachers will take it as gospel, as do/did many civic leaders and policy makers. This is why I exhort all to vote NO. I am damn sure I would not want my child or grandchild being spoon-fed this propaganda as part of the standard curriculum.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 28/10/2010 at 5:03 pm said:

      This might be the last time i play devils advocate.

      I agree that the propaganda avenue will not be pursued by teachers.

      A pity though that there is not study of it in history classes or somewhere. I’ve lost track of modern curricula so I don’t know what gets laid out, but it is evident in USA and Europe that the lessons of the past have not been carried into the present.

      I studied Obama’s campaign, inauguration and Berlin speeches written by an expert in the field – Jon Favreau. Those speeches, delivered by a charismatic person, mesmerized both USA and Germany until the substance was found to be lacking by the Americans. The Germans still seem smitten true to trait – no lessons learned there.

    • Andy on 28/10/2010 at 5:21 pm said:

      I find it hard to imagine any university impartially studying propaganda these days.
      Our educational institutions have become so inundated with Gramsci-esque teachings, particularly in the humanities, that distorting facts to suit your agenda is now officially accepted as “revisionism”.


      Melanie Phillips – “The world turned upside down” is worth a read in this regard.

    • Mike Jowsey on 28/10/2010 at 7:12 pm said:

      Yes I must admit (with abject embarrassment) that I was sucked in by the man’s rhetoric and oration. Particularly in the fallout from George Dubbwa’s pathetic show. It appears that Mister Obama is simply another puppet with a better stage presence. And, of course, the race card.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 28/10/2010 at 8:06 pm said:

      “a better stage presence” and a teleprompter. Watch the videos of his un-teleprompted speeches with the sound turned off – not quite the same impact, but his neck gets a workout.

      Understandable, your falling under the spell; after the WMD-oil forays, everyone wanted a change – but I do miss Bushisms.

      NZ’s National campaign had very little policy to back it, but after a long Clark reign, all Key’s guy’s had to do was sow the “Change” seed into the minds of the electorate and hey presto. It worked for Obama.and it worked for Key, but the development of crowd manipulation techniques goes way back.

      I have given up listening to or reading political speeches and PR spin doctoring except as case studies in communication rather than for any substance there might be. Better to look behind the facades to find the real stories and to keep our BS detectors in good working order in case we are inadvertently subjected to those dark arts.

    • Andy on 29/10/2010 at 8:16 pm said:

      Tim Blair in the Australian Telegraph has some interesting (and amusing) suggestions on how studying Mr Gore’s movie could be put to good use in schools:

    • Andy on 29/10/2010 at 8:20 pm said:

      The main piece on the film is even better:

      Read all comments for a good overview of what Aussies think about “Climate Change”.

      Here’s a random sample of the comments:

      It’s already been proven to be the Incorrect Truth… I thought we were looking at education not propaganda and indoctrination.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 11/11/2010 at 9:32 am said:

      Inconvenient nonsense infiltrates the classroom

      * Bob Carter
      * From: The Australian
      * November 11, 2010 12:00AM

      AL Gore’s flawed climate change film is to be included in the new English curriculum.


      In a famous judgment in October 2007, Justice Burton, discerning that Gore was on a “crusade”, commented that “the claimant substantially won this case”, and ruled that the science in the film had been used “to make a political statement and to support a political program” and that the film contained nine fundamental errors of fact out of the 35 listed by Dimmock’s scientific advisers. Justice Burton required that these errors be summarised in new guidance notes for screenings.

      In effect, the High Court judgment typed Gore and his supporters as evangelistic proselytisers for an environmental cause.

      Fast forward to this month and many Australian parents have been surprised to learn Gore’s film “will be incorporated in the [new] national [English] curriculum ), as part of a bid to teach students on environmental sustainability across all subjects”.

      It is, I suppose, some relief the film has not been recommended for inclusion in the science syllabus. Instead, Banquo’s ghost has risen to haunt English teachers, doubtless in class time that might otherwise have been devoted to learning grammar.

      Some Australian English teachers may feel competent to advise pupils on the science content of An Inconvenient Truth, but I wouldn’t bank on it. Of course, the same teachers have to feel competent also to shepherd their flock on to the green pastures of sustainability, that other pseudo-scientific concept so beloved by the keepers of our society’s virtue.

      Australian schools are being transformed from institutions that impart a rigorous education into social reform factories that manufacture right-thinking (which is to say, left-thinking) young clones ready to be admitted into the chattering classes. This process is manifest in other aspects of the new syllabuses.


  19. Mike Jowsey on 28/10/2010 at 7:04 pm said:

    Andy – the Daily Mash is a site I frequent when I need absolute satire. Thanks for the link mate – much appreciated!

  20. val majkus on 29/10/2010 at 1:56 pm said:

    Ho hum here we go again – I’ve put this comment on Jo Nova’s blog but it’s relevant here as well:
    The Qld Govt has tabled this report today:
    It’s 100 pages but for scientists like Warwick and some of his readers it would make interesting reading
    this from page 8:
    Climate Change 2009 (Steffen 2009) reviewed the
    science of climate change since the publication of
    the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s
    (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report, Climate Change
    2007 (AR4) (IPCC 2007a–c). Steffen suggests that
    the AR4 was conservative in its range of projections
    and that many aspects of the climate system are
    changing at the upper level of the IPCC range
    of projections—towards more rapid and severe
    climate change with dangerous impacts.
    The Science of Climate Change: Questions
    and Answers published in August 2010 by the
    Australian Academy of Sciences outlines changes
    in Australian climate including:
    • an increase of about 0.7 °C in average surface
    temperature since 1960, with some areas having
    warmed faster and others showing little evidence
    of warming
    • an increase in the frequency of extremely
    hot days
    • a decrease in the frequency of cold days
    • significant increase in rainfall over
    north-western Australia
    • decrease in rainfall over south-eastern Australia
    • sea level rise of about 1.2 millimetres per year
    since 1920.
    Figure 7 (a) at page 17 looks very much like the hockey stick and this is what the report says about it:

    Figure 7(a) shows the strong warming trend in the
    global temperature record since the early 20th
    century. Figure 7(b) shows the individual years
    in the record ranked according to their average
    temperature, the year ranked as number one
    (1998) being the warmest year on record. This
    figure highlights the increasing trend in global
    temperatures, with recent decades dominating
    as the warmest years.

    Sea level of course is rising and rainfall is diminishing (no mention of glaciers in this report) but lots to say about tipping points and future challenges and plenty of attribution to the IPCC

    • Richard C (NZ) on 29/10/2010 at 2:39 pm said:

      Jo Nova did a post on this attribution:

      The Science of Climate Change: Questions
      and Answers published in August 2010 by the
      Australian Academy of Sciences


    • val majkus on 29/10/2010 at 4:30 pm said:

      Yes, I do recall that; Ken Stewart had something to say about the BOM/CSIRO report in March 2010 which preceded that at
      cutting and pasting selectively

      Claims made in the State of the Climate report produced by BOM and CSIRO in March 2010.

      Since 1960 the mean temperature in Australia has increased by about 0.7 °C . The long term trend in temperature is clear…

      TRUE. But the raw data shows the mean temperature since 1910 has increased only 0.6 C.

      Australian average temperatures are projected to rise by 0.6 to 1.5 ºC by 2030.

      REALLY? That would require between 5 and 12 times the rate of warming seen in the raw temperature record, or between 3 and 7.5 times that shown by BOM’s published figures.

      Much of Australia will be drier in coming decades

      MAYBE NOT. See

      Our observations clearly demonstrate that climate change is real.

      TRUE- that’s what climate does.

      CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology will continue to provide observations and research so that Australia’s responses are underpinned by science of the highest quality.

      “Highest quality”? REALLY?

  21. val majkus on 30/10/2010 at 9:36 pm said:

    Ken Stewart’s latest post (about sea rises) since the BOM/CSIRO report
    By the way, in today’s Weekend Australian, there are quotes from the official briefing from the Department of Climate Change and Energy. One of the quotes is: “The rate of global warming over the past 50 years of approximately 0.13 degrees Celsius per decade is about 100 times faster than the warming after an ice age.” Have a look at the graph above and compare the rates of warming. 1960 -2010: 0.13 C per decade or 0.65 C over 50 years (as you can see it’s actually less- 0.6 C over 60 years!); 1860-1875: about 0.2 C over 15 years- much faster! Again, 1910 – 1940: about 0.4 C over 30 years is the same as the rate claimed for the last 50 years. There have been two additional phases of global warming equal or greater than the recent phase. It seems you can’t trust anyone these days.

    Then on page 18 the Queensland report links this to sea level rise: “Sea level rise is caused by increases in ocean thermal expansion and ocean mass due to increasing global temperatures. Water expands when it heats up, increasing the level of the ocean.”

    So let’s compare the “official” temperature record with some Australian sea level data.

    First, Townsville. This is the official chart of sea level rise from NOAA.

    So, if my grandchildren are going to see this 0.8m rise in sea level along the Queensland coast, there will have to be a very rapid increase very soon. If there isn’t, the Australian Academy of Sciences, CSIRO, and the Queensland Climate Change Centre of Excellence will have considerable explaining to do for their scare mongering.

    But they’ll be long forgotten.

    Please visit Ken’s site and leave a comment

  22. val majkus on 30/10/2010 at 10:09 pm said:

    This is the report to which Ken refers so far as I’m aware:

  23. THREAD on 01/11/2010 at 1:23 pm said:

    val majkus says:
    November 1, 2010 at 1:11 pm

    Here’s another scheme stupid enough to earn the epithet ‘rubbish’
    Southern Cross University is set to lead a project testing the world’s first Personal Carbon Trading program conducted in a ‘closed system’ island environment on Norfolk Island commencing early next year.

    This follows the announcement this week of a Linkage Projects grant by the Australian Research Council valued at $390,000.

    Leading chief investigator Professor Garry Egger, a Professor of Lifestyle Medicine and Applied Health Promotion at Southern Cross University, said the main goals of the project were to test the effectiveness of a Personal Carbon Trading scheme over a three year period; reduce per capita carbon emissions and reduce obesity and obesity related behaviours

    The principal researchers of the Norfolk island Carbon/Health Evaluation study trialling a Personal carbon Trading program are: leading chief investigator, Professor Garry Egger, a Professor of Lifestyle Medicine and Applied Health Promotion at Southern Cross University; chief investigator, Professor Boyd Swinburn, Alfred Deakin Professor and director of the World Health Organisation Collaborating Centre for Obesity Prevention at Deakin University; chief investigator, Professor Robyn McDermott is a public health physician and professor of Public Health at the University of South Australia; and Professor Kerin O’Dea, director of the Sansom Institute for Health Research at the University of South Australia.

    Talk about weird …

    Andrew Bolt has an article today ‘Warmist Puts Norfold Island on Rations – he interviewed Prof Egger this morning

  24. val majkus on 01/11/2010 at 8:38 pm said:

    Here’s Malcolm Roberts (the NZCSC know him; there’s a copy of his ‘Thriving with Humanity’ on their website
    anyway the video is taken on Climate Fools Day in Brisbane and Malcolm’s Take on that

    Thank you to the many people in Brisbane’s King George Square last Wednesday pausing on their way through during lunch. Your expressions of support and encouragement are appreciated.

    3 minute video summary:

    Interviews confirm growing community realisation that attempts to ‘control’ Nature’s CO2 are forcing regulations onto every aspect of our lives. ALP-Greens coalition is ramming huge needless cost burdens onto everyone.

    People know Nature’s carbon and CO2 are integral to every aspect of our lives. At stake are our economic livelihood, security and personal freedom.

    People know fraudulent Julia and Bob cannot control huge galactic, solar and terrestrial forces driving climate.

    They know cowardly Liberals are afraid to face truth: science has been corrupted and sacrificed to political control.

    Thank you to the many people who readily agreed to an interview. While timid pollies fail, citizens are waking up—and opening up.

  25. val majkus on 01/11/2010 at 8:42 pm said:

    More from Malcolm Roberts

    Britons are waking to climate fraud.

    Commemorating International Climate Fools Day, British parliamentarians invited climate sceptics to address them in parliament house.

    Court action is exposing the lack of evidence:
    – Al Gore’s falsities and corruption were exposed in the British High Court in 2007;
    – Reportedly, in facing a court challenge by kiwi climate sceptics, the New Zealand government has denied responsibility for its temperature records that are now known to have been unscientifically corrupted.

    In her reply to my request for evidence, our own CSIRO’s Chief Executive, Dr Megan Clark, failed to provide any evidence showing a causal relationship between human CO2 and the modest, cyclic global warming that ended around 1998.

    As legal analyst, John O’Sullivan said in the video: “When challenged, the government agencies cannot produce the records.”

    This lack of evidence is global.

    Visit to see why we know for certain that there is no scientific real-world evidence for the government-Greens coalition’s fraudulent policies.

    Malcolm Roberts
    BE (Hons), MBA (Chicago)
    Fellow AICD, MAIM, MAusIMM, MAME (USA), MIMM (UK), Fellow ASQ (USA, Aust)

  26. Andy on 03/11/2010 at 9:29 am said:

    Bob Ward’s reputation in Australia.

    An interesting read, via Bishop Hill

    The Grantham Institute should take a close look at their Director of Communications, Bob Ward. In the last few weeks in Australia he has been complicit in so many untruths that it should have a flow-on consequence for them in their dealings with the media.

    • val majkus on 03/11/2010 at 11:01 am said:

      Here’s Professor Carter’s website
      You’ll find lots of interesting material there
      My favourite is Global warming: Is the science settled?
      In it he says:
      The great danger of the current public
      hysteria over speculative human-caused
      global waming is that, wilfully disguised
      as a “climate change” problem, warming
      alarmism has removed attention and funding
      from the real problem that requires a policy
      solution. That problem is natural climate
      change and events, and it is long since time
      that we addressed it better.

  27. val majkus on 11/11/2010 at 12:41 am said:

    here’s a funny piece, sorry it’s so long
    That may seem a little facetious, but in effect, it is what they are both proposing.
    Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently had a short 4 day visit to Australia.
    Everybody in creation was falling over each other to be seen with her, most especially former Prime Minister, and now Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd.
    Clinton appeared at numerous gatherings including a special ‘Town Hall’ event organised by the Australian National broadcaster, ABCTV, shown at this link, and this link also has further links shown under the small image of her at mid screen. This event was broadcast on the Sunday afternoon, and Clinton answered a variety of questions from audience members on many subjects.
    One of the special announcements she made was with Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard, and directly concerned renewable power, in this case Solar Power, and I would specifically like to comment on that.
    The ABC media article on that piece is at this link, and a further article is at this link.
    What this effectively indicates is that neither of these two has any knowledge at all on exactly how solar power produces its power. That’s understandable. They know politics. They are clueless when it comes to this type of thing, and in a way, that’s also understandable. However, surely they must have advisers who could at least give them some idea of what they are talking about, and that way, they would not have to spread the misinformation they do, which is then adoringly lapped up by the media as being the verbatim truth, and then passed onto a public who believe that because these two powerful people said it, then it must be true.
    The one phrase that was said by the both of them, and was then repeated at both articles was this:
    “We have a common goal of making solar energy competitive with conventional sources by the middle of this decade, 2015,” Clinton added.
    Gee! I’d like to see that.
    What they may have been alluding to is the overall costs of Solar power. This currently runs at 5 to 7 times (and that’s a conservative estimate) more costly than virtually any other form of producing electrical power.
    Now, there is no way known to man that they can ever get the costs down to competitive with other forms of producing power. It will always be vastly more expensive than any other method.
    However, the thrust of this article was about photovoltaic panels.
    There are two methods of producing power from Solar methods.
    They are Concentrating Solar, referred to as Solar Thermal, and Solar Photovoltaic Power, which is Solar PV.
    That photovoltaic method uses specially constructed panels. Each panel has hundreds of tiny cells in it, similar to ones you may remember from those small solar powered calculators that were around in the 80’s. Each tiny cell is connected by wiring internally and the panel is made up of hundreds, and in some cases thousands of these tiny cells. Hundreds of these panels are then joined together to generate large amounts of power. Here, by large I mean around 15 to 30 MegaWatts, (MW) and keep in mind a large coal fired power plant can produce 2,000MW from its two generators. Some Solar PV plants are larger, and there are some planned to possibly produce a Nameplate Capacity of over 100MW, but the average is around that 15 to 35MW Nameplate Capacity.
    As an example lets look at a large scale Solar PV plant in the U.S. the one at Nellis AFB in Nevada. This plant covers 140 acres and has 70,000 of these panels, with 11 panels attached to one tower, called a heliostat, which tracks the movement of the Sun across the sky.
    Let’s not even consider the cost here, because after all, these two fine women both said they want to make the cost competitive with current conventional methods of generating power, code here for meaning coal fired power plants.
    Okay then, compare the power they both produce. 14MW and 2,000MW.
    Imagine the size of the solar plant if there was to be parity of power generation.
    Consider how much the technology will need to advance for each of those tiny cells to produce a greater amount of power, and how many of those cells are in the complex panel. How are they going to get that cost down to even approach parity.
    I don’t care. The way technology is advancing, they may actually be able to do that. Well, no, they won’t, but I’m a believer. After all, these two fine women know better than I do about this.
    However, the principle is that they can only produce power while ever the Sun is shining on those panels.
    Currently, the most efficient Solar PV plants can provide their maximum rated power on average for 3 to 5 hours a day, and forget about it in places above and below certain parallels on Planet Earth for all the non Summer months.
    True, they might supply smaller amounts of power during the whole period of daylight, but projected over the full day, that maximum amount is extrapolated out to around three to five hours at the best. Also, as soon as a small cloud flits across the face of the Sun, these panels lose two thirds of their power, and then take a long time to get back up to full power after the cloud passes. The panels must also be cleaned, and here I mean polished pristine every day, because the tiniest film on those panels has the same effect as a cloud. Compare that variability to a conventional coal fired plant that hums along all day producing its maximum power all the time, rain hail or shine.
    However, all these things are minor, and I’m sure they will be overcome. Well no, they won’t.
    The biggest factor here is that these panels only produce their power…..WHILE THE SUN IS SHINING.
    So, unless these two fine politicians can find a way to pass Legislation to make the Sun shine over these plants for the full 24 hours of every day, they will NEVER be competitive with any form of generating electrical power.
    A coal fired power plant lumbers on 24/7/365 at 3600RPM (3000RPM in Australia) producing its huge amounts of electrical power for that full 24 hours.
    These Solar PV plants may become economically competitive with conventional methods. Well no, they won’t, but until that Legislation to make the Sun shine gets passed by any Government, then these plants will never ever be competitive.
    They will be boutique plants providing small amounts of variable electrical power, when grids require exact amounts of power to be there all the time. The power produced by these boutique plants will never be large scale, and will never be relied upon when it comes time to calculate how much power is required by the grid and for how long.
    It was great photo op ladies, especially for Julia, but next time, get your people to tell you the real fact about what it is you are saying.

