The struggles for believers of the theory-with-no-observations are getting worse. Once upon a time they used to just ignore skeptics. Now they’re coming to terms with their fall from hallowed “untouchable” status.
The Climate Spectator posted an article Wish I wasn’t a warmenist last week discussing the new urban terminology:
Here’s how the online Urban Dictionary defines a warmenist: “Gullible, scientificially (sic) illiterate, unthinking acolyte and zombie-fired propagandist of the Religion of Anthropogenic Global Warming.”
One in the eye, one supposes, for all those academies of science which have declared they accept the science of global warming and man’s role in it. But the definition goes on: “One who takes direct orders from High Priest King of Idiocy, Albert J. Gore. One who puts the “mental” in environmentalism. Historical inheritors of those who believed that King Canute could hold back the tides and that the wolf would eat the moon unless their first-born daughter’s virginity was sacrificed to the local shaman.”
They are even thinking of tossing out Tim Flannery (as gently as possible): “Given the level of national debate, maybe Tim Flannery wasn’t the ideal choice to champion the need to do something about climate change.” As usual when they dissect it, it’s not about verifiable predictions, or rigorous reasoning — it’s just a “communication” problem:
Flannery finds it harder. He is passionate about the subject, writes brilliantly, and is an effective communicator, but only to those who are prepared to listen. The polls tell us that the scare campaign, particularly around energy costs, means many consumers have chosen to switch off their minds, but not their appliances. Flannery does not think or communicate in sound bites. When asked recently how a carbon price would help reduce global temperatures, he answered truthfully: It wouldn’t for a thousand years or more. He should have told them an equal truth, taking action now is designed to try and stop temperatures rising too far, to stop the planet from frying. But perhaps he was burned by prior predictions. In the end his words were distorted to suggest that cutting emissions would have no impact at all.
It’s a sign of the times
Another sign of the times is that big number of the week in Australia — “60%”? As in, sixty percent of Australians don’t want the carbon tax, and importantly, most of those are strongly against it. Only 12% are strongly in favour, and yet fully 39% are strongly against. (The Newspoll results).
The backlash we said would come is on the way, and this is only the start. Why? Because apparently most people still don’t know that there’s no evidence to back the catastrophic claims, or that researchers have lost the data, left thermometers next to airconditioners, and hid declines, or based famous graphs on just one tree in far North Russia. Wait til they find out…
Right now, only 14% think climate change is solely thanks to coal burning power stations and the like. That’s great but 58% think it’s partly due to man-made activity. (It’s an ambiguous question: humans may well have affected regional climates through deforestation and land use changes, but we all know that the people who write “Do You *Believe* in Climate Change” are not seeking out that kind of finer detail…)
So much to do
As long as people think “carbon is pollution”; as long as money is being poured into inefficient solar panels instead of solar research (or medical research), then conquering the worst of the misinformation campaign is still ahead.
As long as Newspoll still thinks it can ask whether you believe in “climate change” and get a meaningful answer there is much to accomplish.
As long as people like Clive Hamilton use the carbon excuse to call for a radical militancy:
we need a new environmental radicalism….
A wave of environmental radicalism, of uncivil disobedience,
Sometimes coaxing the public to your point of view reaches an immovable barrier. Sometimes people must be jolted out of their complacency by militancy, even if that means a period of rancour, turmoil and danger…
Luckily it seems the zeitgeist is spreading. The Canadians moved further away from climate legislation this week, and George Monbiot is still soul searching.
Teenagers know all about it!
Just been listening to a programme on BBC’s Radio 4. Teams from 5 universities are researching energy use by teenagers. The teenagers interviewed, to a ‘man’, were in no doubt that global warming was being caused by humans and that the results would be catastrophic.
One of them had ‘invented’ a device (in his own mind) to tell his pals when they’d left their computer on – if they don’t switch it off within 30 minutes they get electrocuted – shades of 10:10’s ‘No Pressure’ horror flick!
A researcher explained that they were targeting teenagers because they’d be around for many decades and could influence their peers, parents and future policy.
Talk about brain-washing.
10
Jo
The Newspoll questions 2 and 3 have a qualifier under the results table. Taking these into account this poll from the US seems more reflective of sentiments here. It certainly asked the right questions!