  28. val majkus on 11/11/2010 at 9:44 am said:

    A link to an article by John O’Sullivan and myself
    New Retreat from Global Warming Data by Australian Gov Bureau
    Global warmers in full retreat as Aussie experts admit growing doubts about their own methods as new study shows one third of temperatures not reliable.

    The Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) admits it was wrong about urban heating effects as a professional statistical analysis by Andrew Barnham exposes a BOM claim that “since 1960 the mean temperature in Australia has increased by about 0.7 °C”; the BOM assertion has no empirical scientific basis.

    The article features the excellent work of Ken Stewart and Andrew Barnham

  29. Richard C (NZ) on 15/11/2010 at 8:02 pm said:

    Less carbon, more hot air

    November 13, 2010

    How clean and green is media land. While Aussie newsagents are now promoting carbon-neutral Kyoto-brand diaries (65 per cent recycled paper) for 2011, Aunty ABC has come down hard on its wayward light bulbs. ”To reduce the ABC’s greenhouse emissions and its impact on the environment,” says Aunty’s annual report, ”[we have been] converting T8 fluorescent tubes to more energy-efficient T5 fluorescent lights at the Lancely Place site in New South Wales.”

    It certainly sounds a climate-changing move, but there is so much more. Aunty has installed carpet mounted on recycled plastic bottles and has harvested 122 kilolitres of water at offices in Sale, Bendigo, Longreach and the Gold Coast. This clean green rainwater has been used exclusively for, er, clean green toilet flushing.

    What else?

    Continues (with a twist)…………

  30. Richard C (NZ) on 23/11/2010 at 9:46 am said:

    Flawed science and still a tax on carbon

    Dr Dennis Jensen, Liberal Party Federal member for Tangney.

    22 November 2010

    The Gillard Government’s climate change committee is still investigating the best way to slug Australians with a new carbon tax, a climate change solution based on flawed IPCC scientific process.

    Labor’s sudden panic over climate change is driven mostly by IPCC assessment reports that have now been corrected to better reflect this peak bodies understanding of the science of climate change.

    Either the Labor government won’t back down on a ‘price on carbon’ to appease the Greens or they simply have not read the evolving literature. The carbon tax stance is now outdated.

    The Government’s climate change sales pitch and carefully worded slogans mean the Australian public now sees the IPCC as a group of scientists independently evaluating the best available information before informing the world of a way forward. This is far from reality.

    Independent Scientists have identified flaws in the computer models that form the basis for the IPCC’s 2007 global warming predictions.

    The IPCC‘s own authors are now changing their minds on the carbon price approach.

    IPCC vice chairman, Professor Jean-Pascal van Ypersele has conceded there “probably would be mistakes” in a report scheduled for 2013-14 and says the IPCC has been “naive and incompetent” in its handling of the incorrect claim that every glacier in the Himalayas could melt by 2035. Professor Richard Tol notes, “One should keep in mind that there is a history of exaggeration in the study of climate change impacts.”

    The Federal Government is also partial to quoting the world’s oldest scientific academy, The Royal Society when creating urgency around climate change and the need for a carbon tax. But Britain’s leading scientific institution has also been forced to rewrite its guide on climate change and admit, “There remains the possibility that hitherto unknown aspects of the climate and climate change could emerge and lead to significant modifications in our understanding.”

    Continues with comments……….

    • Richard C (NZ) on 24/09/2011 at 10:59 am said:

      Labor censors Dr Dennis Jensen — denies peer reviewed science

      Dr JENSEN (Tangney) (12:33): Speech to Parliament

      Madam Deputy Speaker Burke, I seek leave to table these peer reviewed science reports.

      Leave not granted.

      Jensen is the only PhD scientist in the Australian Parliament and the papers are directly relevant to the policy under discussion.

      Dennis Jensen has been warning us about climate science for years, his earlier warnings have turned out to be prescient, and ahead of his time — speaking out when few dared too. He deserves credit for his honesty and insight. Parliament could use more people like him.


      John Boscawen, Don Brash et al, let’s see if NZ National denies the science.

  31. val majkus on 24/11/2010 at 1:26 pm said:

    Professor Bob Carter has an article in Quadrant Online today
    Gillard’s climate U-turn
    Early in the recent election campaign, Julia Gillard was reported as saying that there would be no tax on carbon (dioxide) while she led the federal government.

    Instead, she said, ”What we will do is we will tackle the challenge of climate change”, which turned out to mean the appointment of an assembly of 150 citizens to advise on the ways and means – a suggestion that prompted immediate public derision.

    Just before voters went to the polls Ms Gillard again stated categorically: “I rule out a carbon tax”. Of course, that statement was rapidly rescinded after the election of a hung parliament created the political imperative that Labor court the Green and independent members who now held the balance of power.

    Making a dramatic U-turn, Ms Gillard rapidly segued to a new policy position. This involved scrapping the idea of a citizen’s assembly and erecting in its place a new Multi-party Committee on Climate Change (MCCC) to advise on policy options, which now again were to include of necessity (hat tip to the Greens) a carbon dioxide tax.

    The primary question that the MCCC needed to deal with, of course, was whether dangerous climate change is occurring, and if so what policy options might be available to mitigate it? First and foremost then, there was a scientific issue to be resolved.

    The committee’s state of mind on that issue was rapidly clarified by Ms. Gillard, who announced on September 27 the starting assumption that a carbon dioxide price was required to reduce “pollution” and to encourage investment in low-emission technologies.

    The Canberra climate committee is a farce. Whilst its members have been indulging in play school politics, the Canadian Senate, paying attention both to the real science and to the result of the US election, has rejected a Climate Change Accountability Act that called for greenhouse gases to be cut 25 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020. …

    The government wants to declare a price on carbon dioxide, and businesses (especially energy suppliers) want certainty. As others before me have pointed out, these twin needs can best be met by allocating a price of $0 per tonne to carbon dioxide emissions – forthwith.

    Time to catch up folks; global warming alarmism is on its deathbed.

  32. Richard C (NZ) on 01/12/2010 at 4:53 pm said:

    Solar Panel subsidies: A billion dollars to provide cheap electricity to wealthy households

    There is no sunnier first world country than Australia. If solar was going to be a raging success anywhere, surely it would be in the land of the Sunburnt Country. Instead the Australian government has poured in more than a billion dollars to install solar panels on the roof tops of private homes. Its a text book case of misdirected spending.

    In the end the government drew money from the population-at-large to help Chinese solar panel manufacturers, and to provide cheap electricity to 107,000 households in mostly medium-high wealth areas. It reduced Australias emissions by a piddling 0.015 per cent, at an exorbitant carbon price of $300/ton.

    Solar power is clearly not viable yet. So that billion dollars could have been spent on research to make solar power economic (in which case no subsidies would be needed). It could have made us world leaders with a product to patent and sell (or it might not). Instead governments of both major parties chose to pour a billion dollars into a program that never had any chance of helping the environment, or our export industry. Mere feel-good window dressing.

    The program gifted up to $8,000 dollars as a rebate to encourage people to install solar panels on their roofs, but it had to be canceled suddenly last year because the bill for the overly generous scheme was blowing out. Another different rebate for solar generated electricity promised to pay 60c a kwhr (compared to the usual 20 c/kwhr) and met the same fate. It too was suddenly canceled. In both cases the local solar industry had to deal with rapidly changing rules and rewards, leading to bubbles and overnight busts. It makes a mockery out of the free market driving small businesses to the wall, and discouraging long term planning and employment.


  33. Richard C (NZ) on 05/12/2010 at 9:18 pm said:

    Intense La Nina pattern delivers more rain than usual

    # From: The Australian
    # December 04, 2010

    The most powerful incarnation of La Nina in more than three decades has produced one of Australia’s wettest years.

    The World Meteorological Organisation yesterday released data that showed the global average temperature this year was 0.55C warmer than pre-1990 averages — making it the third-hottest in recorded history.

    However, Australia bucked the trend because of weather events in the Pacific Ocean.

    A powerful La Nina, characterised by a fall in surface temperatures in the Pacific Ocean and heavy rains, has been blamed for the flooding that has plagued the eastern states since August.

    The rain has also been attributed to cool weather, with inland Australia one of the few places in the world to record below-average temperatures this year.

    David Jones, the head of the Bureau of Meteorology’s climate analysis office, said the rains were expected to continue through to autumn, on the basis that La Nina events usually lasted for a year.

    “Australia at the moment is tracking its third-wettest year on record and there’s still another month to go, so we won’t exactly know where it’s going to be until January,” Dr Jones said.

    “We’ve got the largest La Nina since the 1970s at least, and that’s leading to heavy — in places, excessive — rainfall for north and eastern Australia.”

    Not even the driest year ever seen in parts of Western Australia was enough to stop the WMO recording the nation’s wettest spring on record.

    “The one place that has missed out, and I guess tells us a fair bit about what’s going on in the background, is southwest Western Australia,” Dr Jones said.

    He added that La Nina did not usually have an impact on South Australia.

    At the beginning of the year, a drought-causing El Nino was well established in the Pacific Ocean, but was rapidly replaced with La Nina.

    The WMO said that from May until October, northern Australia experienced rainfall 152 per cent higher than average, while drought-breaking downpours hit the southeast.

    NSW Natural Resources commissioner John Williams, a former CSIRO chief, said while cooler than usual weather was recorded in Australia’s centre, the national average was slightly higher than pre-1990 levels.

    Dr Williams said he expected temperatures to climb to extreme levels in some parts of the country, while other regions would become cooler.

  34. val majkus on 06/12/2010 at 10:20 am said:

    Quadrant Online has a couple of interesting articles:
    Sceptics losing clarity
    by Peter Smith

    and reply by Professor Carter linked at the foot of that article; read them both at

    • Richard C (NZ) on 06/12/2010 at 2:03 pm said:

      Val, I’m more and more convinced by articles like this that the key to communication is simple graphics – not words.

      The IPCC use them, Al Gore uses them. We really are missing key metrics in the media that clearly show the state of play in ocean and atmosphere.

      Written argument is fine for those (like Lawyers used to case reading – I’ve done a bit of that and my eyesight has not been the same since) with time and inclination to digest it but there’s so much on the internet I’ve given up. Bob Carters response is a 1363 word essay which is commendable but how much influence will it have?

      A lot of words can be replaced by the almost real-time metrics we have at our disposal; OHC, HadCRUT3, SST anomaly, AMSU etc which are revealing the disconnect between fossil fuel emissions and climate on a daily basis.

      I’ve found on Hot Topic that presenting these metrics will soon attract enough “Dislikes” to hide them from view (and that’s just links) so they must be effective if they are so inconvenient. There’s enduring memory and understanding of a clear graphic that is not invoked by the written word.

      Not for nothing it said “a picture is worth a thousand words”

      This phrase emerged in the USA in the early part of the 20th century. Its introduction is widely attributed to Frederick R. Barnard, who published a piece commending the effectiveness of graphics in advertising with the title “One look is worth a thousand words”, in Printer’s Ink, December 1921. Barnard claimed the phrase’s source to be oriental by adding the text “so said a famous Japanese philosopher, and he was right”. A picture is worth a thousand words

      Printer’s Ink printed another form of the phrase in March 1927, this time suggesting a Chinese origin:

      “Chinese proverb. One picture is worth ten thousand words.”

    • Richard C (NZ) on 06/12/2010 at 2:20 pm said:

      Case in point

      Climate change: In the balance

      While many people believe in climate change, others are unconvinced. An exhibition at the Science Museum reflects this ambivalence, says Nick Duerden

      Monday, 6 December 2010

      The Science Museum has just unveiled its new gallery, which is to be called, in unexplained lowercase, atmosphere. It is a low-lit neon blue, whisperingly atmospheric space that aims, says the introductory blurb, to deepen visitors’ understanding of one of the hottest topics of our age: climate science.

      The “science” bit is pertinent. Where once we would talk, quite happily and with unswerving, if second-hand, conviction, about climate change, we now have to walk with more trepidation. Climate change is not quite so fundamentally black and white anymore, if only because so many people have come along to doubt and pour scorn on it. In the summer, the Science Museum, increasingly aware of this mounting mood swing, even felt it necessary to revise the contents of its exhibits in order to fully acknowledge the wave of scepticism that that has engulfed the issue in recent months.


  35. Richard C (NZ) on 10/12/2010 at 10:48 am said:

    Flooding disaster across east Australia

    8:00 AM Friday Dec 10, 2010 – NZH

    SYDNEY – Four deaths have been reported in severe flooding which has hit the eastern states of Australia this week.

    The latest victim was in Queensland. Police have recovered the body of a 15-year-old boy who drowned at a flooded water hole on the Sunshine Coast.

    Yesterday a man’s body was retrieved from a river at Nebo, west of Mackay. Witnesses said the impatient driver passed other cars stopped on the roadside waiting for the floodwaters to subside.

    An 81-year-old man also died when his ute was swept off a flooded causeway and into a creek on Friday night.

    And a 55-year-old woman died when her car was swept off a flooded roadway near Dysart, north-west of Rockhampton in central Queensland, last week.

    Reports are calling NSW’s floods the worst inundation to hit the state in 50 years.

    The swollen Queanbeyan River yesterday peaked in the NSW city neighbouring Canberra but residents forced to evacuate were not expected to be allowed home until late last night at the earliest.

    If there is more rain they could be stranded for even longer.

    The river cut Queanbeyan in half when it peaked at 8.4m in the afternoon. It had risen 3m in less than three hours.

    The city has been declared a natural disaster area, taking the total number of declared areas across NSW to 30.

    “The flood peak, we think, has already occurred on the river,” NSW Emergency Services Minister Steve Whan said in Queanbeyan.

    “At 8.4m we’ve had the town cut in half. We’ve had around 100 houses and businesses which have been asked to evacuate.”

    A number of houses and businesses were inundated and 10 people had to be rescued by boat from Trinculo Place, which runs alongside the Queanbeyan River just south of the King’s Highway.

    An upstream river gauge indicates the river is now falling dramatically.

    But NSW emergency services commissioner Murray Kear said it would take a further six hours “for the water to get down to any level where we could be confident to allow people back into their homes”.

    Residents were given little warning of the flood because the river rose extraordinarily fast.

    Water flowed from the nearby Googong Reservoir, which was already full before it received 103mm in the 22 hours to 9am yesterday.

    The weather bureau is predicting the rain band that wreaked havoc in Queanbeyan will move north.

    Authorities are worried it will pose problems for areas such as Coonamble in northwestern NSW.

    The deluge that hit Queanbeyan and the nearby hills will also boost the volume of water flowing into the already swollen Murrumbidgee system. That will add, over the coming days, to the woes being experienced in Wagga Wagga and further downstream.

    In Victoria, a man swept away by floodwaters north of Melbourne clung to a tree for five hours before he was rescued.

    Police said the 51-year-old was walking home at about midnight in Whittlesea when he tried to wade across a waterway that had risen in a downpour and was swept 100m downstream. He managed to grab hold of a tree branch and hung on until about 5am, when he was found by people who heard his cries for help.

    Water police rescued the man and he was taken to hospital, where he is expected to make a full recovery.

    State Emergency Service workers took about 400 calls for help for flooding and building damage in Victoria’s northeast.

    – AAP

  36. val majkus on 10/12/2010 at 12:10 pm said:

    We should never let these guys take Australia’s chequebook when they go overseas: and where do they think we’re going to get the money from; borrow it from China?
    AUSTRALIA announced climate change assistance for Indonesia as it urged UN-led talks in Mexico to move beyond process disputes and make progress.
    Australia today said it was allocating $45 million for Indonesia, largely to help the neighbouring country set up measures for efforts to save forests – a major way to offset industrial pollution.

    The funding is part of a $599 million package Australia earlier announced as part of “fast-track” funding – the climate assistance which wealthy nations have pledged to offer developing countries immediately.

    “Australia is delivering on fast-start,” Climate Change Minister Greg Combet said in an address to the meeting of more than 190 countries at the Mexican beach resort of Cancun.

    “Too often we allow ourselves to be distracted by process issues and by negotiating tactics,” he said.

    Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.
    .End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar.
    “It is time now to refocus on the major task at hand. It is imperative for the credibility of this process that we are able to make progress here,” he said, pledging that Australia will “continue to make every effort.”

    Mr Combet said Australia was “flexible” on a dispute hanging over the Cancun talks on the future of the Kyoto Protocol, whose requirements for wealthy nations to cut carbon emissions runs out at the end of 2012.

    Faced with the likelihood that no new treaty will be ready soon, the European Union has led calls to extend the Kyoto Protocol.

    Japan, backed by Canada and Russia, has led opposition. Japan says Kyoto is unfair by making no demands of top polluters China, which has no requirements as a developing nation, and the Us, which rejected the treaty.

    Australia, which emits more carbon per capita than any other large country, was a late entrant to the Kyoto Protocol. It joined the treaty after the Labor Party defeated the conservative government in 2007.

  37. val majkus on 10/12/2010 at 12:25 pm said:
    In his official address to the UN conference, Mr Combet said Australia too would be affected by increases in temperatures.

    “We will have less water and will experience an increase in the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events,” he said.

    “These disrupt our communities and compromise infrastructure – just as they do for others.

    “That is why Australia is committed to a durable, legally-binding and environmentally-effective outcome. Such an outcome must include mitigation contributions by all major economies.”

    Mr Combet, who co-chairs a UN panel to investigate how funding for poor states could work, said Australia had come to Cancun determined to play its part in securing a successful climate change outcome.

    “Australia accepts the climate science. Like my Sudanese and African colleagues who spoke before me, and my South East Asian and Pacific colleagues, we understand the effects of climate change on water, weather, and food production and how challenging this can be.”

    The minister recommitted Australia’s pledge under the Copnhagen accord last year to a 5 per cent reduction on 2000 carbon emissions levels by 2020. If other countries accepted a binding target, Australia is willing to push its target to 15 per cent or higher.

    Mr Combet also announced further allocations under the $599 million of funds Australia has commited to “fast start” financing for developing nations.

    These include $15 million to an adaptation fund; $169 million in new regional adaptation allocations to the Pacific, South and South East Asia and Africa; $32 million for forest preservation initiatives in Indonesia; $10 million to boost renewable energy in low income countries; and $10 million to the “Partnership for Market Readiness”.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 10/12/2010 at 1:15 pm said:

      “less water”

      Combet’s synapses have stopped firing – must be dehydrated at Cancun.

      His cognitive faculties should return once he gets some water back in OZ – there’s certainly plenty of it at the moment.

      At least Combet (and Smith NZ) are cutting the UN out of the loop (or have I got that wrong).

  38. Richard C (NZ) on 12/12/2010 at 12:41 pm said:

    Snowy Hydro tops up floods with environmental flow

    Posted by jennifer, December 11th, 2010 – under Uncategorized.
    Tags: Floods, Murray River

    Because of a formal agreement between NSW Office of Water and Snowy Hydro, involving an obligation to South Australia, approximately 500,000 megalitres, equivalent to one Sydney Harbour of water, must be released as soon as possible as environmental flow into the already flooded Murrumbidgee and Murray Rivers. Read more at Quadrant Online.

    Bureaucratic flood damage?
    by Jennifer Marohasy

    December 11, 2010

    Inconceivable but true:
    Snowy Hydro tops up floods with environmental flow

    While residents of Wagga Wagga scrambled to save their belongings from rising flood waters there was a rumour circulating that the crisis was exacerbated by bureaucratic incompetence, in particular that Snowy Hydro was releasing environmental flow water into the already flooded Murrumbidgee River.

    I was angry at even the concept. It was inconceivable. I phoned Snowy Hydro early on December 10 to set the record straight.


    • val majkus on 12/12/2010 at 1:21 pm said:

      What struck me was the patience Dr Morahassy displayed to get her answer:
      … (from the article)
      But alas, Ms Urquhart was unable to answer my questions. She did, however, promise to try and find out and emailed me back with a message from her “water delivery manager” that the information I was after could be found in the operating licence between Snowy Hydro and the NSW Office of Water on the NSW Office of Water website.

      Well I went there to have a look, but where to start? The licence has a package of agreements, licences and other regulations and the current licence as at May 1, 2010, is only 102 pages long. I started to read, but it was not easy going and the more I read, the more I doubted that I would recognise the answer even if I stumbled across it, because the document makes so many references to part three of schedule three then part four of schedule four, and in case of shortfall, in case of excess, in case of base passing flow, in this water year versus next dependent on how much water might be in which of the sixteen major dams at any one time.”

      I left a message congratulating her on her blog

  39. Richard C (NZ) on 16/12/2010 at 9:59 am said:

    Alarmism rears its ugly head in the Sydney Morning Herald
    Rising sea levels will swamp parts of Sydney

    December 16, 2010

    A NUMBER of Sydney suburbs will be inundated regularly because of climate change-driven sea-level rises, threatening homes and community infrastructure worth billion of dollars by the end of the century, new projections show.

    In the first detailed attempt to study the impacts of sea-level rises on low-lying coastal areas and help local government planning, the government has released high-resolution maps that show the areas in Sydney and the central coast most under threat from sea-level rises.

    Sydney suburbs facing significant danger of inundation, even with limited rises, include Caringbah, Kurnell, Cromer and Manly Vale. Significant parts of Newcastle and the central coast are also potentially in harm’s way.
    Advertisement: Story continues below

    And the problems associated with rising sea levels are not limited to coastal areas. Flooding could occur along the Parramatta River, threatening homes and infrastructure around Homebush Bay, Newington and Silverwater. Along the Cooks River, Arncliffe and Marrickville could suffer, with the threat of significant inundation at Sydney Airport, too The maps show projected inundation for sea-level rises of 0.5 metres, which is likely to be unavoidable, 0.8 metres and 1.1 metres by 2100. The projections combine rising sea levels and king tidal events, which can occur many times a year. The maps do not factor in protective infrastructure such as sea walls or show local effects such as beach erosion.

    Continues……….(if you really care)

  40. Richard C (NZ) on 16/12/2010 at 11:04 am said:

    Where climate and conservation collide

    December 13, 2010 – smh

    If ever a case signalled the end of easy answers to our search for clean energy, it’s that of the wedgie.

    We have had a complex relationship with the wedge-tailed eagle. Last century it was nearly annihilated as a sheep killer.

    This writer remembers driving along a ghastly fence line hung for a kilometre with wedgie carcasses after a local shoot in Victoria’s western district.

    Today such prejudices have largely disappeared. Respect for the country’s great raptor instead approaches the historic norm. Eagles have stood for us as symbols of strength and power from the days of the Ancient Greeks.

    Still the wedgie gets run over on our roads, and flies into things that share its aerial domain — such as wind turbines.

    As we search for means to sharply cut carbon emissions from energy production, increasingly we are turning to wind farms.

    In Victoria alone there is the prospect of 1322 new turbines and their towers being built in 28 separate developments.

    Another 376 would slice the breeze at three farms planned for Tasmania. And the country’s single largest wind farm, under development at Silverton, New South Wales, plans to landscape a tract of the outback with 598 towers.

    All of this doesn’t happen without opposition, particularly from people who see losses to their previously unindustrialised homelands. Occasionally the issue will flare into national controversy, such as over the orange-bellied parrot.

    The Howard government environment minister, Ian Campbell, halted a $220 million wind farm development at Bald Hills in Gippsland in 2006 because it might kill small numbers of the critically endangered parrot.

    Campbell was ridiculed by Labor for a decision that coincidentally delivered electoral good news to a marginal Coalition seat around Bald Hills. Eventually he had to reverse it.

    It’s a pity that the parrot, a fleet little beauty now close to extinction, became a joke in the Bald Hills barney. We should hope that if the wind farm explosion happens, we would deal much better with species protection.

    That’s why the case of the wedgie, more exactly its endangered Tasmanian sub-species, gives pause for thought.

    Larger than its mainland cousin at a 2.2-metre wingspan, its head often encircled with a regal golden feather ruff, the Tasmanian wedge-tailed numbers fewer than 1000 birds.

    Its heartland is the state’s wild forests, where it can be glimpsed soaring the ridgelines, disdaining the harassing ravens and currawongs like a monster from prehistory.

    At the state’s largest wind farm at Woolnorth in the island’s north-west, 19 wedge-tailed eagles are known to have been killed since it began operations in 2003. Another three sea eagles also have hit the rotors.

    This is allowed. Federal and state environmental permits recognise Woolnorth’s rotors may kill a small number of eagles each year.


  41. Richard C (NZ) on 17/12/2010 at 7:43 pm said:

    The Australian prints a game-changer?

    I’ve snipped the first part due to the following comment, but the last part is encouraging and refreshing. I wonder if Asten made a concession to the consensus at the start in order to have the rest published
    JohnM Posted at 7:21 AM Today

    On reading the first few paragraphs I thought this was going to be yet another pro-alarmist statement but was pleasantly surprised to find that it went on to raise some highly relevant points that for too long have been obscured by hype and eco-politics. Again it’s geologists and geophysicists who contribute rational and sober comment to a debate that’s so often driven by wild assertions from alarmists.
    The comments are well worth a read, e.g.

    John Nicol of Brisbane Posted at 10:26 AM Today

    This is one of the finest articles written in recent times on the topic of climate change. The carefully stated discussion on the matter of an appropriate “economic” approach to possible climate change and the rational considerations of the best means to achieve open scientific debate provide a well balanced presentation of the type which must form the basis for future progress in this area. The reticence by both political, economic, and scientific spokespersons, from government, CSIRO and University Climate units, to even consider any opposing view on this extremely important topic, so clearly demonstrated in the case of Clive Spash, has been a blight on science and politics alike. Let’s hope the veil is now lifting under the encouragement of articles such as this one by Michael Asten. John Nicol

    (We have an excellent paper by John Nicol at CCG – Google it)
    Political interference will cripple climate debate

    # Michael Asten
    # December 17, 2010 12:00AM


    As a geophysicist my reading and writing leads me to question the level of influence of human-related CO2 emissions on present versus past climate change, and it is of huge concern to our nation’s future if we commit to a price on carbon without a parallel high-priority, objective and ongoing scientific effort to quantify uncertainties and natural factors also affecting climate change.

    The Cancun predictions on sea-level rises contrast with recent satellite observations on the rate of sea-level change and provide a timely example on the need for scientific objectivity.

    A recent peer-reviewed paper by Svetlana Jevrejeva from Britain’s National Oceanography Centre, Liverpool, provides a calculation of 0.6m-1.6m by 2100 using a range of climate models. However, these models also show predicted sea-level change rates of 4.2mm-5.4mm a year for the first decade of the 21st century.

    I contrast these predictions with just published observations by Riccardo Riva from Delft in The Netherlands and international colleagues who use satellite technology to measure actual global sea level rise in this same decade to be in the order of 1mm a year, which happens to be about the rate of sea-level increase that has been observed during the past century. In other words, the observational data suggests the problem as modelled may be overstated by a factor of five.

    Did scientists from the no-longer independent CSIRO (or other competent body in Australia) brief minister Combet and his team at Cancun on this discrepancy and its implications? Are they permitted to make such comment publicly? And how will such observations affect the targeting of our funds on offer for regional adaptation programs?

    Until we have confidence scientists can address such issues without censorship or denigration, we cannot have confidence that a price on carbon will be scientifically justified or wisely spent.

    Michael Asten is a professorial fellow in the school of geosciences, Monash University.

    Joyce Posted at 1:42 PM Today

    What a breath of fresh air this article is.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 17/12/2010 at 7:53 pm said:

      Meanwhile – in the Sydney Morning Herald “Climate Change” section

      Rising sea a billion-dollar threat

      Tom Arup Melbourne suburbs will be inundated regularly because of climate-change-driven sea-level rises, threatening billions of dollars in damage to homes, new projections show.

      Rising sea levels will swamp parts of Sydney

      Tom Arup ENVIRONMENT CORRESPONDENT A number of Sydney suburbs will be inundated regularly because of climate change-driven sea-level rises, threatening homes and community infrastructure worth billion of dollars by the end of the century, new projections show.

      South-east Asia will be hardest hit by climate change, ONA predicts

      Philip Dorling and Richard Baker Australia’s top intelligence agency believes south-east Asia will be the region worst affected by climate change by 2030, with decreased water flows from the Himalayan glaciers triggering a ”cascade of economic, social and political consequences”.

      Maps predict how climate will affect coast

      The possible effects of climate change on low-lying coastal areas of Australia have been outlined in new maps.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 18/12/2010 at 12:25 pm said:

      Another game-changer in The Australian?

      They have printed Joanne Nova’s “A REPLY to a critic of The Australian’s coverage of the debate about climate change.” “DAVID McKnight’s criticism of The Australian over climate change(“Sceptical writers skipped inconvenient truths”, Inquirer,”
      Newspapers should lead the country

      * Joanne Nova
      * From: The Australian
      * December 18, 2010 12:00AM

      A REPLY to a critic of The Australian’s coverage of the debate about climate change.

      DAVID McKnight’s criticism of The Australian over climate change (“Sceptical writers skipped inconvenient truths”, Inquirer, December 11) makes for a good case study of Australian universities’ intellectual collapse.

      Here’s a University of NSW senior research fellow in journalism who contradicts himself, fails by his own reasoning, does little research, breaks at least three laws of logic, and rests his entire argument on an assumption for which he provides no evidence.

      Most disturbingly – like a crack through the facade of Western intellectual vigour – he asserts that the role of a national newspaper is to “give leadership”.

      Bask for a moment in the inanity of this declaration that newspapers “are our leaders”. Last time I looked at our ballot papers, none of the people running to lead our nation had a name such as The Sydney Morning Herald. Didn’t he notice we live in a country that chooses its leaders through elections? The role of a newspaper is to report all the substantiated arguments and filter out the poorly reasoned ones, so readers can make up their own minds.

      The point of a free press is surely for the press to be free to ask the most searching questions on any topic. Yet here is an authority on journalism attacking The Australian for printing views of scientists who have degrees of doubt about global warming and/or any human component in it.

      And these scientists that McKnight wants to silence are not just the odd rare heretic.

      The swelling ranks of sceptical scientists is now the largest whistle-blowing cohort in science ever seen. It includes some of the brightest: two with Nobel prizes in physics, four NASA astronauts, 9000 PhDs in science, and another 20,000 science graduates to cap it off. A recent US Senate minority report contained 1000 names of eminent scientists who are sceptical, and the term professor pops up more than 500 times in that list. These, McKnight, an arts PhD, calls deniers.

      Just because thousands of scientists support the sceptical view doesn’t prove they’re right, but it proves their opinions are nothing like the tobacco sceptics campaign that McKnight compares them with in a transparent attempt to smear commentators with whom he disagrees.

      Ponder the irony that McKnight, the journalism lecturer, is demanding The Australian adopt the policy espoused by the dominant paradigm, the establishment, and censor the views of independent whistleblowers.

      He thinks repeating government PR is journalism; the rest of us know it as propaganda.

      McKnight doesn’t name any scientific paper that any sceptic denies. Instead, he seems to use a pre-emptive technique designed to stop people even discussing the evidence about the climate.

      McKnight’s research starts with the assumption that a UN committee, which was funded to find a crisis, has really found one, and that it is above question. His investigation appears to amount to comparing articles in Fairfax versus Murdoch papers, as if the key to radiative transfer and cumulative atmospheric feedbacks lies in counting op-ed pieces. If he had made the most basic inquiry, McKnight might also have found out that the entire case for the man-made threat to the climate rests on just the word of 60 scientists who reviewed chapter nine of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Fourth Assessment Report.

      He’d also know that the people he calls deniers, far from being recipients of thousands of regular Exxon cheques, are mostly self-funded – many are retirees – and that Exxon’s paltry $US23 million for 1990-2007 was outdone by more than 3000 to one by the US government alone, which paid $US79 billion to the climate industry during 1989-2009.

      So “sharp” is McKnight’s analysis that he calls the independent unfunded scientists “a global PR campaign originating from coal and oil companies”, but all while he is oblivious to the real billion-dollar PR campaign that is waged from government departments, a UN agency, financial houses such as Deutsche Bank, the renewable energy industry, the nuclear industry and multi-hundred-million-dollar corporations such as the WWF.

      The job of a newspaper, he indicates, is to decide which scientist is right about atmospheric physics. Is Phil Jones from the East Anglia Climate Research Unit right, or is Richard Lindzen, Massachusetts Institute of Technology meteorologist, right? Add that to the duties for aspiring national editors. Tough job, eh?