Look closely at the * below question 2. I suggest the 72% figure is actually 72% of those who were asked Q2, that is those who believe in Climate Change. The reality is that closer to 50% of the sample believe that humans are contributing and that more like 10% believe it is caused by human activity alone. If the global figures are any indication both are falling, particularly in those states which have enacted Carbon based legislations or introduced Carbon trading.
Look closely at the ^ below question 3. I suggest that only 28% of true believers in climate change are prepared to pay more for energy!
The 39% is looking a bit shaky now! The 60% against the carbon tax is telling but his poll gives no indication of what percentage of these people are in the 56% who believe humans are contributing. You have no way to tell how many are now aware of the fraud and how quckly the message is sinking in!
The economic arguments are only as good as what you pit them against and at this point Gillard and Swan have not spelt out clearly how it will all work. Fighting this tax on economic grounds is akin to a fox terrier on a chain biting thin air while Gillard and Swan lead you on a merry dance with their blurred boundaries on compensation.
Attacking the very basis of the argument for taxing CO2 is more like letting a pit bull off the leash!
10
“George Monbiot is still soul searching”- if & when he finds it, he may be able to give a few tips to Al Gore & Phil Jones. Maurice Strong & Bob Brown may prove to be a harder gig.
10
More Clive Hamilton:
I guess then it’s fair for Clive to know that Skeptics are NOT faint hearted either. This skeptic is NOT going to stand idle while his type urge lunatic behavior from the ranks of “Deep Green”
GO AHEAD CLIVE, MAKE MY DAY!
10
Yesterday’s editorial in The Australian concludes from that Newspoll that
Surely, only a warmenist, as defined, could display such atrocious confirmation bias!
10
I must say I haven’t read much on Clive … I find it amusing that Alannah MacTiernan, failed Fed seat contender, likens the skeptics to 1930s Germans of a certain political persuasion* when we have people like Clive exhibiting the behaviour explicitly in this way. The whole Green movement smacks of it … the psychological condition, as I am sure our friend Lewandowsky could tell us, is called projection. It’s amusing how often the warmenists use that tactic, whether it is deliberately or not.
* She did this at the BZE presentation in Perth … it was quite deplorable.
10
In the vein of “better late than never” the Caribbean nations are ganging up to get a climate change fund at CHOGM in Perth later this year:
http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/newshome/9325371/caribbean-nations-want-climate-action/
If the article in The West is an accurate protrayal of their understnding of the issues (which is a stretch, I know), then there seems to be a lot of confusion between what constitutes a natural disaster and what constitutes climate change.
Not to belittle the Caribbean nations, but if a group of low population countries like that can determine CHOGM policy then there are seriously non-democratic forces at work here… I am all for helping developing countries in various ways, but let’s not pretend this has anything to do with climate change.
10
And in a bit of good news, Patrick Moore (former prominent Greenpeace member) is in Perth talking up nuclear power:
http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/wa/9326364/greenie-backing-for-uranium/
I have respect for this guy who appears to be a sensible environmentalist.
10
The global warming mania seems to be withering on all fronts. It’s beginning to remind me of the implosion of the Soviet Union. Even that hero of the party, Monbiot, is implicitly conceding in his article that there’s no way forward for the movement.
Pointman
10
The stories are everywhere today … Rio’s chairman saying a nuclear Australia is inevitable if we are serious about reducing CO2 emissions:
http://www.smh.com.au/business/a-nuclear-australia-is-inevitable-rio-chairman-20110505-1ea83.html
10
You can thank Julia Gillard’s price on carbon for this moment of clarity. The price on carbon forced people to think about what they would get for their money. It’s quite remarkable how fast support for the carbon tax plummetted. People get real smart with numbers when there is a dollar sign in front of those numbers.
10
One last one for me this morning… there are a heap of climate-related articles at The Australian this morning but this graphic caught my eye:
http://resources.news.com.au/files/2011/05/06/1226050/815211-110506-electricity.pdf
It is a comparitive chart of energy generation costs and CO2 emissions.
10
Hi mods
I know this is not an appropriate place to advertise our public lecture in Wollongong by Dr Bob Carter. But could you help us out by posting this somewhere on your site please? Illawarra Against The Carbon Tax is trying to get as much publicity out as possible. All are welcome particularly people from Sydney.