      McKnight’s main error in his article – accepting an argument from authority – has been known in logic for 2000 years, and his entire synopsis is built around this fallacy.

      Just suppose, hypothetically, that the government employed many scientists on one side of a theory and none from the other. McKnight’s method of “knowing” who is right involves counting the institutions and authorities who support the grants – I mean, the theory. If science were exploited this way, McKnight would fall victim every time, blindly supporting the establishment.

      That doesn’t prove he’s wrong

      but his analysis is confused at every level. He claims The Australian has zig-zagged from acceptance to denial but then later accuses The Australian’s columnists of repeating “the dominant editorial line”. But which editorial line would be dominant: the zig type or the zag? In science, evidence is the only thing that counts, not opinion. McKnight, the follower of funded opinions, has the gall to question The Australian’s standards of evidence but the only evidence he offers is a collection of opinions. McKnight paints himself as an authority on journalism yet fails to investigate his base assumption, research the targets of his scorn or understand the role of the free press: he is his own best example of why argument from authority is a fallacy.

      If our journalism lecturers are feeding students with ideas of leadership roles, how decrepit is the institution where students are not even taught that the highest aim of a journalist is to ask the most penetrating questions and leave no stone unturned, so the people they serve might have the best information?

      Such is the modern delusion of the activist-journo: McKnight wants to be the leader, to dictate what the public can think and to direct where public spending goes, but he doesn’t want to bother running for office or to expose his claim to open debate. He’s nothing more than a totalitarian in disguise.

      Joanne Nova is a commentator and the author of The Skeptics Handbook. She is a former associate lecturer in science communication at the Australian National University.

  42. Richard C (NZ) on 18/12/2010 at 4:22 pm said:

    ALP flags fixed carbon price

    December 18, 2010 – smh

    CLIMATE Change Minister Greg Combet has sent a strong signal the federal government is considering implementing a fixed carbon price, followed by a fully fledged emissions trading scheme, to solve the political impasse.


  43. Richard C (NZ) on 20/12/2010 at 5:42 pm said:

    Cost blowout hits clean coal vision

    # The Australian
    # December 20, 2010 12:00AM

    AUSTRALIA’S hopes to lead the world in generating “clean” electricity from coal have taken a hammering.

    A massive cost blowout forced the Queensland government to scrap a prototype power plant that was to be in action by 2015.

    The decision to go back to the drawing board on the ZeroGen project in central Queensland means carbon capture technology to trap greenhouse gases produced from coal-fired plants will not be in use for a decade at least.

    While Premier Anna Bligh said yesterday the $192 million invested in ZeroGen had not been wasted, and the state and federal governments remained committed to developing clean coal processes, she admitted this was not yet economically viable.

    ZeroGen decision on the money

    # The Australian
    # December 20, 2010 12:00AM

    BY pulling out of ZeroGen, the Queensland government has made a pragmatic decision.


    According to Peter Cook, chief executive of the Co-operative Research Centre for Greenhouse Gas Technologies in Canberra, the research effort is swinging back in favour of capturing carbon emissions after the coal has been burned rather than trying to radically alter the coal itself before combustion.

    “We are seeing that more conventional ways of making electricity are being looked at again for post-combustion capture,” Dr Cook said.

    This included both underground storage and research into algae to soak up carbon emissions that could be turned into crude oil and other projects to lock up CO2 emissions in new generation cement-like construction products.

    Research will continue on pre-combustion technology that turns coal into a synthesis gas, which is used in a gas turbine to produce electricity, with the heat generated used to drive a steam turbine, including at the Wandoan power plant project, also in Queensland, and in China.

    The $150 million written off by the Queensland government on ZeroGen is small beer in the context of the more than $US26 billion ($26.3bn) committed by governments around the world to research and develop CCS technologies.

    The fact of life in research is that not every project will bear fruit.

    However, the Queensland government said that it remained committed to continuing support for CCS research.

    And federal Resources Minister Martin Ferguson said the Australian government was considering advice from the Independent Assessment Panel on allocating $2bn in funding for so-called flagship projects.

    “I expect to be in a position to announce the next significant state in the development of CCS flagships in the first half of 2011,” Mr Ferguson said.

    The remaining projects are:

    – The Wandoan power plant project northwest of Brisbane, which is based on integrating General Electric’s existing technologies with CO2 storage in the Surat Basin.

    – The Collie South West Hub project, which aims to store up to 3.3 mega tonnes of CO2 a year, captured from surrounding industry including coal-fired power plants.

    -The CarbonNet project in Victoria’s Latrobe Valley, which aims to store between three and five mega tonnes of CO2 a year, captured from coal-fired power plants in the region.

    The $2bn CCS Flagships program was announced in the 2009-10 budget and is part of the federal government’s $4.5bn Clean Energy Initiative.

    Leaders of the G8 countries who met in Hokkaido in Japan in 2008 had set a goal of having established at least 20 large-scale CCS projects around the world by 2020.

  44. Richard C (NZ) on 21/12/2010 at 10:07 am said:

    Summer snow falls at Perisher

    20 Dec, 2010 10:30 AM – The Newcastle Herald

    10 mm snow at Charlotte Pass Damaging winds predicted in Sydney, Hunter, Illawarra, Tablelands Christmas Day to be mostly sunny, 26 degrees

    Snow is falling on the Snowy Mountains, Sydneysiders are bracing for damaging winds and much of the state’s east woke up to rain today.

    It is hard to believe it’s summer in NSW, let alone Christmas.

  45. Richard C (NZ) on 22/12/2010 at 9:39 pm said:

    Combet left red-faced as new green scheme gets the axe

    December 22, 2010 – smh

    THE successor to the government’s disastrous Green Loans scheme has been scrapped just days before it was due to begin, throwing the jobs of thousands of people into doubt.


    The government has also been forced to commit $30 million in compensation for the approximately 10,000 people who were trained and accredited to work as household energy auditors, as many had been relying on Green Start to provide them with continued work when Green Loans ended.


  46. Richard C (NZ) on 24/12/2010 at 8:20 pm said:

    Anna Bligh opens door to nuclear power

    # The Australian
    # December 24, 2010 12:00AM

    ANNA Bligh has backed calls for the Labor Party to review its policy on nuclear power.

    The Queensland Premier has warned that renewable sources cannot meet the surging demand for baseload electricity.

    Ms Bligh and ALP national president said development of the only other viable alternative energy, hydro-electricity, had been hamstrung by resistance to new dams.

    Ms Bligh said pointedly that “parts of the environment movement” had shifted on the nuclear option, and now supported it as an abatement measure for climate change.

    Ms Bligh’s comments to The Australian reflect an important shift on nuclear power among Labor leaders, who now cite cost and perception issues rather than philosophical considerations as the impediment to introducing nuclear energy.


  47. Richard C (NZ) on 29/12/2010 at 10:10 pm said:

    Farmers in Australia have borne the significant financial burden of meeting Australia’s obligations under the Kyoto Protocol by the enforcement (by Tree Police) of Vegetation Control Legislation which gives us sufficient ‘carbon credits’ to meet those Kyoto ‘targets’.

    This cohort are the farmers and landholders who have had the value of the holdings reduced by an estimate $10.8 Billion to meet the United Nation’s expectations.

  48. Andy on 04/01/2011 at 9:52 pm said:

    Bob Carter on Carbon Tax

    Combet’s hot air tax: no seasonal break for the climate commissars

    To the degree that statements such as those made by BMO’s Dr. Sligo represent the views of the professional meteorological community, that community has now moved beyond parody and demands to be ridiculed. Can it really be the case that amidst the hurricane of Green spin about global warming, not a single bureaucrat or government politician in Canberra has retained a functioning bullshit detector?

    Remarkably, in enunciating their “eleven principles”, the Canberra MCCC managed to evade entirely any mention of the underpinning scientific justification for introducing a tax on carbon dioxide. That is, of course, because there is none (which is doubtless why only one, tame, scientist was included as a member of the committee in the first place).

    As the government will discover from its focus groups over the next few months, no matter how hard Mr. Combet tries to spin it as beneficial, they will introduce a carbon dioxide tax at their considerable electoral peril.

    For where global warming alarmism is concerned, the good news is that the bullshit detectors of the Australian electorate are both alive and activated.

  49. Richard C (NZ) on 06/01/2011 at 8:11 pm said:

    Wettest year in a decade as La Nina promises heavier falls until autumn

    * From: The Australian
    * January 06, 2011 12:00AM

    The Bureau of Meteorology’s annual Australian climate statement released yesterday showed last year was Australia’s wettest year since 2000 and the third-wettest since records began to be kept in 1900.

    ……..last year was the coolest for Australia for eight years
    It might be interesting to compare the AU temperature record with the NZ record.

  50. Andy on 26/01/2011 at 3:35 pm said:

    Poll Shows Vast Majority of Australians Couldn’t Give a XXXX About Global Warming.

    From Hauntingthelibrary

    A poll of Australians on issues they would consider at a Federal election has some bad news for the alarmists – some very bad news: nobody cares.

    According to the survey, only 3% of the electorate rate “Addressing climate change” as their prime voting concern. A further 3% put it into second place, and a whopping 4% rated it as a tertiary concern (third place).

    The response to “Controlling population growth” was similarly uninterested, with only 2% rating that as a primary issue. Ensuring supply of water scored 1%, perhaps unsurprisingly.

  51. Richard C (NZ) on 01/02/2011 at 3:12 pm said:


    [Australian] Senate Select Committee on Climate Policy

    Submission by Bob Foster, 8 April 2009

    Understanding climate-change is a work-in-progress; because the science is still very far from settled.

    However, Mazzarella14 makes a compelling case that it IS already sufficiently settled.

    It is too early – and the likely penalty (in terms of needless human misery) for error is too grave – for policymakers and planners to yet choose between a self-contained and primarily people-driven climate, and its natural antithesis.

    As the flow of satellite observations becomes a flood, the evidential support for a naturally-driven climate grows apace. The main underlying drivers of climate appear to be externally-linked in some way. Earth does not travel in an empty Universe.
    Includes anecdote of Victorian winemakers considering switching varieties in preparation for a warmer drier climate based on CSIRO/BOM projections (don’t know if they proceeded).

    Also an Appendix

    SPECIAL ISSUE: Natural drivers of weather and climate

    Papers and articles but no links unfortunately

  52. Richard C (NZ) on 04/02/2011 at 8:11 am said:

    Prof Ross Garnaut (non-scientist), seizes the day.

    Expect more extreme cyclones: Garnaut

    Science suggests there’s much worse to come: climate change adviser

    • Richard C (NZ) on 05/02/2011 at 8:03 am said:

      Garnaut taken to task in The Australian

      Garnaut’s reading of cyclone falls short on science

      # Talking Point
      # From: The Australian
      # February 05, 2011
      The paper prints 5 selected readers comments in reply to Garnaut’s article that are well articulated and express disdain for Garnaut’s spin.

  53. Richard C (NZ) on 07/02/2011 at 8:44 pm said:

    Desal plant damaged by Victorian floods

    The record floods have raised questions about whether the controversial desalination project, which has been plagued by cost blowouts, is needed at all.

    Ironic or what?

  54. Richard C (NZ) on 15/02/2011 at 7:10 pm said:

    Billions blown on carbon schemes

    February 15, 2011 – smh

    SUCCESSIVE federal governments have spent more than $5.5 billion over the past decade on climate change programs that are delivering only small reductions in greenhouse gas emissions at unusually high costs for taxpayers and the economy.

    An analysis by the Herald of government schemes designed to cut emissions by direct spending or regulatory intervention reveals they have cost an average of $168 for each tonne of carbon dioxide abated.

    While some have reduced emissions cost-effectively, many of the biggest-spending schemes cost far more to reduce carbon than any mooted emissions trading scheme or carbon tax.

    The worst offenders have included Labor’s rebates for rooftop solar panels, which cost $300 or more for every tonne of carbon abated, and the Howard government’s remote renewable power generation scheme, which paid up to $340 for each tonne.

    By contrast, the emissions trading scheme blocked by the Coalition and the Greens in the previous parliament was expected to put a price of $20 to $25 a tonne on carbon in its early years.


  55. Andy on 22/02/2011 at 12:27 pm said:

    Penny Wong thinks Bob Carter is a flat-earther, and Tim Flannery gets paid $180K a year for 3 days a week.

    Keep taking the blood pressure pills

  56. Andy on 12/03/2011 at 9:35 am said:

    Check out this great blog post from a young student pushing back on Global Warming propaganda.

    It is inspirational.

    (h/t Bishop Hill for linking to it)

  57. Richard C (NZ) on 12/03/2011 at 4:01 pm said:

    This article in The Australian goes against the grain:

    Carbon tax wonder tonic proves tough sell


    For example, I’m expecting the debate over anthropogenic global warming will collapse within the course of the next decade under the weight of its own internal contradictions, to borrow a phrase that so-called scientific Marxism once used in reference to capitalism. It’s probable that quite soon the recent mild warming trend will come to be seen as par for the course and in no way a threat to the planet or mankind. The manufacture of statistical artefacts such as the hockey stick, with which a couple of ingenious climatologists hoped to erase from popular and scientific consciousness the whole medieval warm period, will come to be seen for the astonishing confidence tricks they are

    I’ve offered an appropriate comment to both writer and editor.

  58. Richard C (NZ) on 15/03/2011 at 9:04 am said:

    Carbon dioxide not the bad guy, says Abbott

    March 15, 2011 – smh

    THE Opposition Leader, Tony Abbott, has again questioned the scientific evidence for climate change, saying he does not accept that carbon dioxide is a proven ”environmental villain” or that cutting greenhouse gas emissions is the most important environmental challenge.

    The Minister for Climate Change, Greg Combet, seized on the comments by Mr Abbott yesterday as ”proof” the Liberal Party’s climate policy is based on ”the extreme view that climate change doesn’t exist”.

    Speaking at a community forum in Perth, Mr Abbott said: ”I don’t think we can say that the science is settled here.

    ”There is no doubt that we should do our best to rest lightly on the planet and there is no doubt that we should do our best to emit as few waste products as possible, but, having said that, whether carbon dioxide is quite the environmental villain that some people make it out to be is not yet proven.

    ”We should take precautions against risks and threats, potential ones as well as actual ones, but I don’t think we should assume that the highest environmental challenge, let alone the great moral social and political challenge of our time, is to reduce our emissions,” Mr Abbott said in response to a question.

    Despite once famously saying the settled science of climate change was ”absolute crap”, Mr Abbott has more recently repeatedly stated that he accepts the science and has told his MPs their debate with the government should be about the Prime Minister’s broken promise, the impact of the carbon price and the relative merit of the Coalition’s ”direct action” climate policy, and not about climate science.

    Mr Combet said the comments showed ”Mr Abbott is a climate change denier, which explains why his climate policy is nonsense”.

  59. Andy on 17/03/2011 at 12:12 pm said:

    Pielke Jr on Gillard:

    In the face of opinion polls showing a lack of support for her proposed carbon tax, Julia Gillard today has delivered a speech that indicates that she is willing to wager her future on this issue (The speech is here in PDF). In the speech the word “carbon” appears 36 times, also appearing 36 times are the words “jobs” and “economy.”

    She makes clear that there is no going back:

  60. Andy on 29/03/2011 at 10:31 am said:

    Green Peasants of the Pacific
    Saturday, 12 March 2011, 7:01 pm
    Press Release: Carbon Sense Coalition

    “In the period from the base year of 1990 to 2010, New Zealand emissions have grown by 22%. This 22% growth will need to be eliminated before the Kiwis get to start the process of achieving 50% cuts from 1990 levels.

    “However, New Zealand’s population has also grown since 1990, and is expected to rise from 3.5 million in 1990 to 6.2 million by 2050.

    “The maths shows that the 50% cut to 1990 levels by 2050 will require Kiwis to reduce emissions per capita by 73% from 1990 levels. Will their grandkids learn to happily live on just 27% of the resources that they use now?


  61. Andy on 29/03/2011 at 11:03 am said:

    Engineer bores a hole in dam untruths

    O’Brien had suspected the unthinkable when the Brisbane River was peaking at 4.46m in the pre-dawn on Thursday, January 13. Having closely followed the dam’s operation, he suspected then that the dam had almost certainly not done its job and its releases of huge volumes of water in fact caused the major flood.

  62. Andy on 29/03/2011 at 11:17 am said:

    Operator of dam ‘invented’ rain data

    EXTREME rainfall so rare it happens on average once every 2000 years has been “invented” by the government operator of a major Queensland dam as part of its explanation for releasing huge volumes of water that caused most of Brisbane’s January flood.

  63. Richard C (NZ) on 29/03/2011 at 4:15 pm said:

    A new medical term coined under the DRUM Lewandowsky article


    JM 29 Mar 2011 1:19:18pm

    Credit to gippslander who kicked off with: Climate Hypochondria is a condition in which a person believes that the world is ill when no objective signs of illness can be observed. It has an obsessive as well as a delusional component. Sufferers from climate hypochondria, or, to use the clinical term, climate hypochondriasis, remain convinced that the world is ill despite reassurances, and often present the world to others over a long period of time as suffering from a series of different symptoms and diseases. The onset of climate hypochondria is frequently in the 30s in men and 40s in women who have only a superficial understanding of the sciences. Those in sedentary occupations are notoriously liable to it, and, whilst some scientists usually suffer only a transient bout of climate hypochondria, some remain climate hypochondriacal throughout their career. Depression and alcoholism exacerbate the condition.

    Mutual group support for sufferers can be obtained at Hot Topic.

  64. Andy on 30/03/2011 at 8:35 am said:

    An essay on the current state of the climate change debate

    by Don Aitkin

    JC note: this essay was prepared for a recent address at given at the Manning House, in Australia.

    The debate tonight is about ‘anthropogenic global warming’, and it is a debate, not a one-sided exposition. The debate exists because many people say the matter is important, and it is plainly also most contentious. To understand why our government is going down the path that it has chosen, a carbon tax, while the USA is not doing so, we need to know more than simply the local and American political contexts. What is ‘climate change’ all about? Why is there any debate at all? Why are people so divided about it?

  65. Richard C (NZ) on 04/04/2011 at 8:58 pm said:

    Climate change to mean fewer cyclones and smaller waves, says CSIRO research

    * EXCLUSIVE Ben Packham
    * From: The Australian

    CSIRO research commissioned by the federal government suggests climate change could dramatically reduce the number of tropical cyclones in the Australian region and decrease wave heights on the nation’s east coast.

    The surprise findings, which appear to contradict some common predictions about the impact of climate change, are contained in scientific papers on “Projecting Future Climate and its Extremes”, obtained under Freedom of Information laws by The Australian Online.
    Check out the comments under this one

  66. Richard C (NZ) on 06/04/2011 at 7:57 pm said:

    Desal plant debacle for builder

    April 6, 2011

    AUSTRALIA’s biggest desalination plant, at Wonthaggi, is six to 12 months behind schedule, with cost over-runs and big financial penalties now threatening to deny the builder a return on the multibillion-dollar project.

    The Baillieu government is expected to face pressure for an extension of project deadlines as companies involved seek to minimise financial damage from delays. The contract stipulates that the plant must be able to produce desalinated water by December this year.

    The centrepiece of the former Labor government’s plan to drought-proof Melbourne, the massive project has been dogged by rain and wind………

    The controversial desal project is valued at $5.7 billion in today’s dollars but is expected to cost Victorians $24 billion over 28 years in nominal terms.

    Premier Ted Baillieu recently described the plant as a ”white elephant”, but said his government would not mothball it……….

  67. Andy on 08/04/2011 at 10:43 am said:

    A party of ignorant extremists

    THE depth and longstanding nature of the Greens’ visceral hostility to Israel reveals something very unpleasant about the nature of the Greens themselves.

    They are essentially a party of extremists. Like most extremists operating in a democratic space, they try to garner support on broadly populist issues while still servicing their extremist activist base with extremist positions and campaigns.

    The language of a number of the Greens senators about Israel – rogue state, apartheid, should be boycotted – is the language of political sectarianism and prejudice.

    Read more

  68. Andy on 28/04/2011 at 12:31 am said:

    Australian Labor government crisis deepens over carbon tax

    The Labor government of Prime Minister Julia Gillard confronts an escalating crisis over its proposed carbon tax. Hostility among working people is increasing, as the regressive impact of the tax becomes more widely understood. At the same time, the government’s key constituency—finance capital and big business—has expressed growing reservations, while powerful sectional corporate interests, such as the mining giants, are campaigning for billions more in “compensation”.

    Gillard’s carbon tax, like the emissions trading scheme advanced by her predecessor Kevin Rudd, has been promoted as a measure aimed at preventing climate change, but it will have no positive impact on the environment. ….

    Read more on the World Socialist Web Site

  69. Andy on 07/05/2011 at 6:44 pm said:

    In desperation, wheel out the celebs

    The carbon tax is sinking faster than a Pacific island, so as a last ditched attempt to resurrect it, the Gillard government is wheeling out Cate Blanchett, talented actress and crazy environmental moonbat that she is.
    The Weekend Australian understands the planned print, radio and television campaign is being supported by groups including Get Up!, Greenpeace, the Australian Conservation Foundation and the Southern Cross Climate Coalition, a conglomerate including the ACF, the Climate Institute and the Australian Council of Trade Unions

    What a truly hideous motely crew that lot is. The brainless lemmings of GetUp!, the eco-Nazis of Greenpeace and ACF, the pointless Climate Institute and a bunch of union thugs. Charming. Should put even more people off with a bit of luck

  70. Andy on 07/05/2011 at 10:01 pm said:

    IS Cory Bernardi the most conservative man in South Australia?

    Or perhaps Bernardi just likes a fight. Since becoming a Senator in 2006 he has made a name for himself nationally with his strident views on climate change, banning burqas, Islam in general and foul-mouthed Scottish chefs on television. He has been branded an extremist. A racist. A religious bigot. A climate-change denier. He has received death threats. He is hated by some within his own party. He has carved out a niche as South Australia’s “Mr Right” even if he shies away from the label.

    “I consider myself a conservative rather than right wing,” he says in his city office. It’s a claim that would be easier to swallow if the largest picture on his desk wasn’t one of former British prime minister Margaret Thatcher, a woman who defined a particularly fierce brand of right-wing political theory. Bernardi loves Thatcher. He has written to her, read her books and the highest compliment Bernardi pays his wife Sinead or mother Jo is to compare them to the Iron Lady. He is happy to describe himself as an “ideological warrior” but denies he is an extremist, a racist or a bigot. He is pleased, however, to celebrate his climate-change scepticism.

    I’ve been reading Cory Bernardi’s posts on facebook for a while now, and he seems pretty dialed-in to me. Maybe I am a “right-wing fanatic”, or perhaps just an average Joe in the street. You choose…

  71. Richard C (NZ) on 14/05/2011 at 1:00 am said:

    Cold blast has country shivering

    May 13, 2011 – 4:24PM

    The recent blast of cold air is having a wide-reaching effect, with unseasonable cold from Tasmania to the northern tropics.

    It has been at least 30 years since a series of cold fronts has had such an impact this early in the year, affecting almost every state and territory, Brett Dutschke, senior meteorologist at said.

    It’s been more than 50 years since Sydney, Canberra and even Mount Isa have been as cold this early in the year.

    About sunrise yesterday, Sydney was 7.9 degrees, Canberra was minus 5.3 degrees and Mount Isa was 4.7 degrees, Mr Dutschke said.

    It has been at least 40 years since Tennant Creek was as cold as 9.4 degrees this early in the year.

    One front, which moved through south-eastern Australia on Monday was followed very swiftly by a much stronger cold front less than two days later.

    Together they dried and chilled the atmosphere so much that the drier, colder air penetrated well into the tropics with far-reaching southerly winds.

    On Wednesday, Melbourne had its coldest day this early in the year since 1970, struggling to 12.2 degrees.

    It took until winds eased on Wednesday night and yesterday for the rest of eastern Australia to feel the effects of the extraordinary cold.

    While days will gradually warm up into next week, nights will remain chilly.

  72. Ron on 18/05/2011 at 11:52 am said:

    A hard-hitting editorial exposing the shambles caused by the “climate change cargo cult”.

    HT Andrew Bolt, who points out that the media and Paul Kelly himself were cheerleaders:

  73. Andy on 23/05/2011 at 10:12 pm said:

    Time running out for climate action: report

    The Federal Government’s Climate Commission has warned the window for limiting future and costly climate change is rapidly closing.

    In its first report, titled The Critical Decade, the commission says the evidence that the planet is warming is now even stronger.

    It warns global warming could cause global sea levels to rise up to one metre by the end of the century, higher than previously thought.

    Chief commissioner Tim Flannery says humanity is almost surely the primary cause of global warming.

    “There’s agreement that there’s a temperature increase, there’s an agreement that it’s human-caused,” he said.

    “We have exactly eight years and seven months to meet our target of minus 5 per cent, which is a very ambitious target.”

    To minimise the risk, the commission says Australia must decarbonise its economy and move to clean energy sources by 2050.

    That means carbon emissions must peak in the next few years and then strongly decline.

    And while the report acknowledges the science is advancing strongly, it notes there are still questions in the public arena.

    “The public still seems to be confused about a few of those issues and I think that’s partly due to uninformed opinion,” Professor Flannery said.

    “You get all sorts of people posing as having some expertise in climate science, whether they be taxi drivers speaking to me or people in the media who don’t have the expertise.

    “That is clouding the waters a little bit and slowing things down.”

    Climate scientist and commissioner Professor Will Steffen is concerned the science is being muddied in the media by many with no credentials.

    “I don’t think we have the luxury anymore of climate denialism. We need to get beyond this fruitless phoney debate in the media,” he said.

    Professor Steffen says the decisions made between now and 2020 will determine the level of severity of global warming.

    “We’ve got to make some very important policy decisions,” he said.

    “We have to make some very important investment decisions this decade if we’re to take advantage of this fleeting last opportunity to get this situation under control.”

    The national director of the Youth Climate Coalition, Ellen Sandell, says the report shows the critical need for action now.

    “We really need to trust [people] who have decades of experience who are saying that it is caused by humans and we actually need to do something about it now,” she said.

    “Otherwise younger generations like my generation are not going to be able to have the same quality of life that our parents and grandparents have.”

    etc etc

  74. Andy on 29/05/2011 at 8:44 pm said:

    John Cook of “Skeptical Science” fame (and frequenter on Gareth R’s “The Climate Show” gets a good workover/skewering a WattsupWiththat

  75. Andy on 30/05/2011 at 3:26 pm said:

    Australian pro-Carbon tax propaganda

    Apparently, this is “Say Yes” week..

  76. val majkus on 30/05/2011 at 3:51 pm said:

    new take on that ad
    we want an election
    if that link doesn’t work try this one
    I prefer this version to the other one

  77. Andy on 09/06/2011 at 6:50 pm said:

    FARTING DEATH CAMELS MUST DIE to save the world!
    Carbon plan to unleash kill-choppers against dromedaries

    An Adelaide-based entrepreneur has hit upon a novel method of fighting global warming: he intends to exterminate Australia’s vast population of feral camels by means of gunfire from helicopters and jeeps, so preventing the beasts from unleashing a deadly planet-wrecking miasma of greenhouse gas from their rumbling guts.

    The idea is that the War On Dromedaries would be paid for – and indeed, turn a profit – by selling government carbon credits issued on the basis that a dead camel cannot be emitting methane by means of belch or trouser cough. Methane is a vastly more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2, so the elimination of even quite small sources of it can equate to a substantial carbon-emissions reduction.

    In fact, according to the calculations of Tim Moore – managing director of Oz firm Northwest Carbon – the campaign against the camels would yield substantial results indeed. He calculates that each of the feral dromedaries roaming Australia’s mostly desolate interior belches or farts out no less than 45kg of methane each year, equating to a thumping tonne of CO2. On average, each camel assassination will prevent the equivalent of 15 tonnes of carbon emissions.

  78. Mike Jowsey on 28/06/2011 at 10:36 am said:

    An open report to the PM of Aus from The Fair Farming Group in response to the Garnaut report.

    In preparing this analysis The Fair Farming Group brings extensive agricultural,
    commercial and scientific experience to the issues covered by the Review of the Science
    of Climate Change Update 2011 submitted by Professor Ross Garnaut.

    • Mike Jowsey on 28/06/2011 at 10:50 am said:

      From the above-linked report, something new to me which may well apply to NZ temperature record:

      Temperatures rose in Australia during the last century by 0.8° centigrade, however 0.5° of this increase was caused by the Great Pacific Climate Shift of 1976-77, an event identified by oceanographers as a part of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation that is recognised by the IPCC as not related to increasing atmospheric CO2. After allowing for the Great Pacific Climate Shift, the temperature increase attributed by climate modellers to rising CO2 as the primary cause, is then 0.3° centigrade for the century, not the full measured 0.8° centigrade increase.

    • Andy on 28/06/2011 at 6:22 pm said:

      I am not sure that the IPCC would recognise that only 0.3 deg can be attributed to GHG forcing, as it would contradict their position that “most of the warming of the 20th Century is likely of an anthropogenic origin”

  79. Andy on 04/07/2011 at 5:45 pm said:

    Greens’ plan to shut down coal industry to cost Australia 200,000 jobs, $36b a year in GDP

    THE Greens’ push to shut down the coal industry could severely undermine the nation’s economy and sacrifice 200,000 jobs, new economic modelling warns.

    As the party takes to Federal Parliament today with unprecedented numbers and wielding the balance of power in the Senate, fresh research finds that leader Bob Brown’s policy to phase out coal mining would slash GDP by up to $36 billion a year.

    This equates to a $6 billion dent in the national Budget.

    The damning report by economists from the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, commissioned by the Minerals Council, said Greens economic policies had “generally” managed to avoid close scrutiny.

    Senator Brown yesterday declared the eve of the Greens’ record presence in Parliament a “green-letter day”, with the party to wield unprecedented power over the Government.

  80. Andy on 07/07/2011 at 9:19 pm said:

    The ABC on how geothermal will save the world

    Unfortunately,, what they miss is that geothermal emits CO2, and their dear cousins NZ tax it under the ETS

    • Jim McK on 07/07/2011 at 10:05 pm said:

      Interesting piece Andy.

      The focus of their geothermal industry is a bit different from ours which is volcanic based and in the right circumstances seems to be quite profitable despite the fact that it belches a modest amount of CO2.

      Theirs is in fact a hot rock technology were water is pumped deep over subterranean hot (warm actually) granite. It is probably pretty clean but also has the problem of producing low grade heat – 96C – which is notoriouly hard to make money from. The only thing that makes it viable – as with most alternate energies is subsidies – in this case carbon credits.

      The fact that warm rock technology shares are now 10% of what they where in 2007 is I suspect a legitimate concern over whether the carbon credit saviour will come to pass.

  81. Richard C (NZ) on 09/07/2011 at 9:44 am said:

    Australian children are being terrified by climate change lessons

    * By Bruce McDougall and Jenny Dillon
    * From: The Daily Telegraph
    * July 09, 2011

    “(Children) feel incredibly despondent and helpless in the face of all this negative information,” she said. “To put all of this before our children … is one of the most appalling things we can do to (them).

    Child psychologist Kimberley O’Brien also said the language of climate change should be “toned down”.

    “(Educators) should stick to the facts,” she said.

    “They should be aware that kids do have nightmares.”

    Psychologist Michael Carr-Gregg called on educators to be “more circumspect and present both sides (of the climate-change debate)”.

    “When you repeat things over and over to young people who don’t have the cognitive maturity and emotional maturity to process this stuff, you end up creating unnecessary anxiety,” he said.

    Read more:

    • Andy on 09/07/2011 at 7:23 pm said:

      If anyone needs to be done for “high crimes against humanity”, it is those who indoctrinate children for political gain.

  82. Andy on 10/07/2011 at 12:25 pm said:

    Australian children are being terrified by climate change lessons

    PRIMARY school children are being terrified by lessons claiming climate change will bring “death, injury and destruction” to the world unless they take action.

    On the eve of Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s carbon tax package announcement, psychologists and scientists said the lessons were alarmist, created unneeded anxiety among school children and endangered their mental health.

    Climate change as a “Doomsday scenario” is being taught in classrooms across Australia.

    Resource material produced by the Gillard government for primary school teachers and students states climate change will cause “devastating disasters”.

    Australian National University’s Centre for the Public Awareness of Science director Dr Sue Stocklmayer said climate change had been portrayed as “Doomsday scenarios with no way out”.

    Read more:

  83. Mike Jowsey on 21/07/2011 at 2:15 pm said:

    Lubos Motl announces the Czech president’s upcoming Australian tour:

  84. Andy on 22/07/2011 at 1:32 pm said:

    Peer-reviewed paper from Australia shows that sea-level rise is decelerating in Australasia

    • Australis on 22/07/2011 at 4:58 pm said:

      And that paper is by the principal scientist for the NSW Government, and covers all of Australasia.

      So, if local sea levels will rise by only 0.15cm by 2100, why are planning authorities re-writing all the rules for coastal development?

      And why is a ‘carbon tax’ needed?

    • Andy on 22/07/2011 at 7:19 pm said:

      “Why is a Carbon Tax needed?”
      Good question Australis
      Pielke Jr has calculated that it is mathematically impossible to deliver the emissions reductions in Australia by energy policy, hence purchase of overseas credits will be required.

      This graph from the ABC confirms this:-

      i.e a massive wealth transfer out of Australia, the “unlucky country”.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 22/07/2011 at 7:25 pm said:

      125 comments when I looked and worth a scan, big issue in Port Albert.

      Donna of Port Albert Posted at 10:10 AM Today

      Whilst the debate rages about who is talking, what motives are abreast or is the science valid or not? I would like to say to all whom have commented so far on this story, where is your consideration of the human impact element? We in this town (Port Albert) have had our life savings sapped, asset values for homes and land have plummeted by close to 50% and people are watching their livelihoods disintegrate before their very eyes pushing them into despair. Wake up and give a toss about fellow Aussies caught up in this charade, the science can catch up later!!!