These are the details:
CARBON DIOXIDE DOES NOT CUASE GLOBAL WARMING
DR BOB CARTER
Adjunct research professor in the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University
PUBLIC LECTURE
WEDNESDAY 11th MAY
7.30PM
PORT KEMBLA RSL CLUB AUDITORIUM
Cnr. Military Road & Allan Street,
Port Kembla
Authorized: Paul Matters Convener Illawarra Against Carbon Tax (IACT)
70 Wentworth Street Port Kembla
0410 482633
42743300
42742211
email: [email protected]
10
I agree that Monbiots article is interesting especially if you try to “read between the lines”. But looking at the comments is depressing — population control is the only way they say. Well will one of these fanatics please explain to me how China can have a one child policy for so long and now supposedly be the biggest emmitter of this “nasty pollutant”.
Also can someone tell me how many children & grand children Hamilton , Flannery , Lewandowsky etc have ? That is do these guys practise what they preach ?
The other point in Monbiot’s article that leaves me gasping is this support for a 55% reduction in energy use by 2030 in the UK –I think I must live in another world.
10
The big boogey man in all this debate was always those ‘nasty’ coal fired power plants that emit huge amounts of CO2.
For instance. take just the one plant, say, er, Bayswater, that’ll do.
It burns 8 million tons of coal a year to produce the 2640MW of power it generates, and then supplies for 24 hours of every day, day in, day out, barring carefully scheduled down time for maintenance.
Each one ton of coal burned produces on average 2.86 tons of CO2, hence, (just that one plant, Bayswater) emitting almost 23 million tons of CO2 each and every year.
We are told ad infinitum that placing a cost on those CO2 emissions will ‘drive’ the move to renewable power.
In the U.S. the second largest consumer of coal fired power on Earth, they have ramped up the move to those renewable plants mainly Wind Power, and they currently have 41,000 MW of Nameplate Capacity Wind plants, the equivalent of 22 large scale coal fired power plants. (2000MW or greater)
So then, how many large scale coal fired power plants have closed down in the U.S. because of this?
Not one.
In fact, with this considerable ramping up of moves to renewables, CO2 emissions have increased from those coal fired plants, meaning they are in fact working harder and longer, because keep in mind, any new coal fired plant dies with the thought bubble.
Natural gas fired plant emissions have also increased, meaning they too are working longer and harder.
Renewable Power Versus Coal Fired Power – And The Winner Is explains this in detail.
If people want to pursue this mad rush to renewable power because those CO2 emissions are allegedly so dangerous, they need to be aware of all the facts, placed before them in a truthful manner, not obfuscation, misdirection, and outright lies.
Once people become aware of the real truth, the whole argument becomes moot.
Tony.
10
Not sure what the Australian is playing at. While they seem to be editorially behind making sure the Carbon Tax never flies, they also seem to be editorially making sure the climate change science is beyond questioning.
Perhaps they feel this never ending yin-yang will ensure years of newspaper sales. It’s probably true.
However, publishing the ‘78%’ figure was completely meaningless and downright obfuscating. Because if you look at the breakdown, the hard core believers (about 12%) are the ones who think humans are entirely to blame, and strongly believe in a carbon tax. It’s hard to know if this 12% is the same people, but it maps well with the 12% of voters who first-preference Greens. I’m well aware of the differences between polls and the numbers – but to me it looks like 10-15% of the population is hard-core warmenista and they’ll fight to the death on this one. But their policy death rattles are increasingly alienating the middle core of the voting public, who were always slightly skeptical anyway.
I honestly think the only thing needed for the entire thing to self-collapse is a widely-viewed investigation of the IPCC science. Whether this is ‘an inconvenient truth’ style doco, or a 4-corners style investigation of IPCC science – I get the feeling that the large rump of people who aren’t really engaged with this issue wouldn’t need much evidence to put themselves firmly in the skeptical camp.
The Canadian election was an interesting turning point. Although, if we cast our minds back to August ’10, Climate Change barely rated a mention in the respective parties policies either. So post-copenhagen elections don’t commonly have a lot of climate-change policies in them. The US congressional election was similar. If the coalition had won the 2010 election – it would have almost completely disappeared from Australian politics by now, except for the occasional ranting by Bob Brown and Christine Milne. The only reason the issue continues to receive oxygen in Australia is because of the minority government. Realistically, Labor would rather it gone and forgotten as per the original plan to indefinitely postpone the ETS.
The current plan for skeptics is working. Keep protesting, keep commenting in newspaper articles, keep ringing radio stations and keep writing to MPs. This continual pressure has already made many cracks start to show. Keep on message and keep rejecting nonsense statements like ‘carbon pollution’ and ‘the majority of Australians believe in climate change’
10
to put it mildly, brc @#16. There’s the world of difference between the 12% of loons who attribute all climate change to human activity and the 58% who go some of the way. I would have been among that lot. You may have, too, brc. Think urban heat island effect on local climate, to name but one. Like so many other such surveys, it was, by design or otherwise and exercise in gross deception.
10
Hey folks please have a look at this. It’s a real eye-opener
http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/
For me it completely demolishes any claim that CO2 is the major determinant of temperature. 1850 estimates of temperature range from over 300 to more than 500 ppmv and he shows how IPCC cherry picked the subsequent lower values to reach an unrealistic ‘average’ of 285 ppm.
If CO2 in 1850 was much the same as it is now, how do they explain any rise in temperature?
10
This government is so broke they are making changes to the lease car arrangements to save money under the guise of AGW.
The latest news about the budget misery to come is that when you lease a car the more kilometers you do the less fringe benefits tax you pay as the price of the car devalues with a higher kilometer reading. Because of this people who lease a car will intentionally add K’s to the car by driving from ….say Adelaide to Brisbane for a holiday thus reducing any fringe benefit hit.
Environmental groups say this adds to the carbon pollution build up so the
Brownsorry Gillard government has decided to change the rules on lease cars to erradicate this problem which of course means more return for them (we dont need details to know this).By the way i walked into a bar yesterday and asked the barman for a “Bin Laden”, the barman replied “what is that” and i said “two shots and a splash of water”.
Cheers
Crakar
10
Talking of terms and definitions…
I have just put up for free an environment and green/eco terms dictionary app on the Android market, see here.
Covers 500+ terms and sticks to the facts of matter.
I’ll add the above term in and reference the urban dictionary as a h/t.
10
Ummm, 15 TonyfromOz, as I am somewhat innumerate I guess I just dont get it.
I spent a dollar yesterday, but I got a lot less than $2.86 in change. Should I be complaining?
10
PeterD
C + O2 = CO2
C has molecular mass 12, oygen 16 so 12+16+16 = 44
44/12 = 3.67 generally coal does contain some hydrogen so on average a bit less than that. 2.86 sounds about right.
10
Here’s an Australian and potentially precedent-setting legal case which is to be heard in August. Friends of the Earth have launched a legal challenge against Xstrata’s Wandoan mine using climate change as the basis for said challenge:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/05/06/3209252.htm?site=capricornia
Apparently they want climate change experts to testify at the case. This could be a landmark decision and highly entertaining court action. Hopefully it will be one of the last nails in the climate change alarmist coffin.
10
Peter D at Comment 16, and others who also question this,
in the more than three years I have been blogging on these matters, that is the one single question that gets asked the most.
I have this Post from almost two and a half years back:
Why Does One Ton Of Coal Make 2.86 Tons Of Carbon Dioxide?
That Post explains this, something that is almost impossible to believe, but in fact is really the Science you learned at High School in grade 8, your first lessons on Science when the teacher started to explain the Periodic table of elements.
For additional reference, if you find this hard to believe and think I’m making it up, here’s a confirmation link from the U.S. government web site, the Energy Information Administration.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/quarterly/co2_article/co2.html
Scroll down to the heading ‘Coal Combustion And Carbon Dioxide Emissions’. It sounds technical, but is relatively easy to understand, and the third paragraph best explains it.
Tony.
10
Bulldust: #12
Interesting comparative chart, but we shouldn’t put any credence on the numbers because we don’t know if they are talking about peak output or actual usable output for wind and solar.
Depending upon the manufacturer, the quoted peak output for solar can ignore the fact that the sun does not shine at night, and the peak output for wind assumes an average optimum wind speed all of the time.
Such conditions only exist on Planet Gore.
10
Graham Readfearn is obviously still smarting from the thrashing he received during his debate with Lord Monckton, and has written an article on the Drum titled “Australia prepares to swallow Monckton yet again”.