      The NZ paper “Auckland: A Case Study in the Regional Assessment of Long-Term Sea Level Change”, Hannah, Bell and Paulik 2011, cites Watson 2010 so that must be the paper in the article.

      The most recent analysis of the Auckland data (Watson, 2010, Cole, 2010) reveals no acceleration in the rate of sea level rise. Indeed, their analyses suggest a slight positive acceleration in the early-mid 20th Century followed by a slight negative acceleration in recent years.


      It is particularly relevant to note that the New Zealand and United Kingdom tide gauge data show no evidence of a recent acceleration in sea level rise. Indeed, the emerging picture in these regions is one of acceleration in sea level rise in the early part of the 20th century, followed, if anything, by a deceleration in the latter part of the century (Watson, 2010; Woodworth et al., 2009).


      …..the slight deceleration in sea level rise perhaps present in the latter part of the 20th century in the Auckland data is consistent with results obtained both in the UK (Woodworth, 2009) and from the Freemantle tide gauge (Watson, 2010).

      The citation is:-

      Watson, P. J. (2010). Is there any evidence yet of acceleration in mean sea level rise around
      mainland Australia? In preparation, Journal of Coastal Research.

      The article says:-

      “Mr Watson’s findings, published in the Journal of Coastal Research this year”

      The Ministry for the Environment referred me to HBP11 in support of their case for man-made climate change but I don’t think they realized how often the word “deceleration” was used in conjunction with sea level rise. I pointed that out to them but haven’t heard from them since.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 24/07/2011 at 1:03 am said:

      See “Sea level rise is normal, my friends” for Tamino’s post on Watson 2011 “How Not to Analyze Tide Gauge Data”:-

      This might develop into a refutation of Watson 2011 and Hannah, Bell, Paulik 2011 in regard to Australasian sea level deceleration in recent years for Fremantle at least and maybe Auckland.

  85. Richard C (NZ) on 26/07/2011 at 6:50 pm said:

    Climate refugees in Australia.

    Farmers claim wind turbines made them sick

    Noel Dean and his family left their farm in Waubra, about 30 kilometres north of Ballarat, after experiencing constant headaches when turbines went up two kilometres away from their home.

    “We’re refugees in our own country, we’re leaving here because of danger,” he told ABC TV’s Four Corners program on Monday.

    Read more:

  86. Mike Jowsey on 28/07/2011 at 4:47 pm said:

    “in australia this week, we have had visits from CAGW sceptic, Czech President Vaclav Klaus, and former British PM and CAGW believer,Tony Blair. our Prime Minister refused to meet the former, but chose to meet the latter.”

  87. Mike Jowsey on 30/07/2011 at 6:11 pm said:

    An absolutely brilliant article by Jo Nova, published in the Weekend Australian.

    Climate change suspect must be given a fair trial
    GOVERNMENTS across the world have paid billions to find links between carbon dioxide and the climate, but very little to find the opposite, and that’s a problem.
    Teams of professionals have searched high and low for any possible hint that CO2 poses a threat, and that is all very well, but no one has been paid to find otherwise. CO2 has been convicted without a defence lawyer.

  88. Andy on 24/08/2011 at 9:35 pm said:

    Eureka moment for leading climate change communicator
    University of Queensland alumnus Mr John Cook, the creator of and a new appointment to UQ’s Global Change Institute (GCI), has been named as a finalist in the 2011 Australian Museum Eureka Prizes.

    Mr Cook, a finalist for the NSW Government Eureka Prize for Advancement of Climate Change Knowledge is Research Fellow in Climate Change Communication at the GCI.

    The prize is awarded to an Australian individual, group or organisation for work that motivates action to reduce the impacts of climate change. Winners in all categories will be announced on Tuesday, September 6.

    In his new position Mr Cook will focus on the effective communication of the science around climate change and, working with the GCI team, enhance the delivery and use of evidence-based information by business, government and the wider community.

    blah blah

    Now here’s Simon@ACM’s take:

    and the uncompromising Lobos Motl:

    This guy has no clue about the climate science or atmospheric physics but he has gained some notoriety for his mass production of talking points meant to spread the climate panic and produce doubts about well-established scientific insights that show that there is no reason to be worried about climate change.

    His newest list of the talking points claims that 166 independent quantities describing the climate have the uniformly right sign that suggest that the catastrophe is coming and worse than previously thought. The probability that 166 independent signs agree is 1/2^165 but Cook still claims that this coincidence does hold in the real world. 😉

    Everyone who fails to see that Cook is full of **it must be a complete idiot.

    (Don’t you just love Lubos? No BS Czech at its best)

  89. Andy on 21/09/2011 at 10:00 am said:

    For those that follow the antics of John Cook and his Skeptical Science website (recent winner of the Eureka prize), this doesn’t sound very good:

  90. Andy on 13/10/2011 at 6:26 pm said:

    The corks are popping in Canberra tonight. Julia’s the toast of the town. But soon she’ll be toast of a different kind. Kevin’s Judas-kiss following today’s vote didn’t fool anyone. And arrogantly, Julia says the Carbon Tax is permanent, but we won’t be fooled by that rhetoric. She’s just lying again – surprise, surprise.

    Some people are saying democracy is dead in Australia. It’s not dead. It’s been kicked, mugged, abused, violated, and it may be in a coma and on life support. But as long as there are elections, it’s not dead. So go have your drink or a lie down or both. Then let’s get busy…

    Because we have a country to save.

  91. Andy on 13/10/2011 at 7:15 pm said:

    Welcome to Australia’s Kafka-esque new world (h/t Bob Carter)

    Senator JOYCE (Queensland—Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (16:37): I have had the joy—and that is a cynical way of putting it—of seeing some of this garbage that has been presented to our nation and that, apparently, we are to look at in globo. I would be fascinated to go through some of the details of some of these things because, apparently, we do not need to see them in seriatim—we are right across it. It is all a piece of cake.
    This is interesting:
    (1) A person who is or was required to provide a report under section 22E for an eligible financial year must keep records of the person’s activities that:
    (a) allow the person to report accurately under section 22E; and
    (b) enable the Regulator to ascertain whether the person has complied with the person’s obligations under section 22E; and
    (c) comply with the requirements of subsection (2) and the regulations made for the purposes of subsection (3).
    The civil penalty is 1,000 penalty units. It further states: ‘The person must retain the records for five years from the end of the financial year’ and on and on it goes. Look at it: it is like Kafka’s Castle. The place we have arrived at is amazing.
    What about the EMEP test day? It is defined under section 63B(3) as follows:
    In the income year of claim, this day is the day on which the claimant makes the claim for the payment. In subsequent income years, the EMEP test day is the anniversary of the day on which the claimant made the claim in a previous year, provided that, since the claimant made the claim, the Repatriation Commission has not determined that the claimant has ceased to be eligible for the payment. If the Repatriation Commission has determined that the claimant is no longer …
    And on and on it goes. Apparently, the government are all across it. They are the absolute full bottle on this. It is all right—straight through. I would love to ask the Prime Minister about some of these details and I would love to ask Minister Combet. They would not have the foggiest idea, apart from what has been sent to them on their BlackBerries. They have the BlackBerry message all worked out, but they would not know about the legislation. You can bet your life that this will be an absolute and utter debacle. But this is what they are doing to our nation.
    These are the redesigned plans for the nation of Australia, for our economy. Here they are, set up by the people who could not get fluffy stuff into the ceiling, without setting fire to 194 houses and, tragically, killing four people. This redesign of our nation’s economy is being undertaken by the same people who gave us the Building the Education Revolution. This redesign of our economy is being undertaken by the same people who conducted a war against obesity. Remember that? We are still wondering: did we achieve detente, did we win, did we lose? Or are we going to have a second war on obesity? This is what the Australian Labor Party has delivered to us via the Australian Greens, because the Greens are now running the show.
    Some sections of this legislation could be terminal for them, because they have become so soulless and, once you start being guided by the Greens, you completely isolate yourself from your conservative working-class voters, who will just leave you. Look at all this! It is just absolutely amazing. Now come the nasty bits. I am just opening it up. Under the heading ‘Scheme to avoid future liability to pay administrative penalty—Intention’, it states:
    (1) A person commits an offence if—
    and we are seeing a lot of the word ‘offence’ in this—
    a. a penalty is due and payable by a body corporate or trust under section 212; and
    b. before the penalty became due and payable, the person entered into a scheme; and
    c. the person entered into the scheme with the intention of securing or achieving the result, either … the body corporate or trust:
    i. will be unable; or
    ii. will be likely to be unable; or
    iii. will continue to be unable; or
    iv. will be likely to continue to be unable;
    And on and on it goes. Then comes imprisonment for 10 years. This is a nasty little document you have got yourself here, which bangs you up in the can for 10 years, and we are just supposed to look at it in globo because, apparently, you are so over it.
    Minister Wong looks totally competent. I would bet you London to a brick that the government have not read the legislation. I bet you London to a brick they have not a clue what is in the legislation. We might want to ask the government questions about who they are going to bang up for 10 years. I think a lot of Australian people would like to know the answer to the question: ‘Are the Labor Party about to bring in a piece of legislation which, if I get wrong, I could be in the slammer for 10 years?’ Also, ‘ I want you to more fully disclose to me what is on page 324 of the Clean Energy Bill 2011.’
    And the Greens are part of this. They do not believe in transparency. They are sitting there with that stupid smirk on their faces. Their leader ‘Dr Brown’ thinks this is all fun and games and that this is what you do—you just let these things run through.
    Here is another quote with respect to retaining records:
    (2) The person must retain the records for 5 years from the end of the financial year …
    (3) The regulations may specify requirements relating to:
    (a) the kinds of records; and
    (b) the form of records—
    and how the records must be kept. The penalty is two years imprisonment. This is what we are getting! It is here, Australia; it has arrived. Aren’t the Labor Party wonderful people? In a brief perusal of this Kafka’s nightmare, I see you get 10 years in prison for one offence, two years in prison for another offence. This is the world the Labor Party live in. This is where we are off to, as they redesign our nation’s economy on a colourless, odourless gas. You better not lose any. Do not steal any. What is the price of breathing these days? It must become more expensive. Are we going to keep records on that? I thought this was 2011. It is starting to sound awfully like 1984, with this almost Orwellian type of Big Brother approach to every facet of our lives. The government can increase this tax, without it ever having to go back to this parliament. It does not have to go back to this parliament. They have got around that.
    We cannot have the nation of Australia and its parliament having oversight of the tax! If they have to launch their attack against the climate, making the world colder from a room in Canberra, they can jack up the tax to rise to the challenge, and in rising to the challenge they make every person in Australia with a power point poorer. Every corner of their house will become a collection mechanism for the Australian Taxation Office. And of course they have to collect some friends along the way, so down the track they will have an emissions trading scheme. That is great, isn’t it? The banks will love that: moving paper here, moving paper there. The banks are doing it tough; it is good to see the Greens looking after the big banks and giving them a multibillion dollar revenue stream from trading the permits.
    The friends of big banks are the Australian Greens, because they are doing it tough and they need all the help they can get. You are about to do it. You have moralised and got it through your head that it is right to tax someone in a weatherboard and iron house out in the suburbs, that it is right to collect money from them and to funnel it to someone who is probably doing very well thank you very much, and God bless them and good luck to them, and probably does not need that person’s money. You are going to funnel that money to Martin Place. We do not need it in Mount Druitt when it can be in Martin Place. We do not need it in Cunnamulla when it can be in Martin Place. We do not need that money up in Bundaberg when it can be in George Street. This is a bonanza. I cannot wait to see who the geniuses are, the luminaries on the other side who will be able to answer some of these questions.
    The way they are getting around it is that they are not allowing us to ask any questions. We had the first example of that today with the guillotine: they shall not ask questions on behalf of the Australian people. The job of the opposition in most instances is, naturally enough, to oppose, to see if you are prudent and across the facts. Because you are not, how are you dealing with that? You are launching yourselves into this guillotine. What is so nauseating is that we had to listen to the Leader of the Greens, Dr Bob Brown. He supported the guillotine with that stupid smirk on his face. Here is a quote from that same person:
    Let there be no doubt about this: the government can—
    Senator Milne: Madam Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. I draw your attention to standing order 193, ‘Rules of debate’:
    A senator shall not use offensive words … all imputations of improper motives and all personal reflections on … members or officers shall be considered highly disorderly.
    In the light of that, I would ask Senator Joyce to desist from making remarks of a personal nature about Senator Bob Brown and withdraw what he already has said.
    Senator JOYCE: If he did not smirk, I am happy to. If there is anything that is offensive there I certainly—

    Read more….

  92. Andy on 05/11/2011 at 10:07 am said:

    There is an interesting post up on Bishop Hill about Australian temperatures and new statistical analysis of it:

  93. Richard C (NZ) on 17/11/2011 at 4:11 pm said:

    Smoke and mirrors hide the ugly truth

    * by: Miranda Devine
    * From: Herald Sun
    * November 17, 2011 12:00AM

    THE whitewash begins. Now that the carbon tax has passed through Parliament, the Government’s clean-up brigade is getting into the swing, trying to erase any dissent against the jobs-destroying legislation.

    On cue, comes the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, which this week issued warnings to businesses that they will face whopping fines of up to $1.1 million if they blame the carbon tax for price rises.

    The watchdog says it has been “directed by the Australian Government to undertake a compliance and enforcement role in relation to claims made about the impact of a carbon price”.

    Businesses are not even allowed to throw special carbon tax sales promotions before the tax arrives on July 1.

    “Beat the Carbon Tax – Buy Now”, or “Our prices will be hit hard when the carbon price comes in”, or “Buy now before the carbon tax bites” are all examples of sales pitches that are verboten.

    Or at least, as the ACCC puts it: “You should be very cautious about making these types of claims”.

    There will be 23 “Carbon Cops” roaming the streets doing snap audits of businesses that “choose to link your price increases to a carbon price”. Instead, the ACCC helpfully suggests you can just tell your customers you’ve raised prices because “the overall cost of running (your) business has increased”.

    It’s all very Orwellian. The tax whose name cannot be spoken.


    t doesn’t matter how many fairy stories the Greens tell about how the carbon tax will “save” the Great Barrier Reef and Kakadu. Or how many gullible people believe hurricanes, floods, earthquakes are due to man-made global warming.

    Eventually the truth will out.

    Even the International Panel on Climate Change, whose bureaucrat-written summaries cherry-pick the most alarming scientific forecasts, is holding back in the face of runaway alarmist rhetoric from politicians.

    In fact, leaked draft copies of the IPCC’s latest special report into “Extreme Events and Disasters” reveal declining scientific certainty about the threat of human-produced greenhouse gases.


  94. Richard C (NZ) on 13/12/2011 at 8:51 am said:

    Howard lends support to anti-climate change book

    Former prime minister John Howard has lent his support to a book aimed at school children which argues the theory of human-induced global warming is a scam.

    Last night, the former prime minister launched the publication, the latest from controversial geologist Professor Ian Plimer.

    The book, called How to Get Expelled From School, rejects the predominant scientific opinion on climate change.

    The book is billed as “an anti-global warmist manual for the younger reader”.

    Professor Plimer launched the book, a follow up to his book Heaven and Earth, at the Sydney Mining Club.

    The new work includes 101 questions which it says students can use to challenge their teachers on climate science.

    Professor Plimer says worried parents prompted him to write the book.

    “After Heaven and Earth came out I had many parents write to me and say, ‘Look, what do we do, our kids are being fed activism. I want my children to have the basics of scientists, I don’t want to be fed activism’,” he said.


  95. Richard C (NZ) on 26/12/2011 at 8:36 am said:

    2008 Shock News : Rain Is A Thing Of The Past In Australia

    Posted on December 25, 2011 by Steven Goddard

    This drought may never break

    Richard Macey
    January 4, 2008

    IT MAY be time to stop describing south-eastern Australia as gripped by drought and instead accept the extreme dry as permanent, one of the nation’s most senior weather experts warned yesterday.

    “Perhaps we should call it our new climate,” said the Bureau of Meteorology’s head of climate analysis, David Jones.

  96. Richard C (NZ) on 25/01/2012 at 6:35 pm said:

    Queensland flooding being topical, now might be a good time to revisit this report from the Queensland Government, Office of Climate Change:-

    ClimateQ: toward a greener Queensland

    Suggest, ‘Download ClimateQ by Chapter’

    And select ‘Chapter 4: Observed and projected climate change’

    Rainfall projections

    There is significant uncertainty associated with rainfall projections for Queensland under future climate change scenarios. For example by 2050, the projected annual rainfall changes range from close to zero in the far north, to as much as a 10 per cent decline in the south (Figure 4.13). By 2070, the projected changes range from a 1 per cent decrease in the far north to as much as a 25 per cent decrease in the south in the spring (Figure 4.14).

    In addition to projected changes to the average rainfall over time, the frequency of wet days will decrease and the frequency of dry days will increase (CSIRO & BoM, 2007).


    South Eastern Australian Climate Initiative

    SEACI Future Hydroclimate Projections



    The median (best estimate) indicates that future mean annual runoff in the SEACI region in ~2030 relative to ~1990 will be lower, by zero to 20 percent in the north-east and southern half, and by 10 to 30 per cent in Victoria. Averaged across the SEACI region, the median (best estimate) is an eight per cent decrease in mean annual runoff.

    “Greener” yes – but not the way they thought.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 27/01/2012 at 1:49 pm said:

      And this from 2007 ‘Australian of the year’ Dr Tim Flannery:-

      Andi Hazelwood: Today you would probably say that there is no doubt that drought is very closely related to climate change, is that true?

      Dr. Tim Flannery: Yes, that’s right. The pattern that we’re seeing now in the weather in Australia is very much the pattern was predicted by computer models as much as a decade ago.

      Andi Hazelwood: Should Australia be preparing for permanent drought conditions?

      Dr. Tim Flannery: Well, it’s the new climate. We will have to get by with less water. The CSIRO’s telling us that. We’re seeing it now, in the evidence before our eyes in our rivers and creeks, and of course the computer models in the global models have been predicting just this now for some years. I think all evidence says that this is our new climate and we have to get by with less water than we’ve ever had before.

      Tim Flannery flannelisms

      “…a decline in the winter rainfall zone across southern Australia, … is clearly an impact of climate change, but also a decrease in run-off. Although we’re getting say a 20 per cent decrease in rainfall in some areas of Australia, that’s translating to a 60 per cent decrease in the run-off into the dams and rivers… So even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and our river systems, and that’s a real worry for the people in the bush. If that trend continues then I think we’re going to have serious problems, particularly for irrigation”

      Interview February 2007 with ABC

    • Richard C (NZ) on 29/01/2012 at 11:55 am said:

      And this from The Climate Institute, ‘A Climate of Suffering: the real cost of living with inaction on climate change’ 2011 (Professor David Karoly at the University of Melbourne provided physical scientific peer review):-


      The world is warming at a rate unprecedented in history. Global air temperatures, humidity and rainfall patterns show a distinct ‘fingerprint‘ that cannot be explained in the absence of the rise in emissions in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases caused by human activity. Unless trends are reversed, and soon, it is difficult to see how large parts of the country can avoid falling into more or less permanent drought by this century’s end

      At this point it’s worth ingesting a healthy dose of 2011 reality from the BOM’s ‘Annual Australian Climate Statement 2011’:-

      A tale of two La Niñas – Australia’s second-wettest two-year period on record

      Rainfall during 2011 was very much above average across most of Australia, with record high falls over the Kimberley, south-eastern and central Western Australia, and across parts of the north of the Northern Territory. Based on preliminary numbers, 2011 was the third-wettest year on record for Australia as a whole and the Northern Territory, second-wettest for Western Australia, and fourth-wettest for northern Australia (north of 26°S).

      A very heavy tropical monsoon season was associated with exceptional summer rainfall over most of Australia. Victoria recorded its wettest January in 112 years of records and its third-wettest February (highest statewide total since 1973). February was also the second wettest on record for Australia and Western Australia, and the wettest on record for South Australia. March was the wettest on record for Australia as a whole, as well as for the Northern Territory and Queensland, and the third-wettest for South Australia.

      Even as the La Niña decayed from late April, the Kimberley and the north of the Northern Territory continued to see very much above average rainfall. All states recorded below average May rainfall. June was notable for the lack of rainfall in the southeast – the main rainfall deficiencies observed in 2011 occurred during winter and early spring in the southeast of Australia.

      As has occurred several times in the historical record, La Niña conditions redeveloped during spring and continued beyond the end of 2011. Although it was significantly weaker than the 2010-2011 event, it has occurred in conjunction with record warm conditions across the eastern Indian Ocean. October was very wet in the western half of the country, while November rainfall was generally above to very much average in most regions except for coastal Queensland. December rainfall was very much above average for much of southwest Western Australia, with some inland parts recording highest falls on record. Above average December rainfall was also recorded over much of Queensland and adjacent areas of the Northern Territory, South Australia and New South Wales.

      “The real cost of living with inaction on climate change” as I see Australia 2011, would be being caught out not having purchased a raincoat or umbrella, gumboots, and possibly a boat.

    • What an astonishing mismatch between reality as reported by the BOM and what seem rather stupid prognostications from the Climate Institute!

    • Richard C (NZ) on 29/01/2012 at 8:04 pm said:

      The other reason, apart from the mismatch, of these bring-up files is the “warmer air holds more water” riposte that is inevitably ventured by layman man-made extreme weather exponents to explain the Queensland floods say..

      That is true but there’s several other factors explaining the rainfall (e.g. SST) and the warm air obviously does not “hold” the water that has precipitated out.

      I came across that argument recently by “renewable guy” at Climate Change Dispatch but what these people conveniently forget (or don’t know in the first place) is that the CSIRO and BOM CO2-based model predictions were for hot and dry – not hot and wet.

      We have on record, Flannery happily going along with a “permanent drought” scenario (citing CSIRO) and Karoly associated with “more or less permanent drought” along with “the frequency of wet days will decrease and the frequency of dry days will increase (CSIRO & BoM, 2007)”. The latter report is:-

      Climate change in Australia: technical report 2007–Atmospheric-Research/Climate-Change-Technical-Report-2007.aspx

      Worth keeping these reports in mind for future altercations.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 30/01/2012 at 1:31 pm said:

      More on CSIRO and BOM shortcomings at ‘Meteorology’ here:-

      Inquiry into long-term meteorological forecasting in Australia

      Recommendation 1
      The Committee recommends that CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology provide to the Australian Government a report with detailed explanatory information as to why a particular dynamic forecasting model or system was chosen for use in Australia.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 03/03/2012 at 8:13 pm said:

      From The Age, August 30, 2009

      SCIENTISTS studying Victoria’s crippling drought have, for the first time, proved the link between rising levels of greenhouse gases and the state’s dramatic decline in rainfall.

      A three-year collaboration between the Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO has confirmed what many scientists long suspected: that the 13-year drought is not just a natural dry stretch but a shift related to climate change.

      Scientists working on the $7 million South Eastern Australian Climate Initiative…………

      But to see what role greenhouse gases played in the recent intensification, the scientists used sophisticated American computer climate models……..

      ”In the minds of a lot of people, the rainfall we had in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s was a benchmark. A lot of our [water and agriculture] planning was done during that time. But we are just not going to have that sort of good rain again as long as the system is warming up.”

      But not all experts agree. Murray-Darling Basin Authority chief Rob Freeman told a water summit in Melbourne last week he believed the extreme climate patterns that have dried out south-east Australia would not prove to be permanent.

      ”Some commentators say this is the new future. I think that is an extreme position and probably a position that’s not helpful to take,” he said, expressing confidence that wetter times would return.

      Read more:

      I’m sure they used “sophisticated” models based on the UK Met Office UKMO but does that really matter?

  97. Andy on 29/01/2012 at 8:24 pm said:

    The Australian” What you can’t hear can’t hurt you

    WHEN American noise expert Robert Rand turned up to work in Maine, in the US northeast, in April to investigate the impact of wind turbines on nearby residents he was literally blown away.

    Not only did Rand’s readings confirm many fears in the community, he claims to have become an unwitting victim himself.

    A member of the Institute of Noise Control Engineering and a technician with 30 years’ experience, Rand was working for a philanthropic donor wanting to investigate why wind turbines were causing so much concern.

    Rand told The Australian yesterday his experience had been unexpected. He had measured the noise from wind turbines on many previous occasions without difficulty but, in testimony to the State of Maine Board of Environmental Protection in July, Rand said the turbines had delivered “a miserable and unnerving experience”.

    When indoors, Rand and long-time colleague Stephen Ambrose, also a Member of INCE, experienced “nausea, loss of appetite, headache, vertigo, dizziness, inability to concentrate, an overwhelming desire to get outside and anxiety, over a two-night period from Sunday, April 17 to Tuesday, April 19”.

  98. Richard C (NZ) on 22/02/2012 at 11:53 am said:

    Seen at JoNova (‘Gleick Admits’):-

    February 21, 2012 at 10:03 pm · Reply

    On BoltA’s blog, comment posters from the drenched parts of NSW are already replacing ‘inches’ with ‘Flannerys’.

  99. Richard C (NZ) on 03/03/2012 at 8:32 pm said:

    It’s raining Aussie climate cash

    AUSTRALIA will spend $600 million developing climate change “leaders” in the Pacific, producing DVDs and writing policy briefs for overseas bureaucrats. Caribbean and African countries will receive millions of Australian dollars to help tackle climate change…

    [I could be a climate change “leader”]

    H/t Tom Nelson (who else?)

  100. Richard C (NZ) on 11/03/2012 at 10:48 am said:

    But this desal madness was clear at the time. Where were the experts?

    Andrew Bolt
    Saturday, March 10, 2012 at 08:03am

    It’s all very well to point out the financially-bleeding obvious now, but where were the experts when a few of us were trying to stop this madness before it was too late?

    VICTORIA would need to be in drought for eight years before a drop of water was required from the Wonthaggi desalination plant, scientists say.

    But taxpayers will pay more than $5 billion in that time to have access to the water.

    As floods swamp the northeast, critics have questioned why the plant was built.

    Prof Hector Malano, a water resource management expert at the University of Melbourne, said …”Desalination is the last option that you want to use…”

    There are two things we need to know. First, how did the maniacs in the then Labor Government come to decide on a hideously expensive desalination plant rather than a cheap dam? Second, how was almost all scientific and engineering dissent suppressed or muffled?

    Is the very same process now occurring on an even vaster scale with the carbon dioxide tax?

    “Permanent” El Nino prediction documented in Nat Geo here:-

    2009 Scientific Consensus : El Nino To Become Permanent

    ENSO has been negative continuously since May, 2010 [just gone neutral I think] – and has been negative for 38 out of the last 52 months.

    Nowhere to hide now.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 11/03/2012 at 4:55 pm said:

      Dam full but desalination plant on line at $500m a year

      Rachel Browne, Heath Aston

      IT WILL be more than four years before the Sydney desalination plant [Kurnell] produces a drop of water again, if the water level at Warragamba Dam declines at the same rate as the last time it topped out in August 1998.

      Even if levels drop at the same rate as the fastest decline it would be two years before the dam falls to 70 per cent – the point at which the desalination plant would be turned on.

      Assuming the former rate, a private owner of the plant – to be announced by the State Government this year – will take more than $500 million from NSW taxpayers without producing a litre of water.

      Based on estimates from the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal, a private sector owner would take $591 million in ”availability charges” from Sydney Water – payment for keeping the plant available.

      Taking away fixed costs, including $1.1 million a month to be paid to the plant’s operator, Veolia Water, and financing debt on the expected $1.1 billion price tag – which excludes a possible privatisation of the $600 million pipeline – a little over $50 million a year will go to the owners in profit.

      Read more:

      $50m profit from nil production – nice.

  101. Richard C (NZ) on 06/04/2012 at 11:47 am said:

    Good news: the Department of Climate Change will scrap up to 300 jobs.

    Bad news: there’ll still be 600 of em left.

  102. Andy on 13/04/2012 at 5:26 pm said:

    Bob Brown has resigned as leader of the Australian Greens

  103. Richard C (NZ) on 19/04/2012 at 8:25 am said:

    HERE’S proof the climate really is changing. The Melbourne Theatre Company is putting on a play next month with a global warming sceptic as the hero. Swear to God.

    Andrew Bolt

    As the MTC describes it: “Dr Diane Cassell is a serious scientist lecturing in what has become the cool degree at university; Climate Science…

    “For nearly 20 years, Diane has been measuring sea levels in the Maldives.

    “When her empirical data contradicts the prevailing view on the causes for climate change, she finds herself pressured by her funding-driven boss, Professor Kevin Maloney, not to publish her findings.”

    That plot is straight from reality.

    Dr Nils Axel-Morner, one of the world’s greatest authorities on sea levels, has done just this research at the Maldives.

    And top Australian physicist Prof Brian O’Brien last year warned of the pressure on scientists to conform to the warming faith, telling of a colleague who’d confessed: “Brian, I completely support what you’re saying, but I have 65 researchers in my laboratory and the only funding I can get for them and to get their PhDs is greenhouse funding from Canberra or wherever.”

    • Mike Jowsey on 19/04/2012 at 12:17 pm said:

      Aha! Exactly what we skeptics have known all along. This is the real reason for corruption of science. These department heads are corrupt gravy-train trough-slurpers who care nothing for the integrity of the scientific method. Grow some and harden up you parasites. Universities should be funded by a generic education-targeted source rather than scholarships, grants and junkets handed out by politically-driven bureaucrats according to the agenda-du-jour.

      RC – that link goes to the headline only, with a login required. Seems the Herald Sun now paywalls its articles. 🙁

    • Richard C (NZ) on 19/04/2012 at 12:50 pm said:

      Odd. I get the full article when I click on the link via the Google Reader CCG feed (you’ve got to get that Mike) but paywall login when I click on the same link via the the CCG blog comment.

      You can get the full article by copying the headline “Arts warming to climate sceptics” into Google News and searching for it (comes up top of list).

      That works for me (also for WSJ) but I’d be interested to see it if it doesn’t for others.

    • Mike Jowsey on 20/04/2012 at 12:13 am said:

      What’s Google?

      Anyhoo, thanks for the tip. Using a reputable search engine, I found the article reproduced in full on GWPF here:

      Many thanks.

  104. Mike Jowsey on 22/06/2012 at 11:41 am said:

    Here is one of the best blog posts I have ever read. It is on Jo Nova’s article regarding Paul Bain’s use of “Denier” in a Nature paper. Worth the 10 mins to read. In fact, worth its own article!

    • Andy on 22/06/2012 at 1:49 pm said:

      There was quite a lot on this topic at Bishop Hill.

      I think it underlines the state of groupthink when the author says it is “accepted practice” to use the term “denier” in his field

    • Richard C (NZ) on 22/06/2012 at 7:09 pm said:

      Whew! Dead right Mike. E.M. Smith is Cheifio BTW and Joanne has in fact turned the comment into a post article

      Yet ANOTHER outside specialist decrying the shoddy state of climate science; this time a computer programmer/economist and marketer of same (with patents no less) with a sound engineering pragmatism.

      And his smack down of Bain and “denier” is top-shelf.

      Glad you pointed out the comment Mike, I’ve only got a vague handle on that controversy because I’ve had my head in BOM’s ACORN – SAT – what a bizarre series the first location I’ve looked at, Alice Springs Minimum, is. The adjustments make NIWA’s NZT7 handiwork look rather ordinary.

      For example the very first step working back in time from the last open site is +0.8 C. The cumulative step change total by the time you get back to the start of the series is -1.7 C. Have a think what that does to a before and after raw to adjusted linear trend.

      The steps are VERY LARGE e.g. in 1975 there’s a -1.6 C step.

      More starting here and up-thread

      I seem to be left on the thread by myself. I don’t whether the Aussies are struggling with step change methodology (I’ve detailed it), they’ve all got bored and moved on, they resent a Kiwi lecturing them, they’re stunned at what is being turned up, or they’re mulling over it and will rejoin in the weekend. I suspect Ken Stewart has been traveling and hasn’t had time to crunch what I’ve posted.

      Probably a number of those reasons combined.

    • Andy on 22/06/2012 at 7:23 pm said:

      Mike, sorry I didn’t initially read the E M Smith post you linked to. I had been following the discussion on BH and there wasn’t a lot of interest there.

      I have to agree this is pretty powerful stuff and mirrors my experience too.

      Thanks for sharing.


  105. Mike Jowsey on 06/07/2012 at 12:57 pm said:

    NEWS: New legal approach — consumer protection laws may protect citizens against misleading BOM statements

    Could a similar case be brought in Australia challenging the validity of the Australian temperature record which is prepared by the Bureau of Meteorology [BOM]? There are similarities between BOM and NIWA: both have adjusted their temperature record and both have created a warming trend through the adjustments. The BOM’s has adjusted their temperature trend by approximately 40%. This appears not to be consistent with criteria for adjusting temperature laid down by Torok and Nicholls and Della-Marta et al.

  106. Richard C (NZ) on 07/07/2012 at 4:57 pm said:

    Strange. What happened to those “heat trapping” GHGs?

    As Melbourne residents hid under doonas, in Coldstream, on Melbourne’s eastern fringes, the temperature dropped to minus three.

    Bureau of Meteorology duty forecaster Andrea Peace said Mt Hotham was the coldest place in the state with minus seven degrees while Rutherglen, Strathbogie and Corryong dipped to minus five.

    A large high pressure system centred over Australia’s southeast was the culprit, bringing clear skies and light winds overnight that allowed yesterday’s warmth to dissipate.

    Read more:

    Dissipating heat huh. Does the IPCC know about this?

    • Mike Jowsey on 07/07/2012 at 5:14 pm said:

      Muahaha! The IPCC only knows about keeping the gravy train a-rollin’. Some real doozey frosts here in the south. My holiday house at Hanmer has no water – underground pipes are frozen. First time in at least ten years. More GHGs please! Oh wait, what was that about dissipation?

    • Mike Jowsey on 07/07/2012 at 5:53 pm said:

      Actually, Richard, maybe you could help out an aging brain here…. For clouds (water vapour) to be a positive feedback mechanism, my understanding is that that argument depends on cloud cover raising the minimum temperatures. Which is okay by me, I mean when it is cloudy at night we won’t get a frost. Usually.