He tries very hard to discredit Monckton and all those associated with the last Australian tour and the upcoming tour. He points out the lack of scientific qualifications and credibility of Monckton, Plimer and others, as well as listing the support from mining companies.
I have left a comment, listing Flannery’s and Garnaut’s lack of climate science qualifications as well as the involvement of BIG GOVERNMENT in climate research.
10
Mike Borgelt: #21
Gosh, that is easy to understand … even a physicist could understand that. Ain’t mathamatiks wunnerful?
10
I’ve had this one ton of coal makes 2.86 tons of CO2 debate with a number of people who were, er, ardent believers in the Climate Change/Global Warming Science, and it just made me smile.
They were perfectly willing to accept the most complex Science that they could not understand, let alone explain, and to accept that Science on what can only be called ‘faith’.
In the same breath, when I explained this, they were not willing at all to accept it because they knew I was not from the standpoint of their belief structure.
Even after I explained that this was indeed basic Science that they themselves, everyone in fact, learned in that first year of High School Science, they still would not accept it.
People will believe what they want to believe, forget what they have learned, and nothing can change what they believe.
That’s why it has now become the Climate Change Religion, based almost wholly on faith.
Tony.
10
Tony@15, a very relevant analysis; I note this: “While ever that fan at the front is rotating these towers are delivering their maximum power, so that means onn average, these towers are only running for 26.3% of each day or around 6 hours and 20 minutes each day.”
I’m surprised the capacity factor of wind is that high; the AEMO rates wind at only 10% CF; but even if we allow that 26% averaged daily it still does not convey how unreliable wind is because wind varies from minute to minute, but even that does not convey how useless wind is because the power output does not vary linearly; it varies exponentially as the cube of the wind speed. This means a 50% reduction in wind speed produces only 12.5% of the full wind speed; essentially wind power is uncollectable below 15km/h and the average wind speed is 25 km/h.
Another thing which needs clarifying is what happens to wind power when it is operating at 100% if the back-up of fossil sources are already supplying all the power? Is that wind energy discarded?
Wind and solar are a scandal of monumental proportions and their advocates should be in court.
10
Also, and people, I’m sorry to keep harping on what may seem trivial points, try telling people just how much coal it takes to produce the electricity that we take totally for granted, and like water, is now almost a staple of life.
A large scale coal fired power plant, of 2000MW nameplate Capacity will burn, on average, 6.5 Million tons of coal each year, and work that out.
It’s one ton of coal every 5 seconds.
Also, ask one of those believers how they get electricity from coal, and again, very few can tell you.
The coal is crushed and fed into a critical furnace.
The furnace boils water to make high pressure steam.
The steam drives a multi stage (usually three stages) turbine.
The turbine then drives the generator.
A single generator can weigh anything up to 1000 tons or more, and all that weight has to revolve at 3000RPM.
Snap your finger and then snap it again.
That’s 50 rotations of that immense weight.
Here’s the link for Bayswater Plant, and just look at those stats.
Bayswater Power Station
Electricity is much more than what ‘comes out’ of the ‘hole in the wall’.
Tony
10
cohenite at Comment 29.
that’s the most recent data for the whole 12 month period in the US.
The current Worldwide average for Wind Power is closer to 20%, and that’s a conservative figure on the high side, and most believe it is closer to 16%, but I’ll just go on data that I can show.
The ‘blurb’ provided by the people who ‘push’ these things tell us that have a Capacity Factor of 38%, and believe me, very few, if any, plants have ever achieved that, even in Windy locations, when extrapolated out over one month, let alone for a whole year, let alone for a lifetime.
What is also not explained is that the best case scenario for life expectancy is 20 to 25 years.
An average, large scale coal fired plant has a life expectancy of 50 years, and can be relicensed out to 60 years and even to 75 years.
The current average age of every coal fired power plant in the U.S. is a tad under 49 years, and that’s the average age of all of them.
Because there just is no replacement for that 24/7/365 basis of power that they can deliver, there’s a mad rush to keep as many of them in service as they can.
Like I mentioned in the other Post here at Jo’s site, only China is constructing new technology coal fired plants, half the size, twice the power, burning their coal more efficiently, and emitting a lot less CO2.
What is happening now is that Wind is supplying the grids, and those natural gas fired plants are staying on line (running) but not delivering any power, so