      But you have underscored a point that seems to me overlooked or minimised by the CAGW climate scientists: Increased cloud cover surely must decrease the daily maximum temperature. Which is a negative feedback.

      So, my question is this: Is the overall effect of increasing night-time temperatures and decreasing day-time temperatures positive or negative?

    • Richard C (NZ) on 07/07/2012 at 8:37 pm said:

      First thing Mike, clouds are liquid but water vapour is gas so there’s two feedback mechanisms being studied – cloud and water vapour. What complicates things is that these two are interrelated and you have to look at radiation, sensible heat, latent heat of evaporation, wind and whatever.

      In terms of AGW, the posited positive water vapour feedback is tied to a posited increase in evaporation and proponents point to night-time minimums rising faster than day-time maximums [but BOTH rising] as “evidence” of positive water vapour feedback but that in isolation does not prove a positive feedback. What must be shown also is increasing evaporation measured by water vapour levels at the various atm pressure levels. The WV metrics are anything but conclusive on that (long tortuous tale). Generally, at low level WV has risen but fallen at higher levels.

      All climate models assume clouds result in net positive feedback (see below) but models utilizing superparameterized cloud modules (none in AR4) return negative feedback.

      So if you will permit me to rephrase your question: Is the overall [water vapour] effect of increasing night-time temperatures [rising faster than] day-time temperatures [combined with cloud levels] positive or negative?

      AGW says positive, but when you look at all the factors in concert there’s a growing body of papers saying those override AGW evaporative effects so that the net effect is negative. Latest paper being ‘Understanding sudden changes in cloud amount: The Southern Annular Mode and South American weather fluctuations’:-

      A paper published today in the Journal of Geophysical Research finds that a natural atmospheric oscillation, the Southern Annular Mode, is correlated to significant increases in cloud cover resulting in “large scale” local cooling of approximately -2.5C. All climate models falsely assume clouds result in net positive feedback and increased temperatures, however this new paper and several others show clouds instead result in net negative feedback and cooling.

      It’s complex and to be honest I’m struggling to get to grips with it myself. I’ve been in contact with Dr Roy Clark (‘A Null Hypothesis For CO2’, US EPA Submission) and he’s just today sent me a bunch of stuff on this very topic e.g. he says:-

      The clouds ‘close’ the LWIR transmission window, but this does not warm the ocean. The wind driven evaporation is too large and variable for the clouds to have much effect. There may be a slowing of the rate of cooling, but no heating. This gets a little complicated. Clouds cool the Pacific Warm pool by reducing sunlight.


      The heat transfer from the surface is by moist convection. The troposphere consists of two independent thermal reservoirs. Almost all of the downward LWIR flux reaching the surface comes from the first 2 km of the atmosphere. This is heated by convection during the day and cools more slowly by radiation at night. This is the ‘dynamic’ greenhouse effect. The radiation to space comes from the water [vapour] bands around 5 km. These just keep on radiating and cooling until they get more convective heat from below. There is a dynamic balance, but no equilibrium.

      Along with a 100 page comment on a US Fish and Wildlife regulation!documentDetail;D=FWS-R8-ES-2010-0070-0127 that I’ll grind through in time he made these references:-

      CA Climate Change is Caused by the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, Not by Carbon Dioxide

      Written by Roy Clark

      The analysis of minimum temperature data using the PDO as a reference baseline has been demonstrated as a powerful technique for climate trend evaluation. This technique may be extended to other regions using the appropriate local ocean surface temperature reference. The analysis found no evidence for CO2 induced warming trends in the California data. This confirms prior ‘Null Hypothesis’ work that it is impossible for a 100 ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration to cause any climate change.


      One thing you might want to try and do for NZ is the weather station trend analysis I described in the SPPI article. The minimum temperature data should track the local ocean temperatures. This also worked for UK stations. I am currently working on a more detailed analysis for California.

      Finally these papers:-

      I want to make sure that you have the papers by Lisan Yu. They are available at the Woods Hole Website:

      Yu, L., X. Jin, and R. A. Weller, 2008: Multidecade Global Flux Datasets from the Objectively Analyzed Air-sea Fluxes (OAFlux) Project: Latent and sensible heat fluxes, ocean evaporation, and related surface meteorological variables. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, OAFlux Project Technical Report. OA-2008-01, 64pp. Woods Hole. Massachusetts. [PDF]

      Yu, L., 2007: Global variations in oceanic evaporation (1958-2005): The role of the changing wind speed. J. Climate, 20(21), 5376–5390. [Abstract] [PDF] [Reprint]

      Yu, L., and R. A. Weller, 2007: Objectively Analyzed air-sea heat Fluxes for the global oce-free oceans (1981–2005). Bull. Ameri. Meteor. Soc., 88, 527–539. [Abstract] [PDF] [Reprint]

      The ‘changing wind speed’ 2007 paper basically says that the change in ocean evaporation due to changes in wind speed is larger than any possible change from CO2.

      I have attached 2 illustrations from Yu that show the global distribution of the average ocean surface temperature and the evaporation. The two do not coincide and the reason is the wind speed.

      I’d like to have given a nice simple answer Mike but ‘fraid not – I’m still stuck on the questions.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 08/07/2012 at 10:23 am said:

      I might be misunderstanding what you are asking Mike. What I’ve outlined is what is happening over climate-span time. The hydrological cycle (H2O in all its forms – solid, liquid and gas) is the attenuator in the feedback loop that limits amplification and maintains stability in a system similar to an electronics control loop (“B” in this diagram Wikipedia describes this:-

      Electronic engineering

      The use of feedback is widespread in the design of electronic amplifiers, oscillators, and logic circuit elements. Electronic feedback systems are also very commonly used to control mechanical, thermal and other physical processes.

      If the signal is inverted on its way round the control loop, the system is said to have negative feedback; otherwise, the feedback is said to be positive. Negative feedback is often deliberately introduced to increase the stability and accuracy of a system by correcting unwanted changes. This scheme can fail if the input changes faster than the system can respond to it. When this happens, the lag in arrival of the correcting signal can result in over-correction, causing the output to oscillate or “hunt”.[24] While often an unwanted consequence of system behaviour, this effect is used deliberately in electronic oscillators.

      The Melbourne day-by-day experience is more instructive I think to understand just how overwhelming water vapour and clouds are in terms of dissipation or retention of heat as compared to the minor GHGs, CO2 being foremost.

      High pressure, dry air, clear skies and Melbourne got cold in a day with no CO2 effect whatsoever. Andy reported similar at his local Dobson ski field: wind blew the snow away, a high pressure system moved in, dry air, cold but no snow.

      The US heat wave on the other hand is/was accompanied by moisture and a jet-stream/circumpolar vortex system that is/was not allowing heat dissipation at a higher level. That situation is now easing and life will go on. Good news for the overweight who have been deprived of their air-conditioning.

    • Mike Jowsey on 08/07/2012 at 2:01 pm said:

      Richard – many thanks for taking the time to fill in the blanks for me. This is really interesting stuff. In fact I would like to nominate your post as a guest article here – I think many other Climate Conversation readers would appreciate the insights and links you share.

      Roy Clark’s paper was particularly interesting, concluding that:

      The PDO record provides a baseline that can be used to identify urban heat island effects and anomalous data in the station records. This provides a powerful technique for investigating climate change in California and may be extended to other Western States and other areas of the world where there is an ocean influence on the climate that may be used to provide a local reference. Unexplained ‘adjustments’ made to weather station records for use in climate trend analysis have now become a major concern.[7,8] This technique may also provide an independent reference for the analysis of climate trends in weather station data to detect such ‘adjustments’.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 08/07/2012 at 2:53 pm said:

      Probably should read:-

      “All [AR4] climate models assume clouds result in net positive feedback”

      Just one of the pitfalls of plagiarism I guess.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 08/07/2012 at 3:25 pm said:

      I don’t agree with everything that Dr Clark states (for what that’s worth) e.g. :-

      “Unexplained ‘adjustments’”

      The fact is that NZCSC accept the need for adjustments to the NZT7 but they dispute the application of them. Similarly, Blair Trewin covers adjustment explanations for Australia’s ACORN – SAT in ‘CAWCR Technical Report 049’ but replication of them starting from raw data is almost impossible (plus they’ve introduced “weather dependent” (?) adjustments).

      I think we should be careful about innuendo in regard to temperature record adjustments. There’s been plenty of uninformed comment at JoNova wrt BOM’s HQ and ACORN – SAT lately. I think that if more people read NZCSET’s ‘Statistical Audit of the New Zealand Temperature Series’ and the CAWCR TR 049 they would have a better appreciation of what it’s all about.

      I’m sure too they would conclude (as I have) that NZT7 is an easy issue compared to the HQ can of worms, that is an eye opener. Ken Stewart did a 10 Part series on HQ, Part 10 is worth a read at least down to the start of the individual site examinations:-

      The Australian Temperature Record- Part 10: BOM’s “Explanations”

      Apparently, from the 049 report, BOM has “fixed” the HQ problems in ACORN. A bit like the way NIWA “fixed” the 7SS problems perhaps.

    • Mike Jowsey on 08/07/2012 at 3:50 pm said:

      I agree with your point about uninformed innuendo. However, Dr. Clark’s point was that the PDO should, according to his research, cause ocean temperatures to have good correlation with land temperatures (near Pacific shorelines) and therefore provide an independent yardstick to check that any adjustments to the land temperature record are appropriate. I think this is a very interesting concept which warrants closer study. I also agree with you, that his term “unexplained adjustments” is a little inflammatory – he could have put it better.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 08/07/2012 at 6:14 pm said:

      ARGO era SST data should be obtainable for NZ but it’s the early to mid 20th century adjustments that are the problem in the NZT7. I don’t know if NIWA (or anyone) has reliable local SST data that far back.

      Only the Pacific seaboard stations would come into Australian consideration as you say.

      Salinger may have already done something like this in one of his papers, he did do some good work prior his recent vicissitudes. It does seem familiar and something he would have done. I’ll have a look sometime when I’m looking though his papers.

  107. Richard C (NZ) on 14/07/2012 at 11:14 am said:

    Libs want ban on teaching climate science

    A body representing nearly 70,000 Australian scientists has criticised a Queensland Liberal National Party resolution calling for mainstream climate science to be cut from the state’s school curriculum.

    LNP delegates at the party’s state conference passed a motion yesterday calling on Education Minister John-Paul Langbroek to stop the teaching of ”environmental propaganda material, in particular post-normal science about climate change”.

    The mover of the motion, Noosa-based LNP member Richard Pearson, attacked ”false prophets who would poison the minds of our children in our schools”.

    ”Few people understand that the so-called science of climate change is really what can be defined as post-normal science,” he said, arguing it went beyond traditional understanding of science based on experimentation and falsifiable theories. The motion was passed with overwhelming support.

    Science & Technology Australia chief executive Anna-Maria Arabia said the resolution was ”extremely harmful” and risked undermining faith in science more broadly.

    The central principles of climate science – including that man-made greenhouse gases trap heat in the lower atmosphere and have warmed the planet – are backed by all the world major’s scientific academies.

    ”The message this sends is ‘we do not treat the science as an issue of testing ideas, we treat it as a belief system’,” Ms Arabia said.

    ‘We shouldn’t be telling students that testing ideas is propaganda.”

    Read more:

    But we are being browbeaten into accepting the “ideas” Ms Arabia, no dissent – and so are those students I’m pickin. That’s why it’s propaganda.

  108. Richard C (NZ) on 12/08/2012 at 12:39 pm said:

    Gillard’s about to go along with the carbon tax going by this:-

    “Our prime minister is a crook” Part I (and “Is our prime minister a crook?” Part II) UPDATE: and now Part III

    Caution: sordid details

  109. Andy on 21/08/2012 at 1:24 pm said:

    Al Gore praises inspirational Australia

    The Gillard government’s carbon price has already ‘‘inspired the world’’ to press ahead with measures to tackle climate change, former US Vice President Al Gore says.

    Labelling Australia one of the ‘‘canaries in the coalmine’’ for the effects of global warming, Mr Gore told a breakfast launch in Canberra of a new Climate Commission report there was much cause for optimism about global efforts to solve the problem.

    Speaking via video presentation, Mr Gore said that the Queensland floods and Black Saturday bushfires of recent years showed that ‘‘we must act now’’.

    ‘‘The consequences of the climate crisis of course are already visible all round the world, and some of the worst, unfortunately, can be seen in Australia over the last few years,’’ Mr Gore said.

  110. Richard C (NZ) on 18/09/2012 at 6:14 pm said:

    Regulator wants energy target dumped

    The NSW pricing regulator IPART has called on Canberra to abandon its renewable energy target now that a price has been put on carbon.
    The main reason for rising prices in NSW has been a doubling in real terms in transmission costs, which now make up about $654 of a typical household’s annual electricity bill.

    However, the combined cost of the carbon price, the renewable energy scheme, the climate change fund and the energy savings scheme adds a further $316 to the bill.

    Read more:

  111. Andy on 25/10/2012 at 9:17 am said:

    Allan Taylor’s blog

    He has quite a lot to say about green buzz words and wind farms etc

  112. Richard C (NZ) on 06/12/2012 at 1:57 pm said:

    Most Useless Flagrant Flop of Government (MUFFOG 2012): Finalist — Victorian Desal

    “In 2007 the Victorian Government thought it was a good idea to spend $24 billion to build a humungously big desalination plant. There was a drought on at the time, and a specialist in small dead mammals said the drought would never end

    “With only 150 years of rainfall data to go from, who could possibly have predicted that it would keep raining?”

    # # #

    Would be hilarious if it wasn’t such a massive boondoggle.

  113. In Australia, it is now OK to compare climate sceptics to paedophiles

    In the article. Lubos makes the point that in his Czech homeland, they used to put out this kind of garbage until about 1989, when it became unacceptable

    No doubt the knuckle draggers in the NZ media and blogosphere will be happy about the ABC ruling

  114. Andy on 09/01/2013 at 8:37 pm said:

    Ice rinks feeling the heat of the carbon tax

    Aussie ice rinks getting pushed out of business to save the planet.

    Those pesky ice rinks eh?

  115. Richard C (NZ) on 03/02/2013 at 6:16 pm said:

    Climate change signals raining down but proof will take centuries

    ……………it looks a lot like climate change is kicking in – or does it?

    Professor John McAneney, the director of Risk Frontiers, an independent research group funded mostly by the insurance industry, says that based on a database of natural hazard events in Australia, including some dating back to 1803, “there has been no increase in the frequency of natural hazard events since 1950”.

    But what of the spiralling insurance claims in the wake of hailstorms, floods, cyclones (think Yasi at $1.4 billion) and bushfires ($4 billion for Victoria’s Black Saturday firestorms)?

    “What we can see very clearly is that when this dataset … is corrected for the increases in numbers of buildings at risk and their value, no long term trend remains,” Professor McAneney said.

    ”It is indisputable that the rising toll of natural disasters is due to more people and assets at risk.”

    He said US hurricane modelling to identify a signal climate change is contributing to storm strength suggests it could be a while before the data is definitive. Averaging 18 different climate models, “it’s going to take 260 years”, he said.

    “This whole thing about climate change being responsible for an increase in extreme weather, or natural disasters, is just a fiction really.”

    Read more:

  116. The MacArthur windfarm in Australia consists of 140 turbines in grid formation, and is causing a great deal of distress to the locals

  117. Richard C (NZ) on 17/04/2013 at 8:26 pm said:

    Combet’s carbon system scheme rocked: Budget to lose billions

    Andrew Bolt

    Europe’s carbon permits have crashed to record new low prices, leaving the Federal Government facing a budget hole of more than $4 billion a year from 2015.

    The price of Europe’s Emissions Trading System permits dropped overnight to just $3.33. Australia’s price is $23 a tonne – by far the most expensive in the world.

    This doesn’t just mean the Gillard Government is pricing business out of the market with a huge new tax. It also means the Government could be left with a gaping hole in its Budget in two year’s time, when Australian companies can buy cheap European permits instead of our own to offset their emissions.

    The Government is counting on raising more than $9 billion a year with its carbon tax. But that tax take will be slashed by billions if Australian companies can buy European permits for around $4.

    That now looks almost certain, after a plan to drive up the price of carbon dioxide emission credits was rejected overnight by the European Union’s Parliament:


  118. Andy on 29/04/2013 at 9:21 pm said:

    Houses next to Lake Macquarie face demolition in a council plan to adapt to sea level rise

    Good idea, why don’t Christchurch City Coincil follow suit and demolish most of the city?

    • Mike Jowsey on 30/04/2013 at 9:01 am said:

      The council is completely bonkers Andy. The comments under this article make good reading. Here’s an example:
      What garbage! What foolishness! Do these idiots now know what they have done? They have overnight collapsed the property values in these suburbs. No lenders will lend in these suburbs, no one will want to build, no development will ever occur because these ‘the sky is falling in’ drama queens have just screwed the people. They state ‘risk’! Not certainty! SAck this bloody council and their lunatic sustainability department. Blood idiots playing with matches…the lot of them.!!!

Comment navigation


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *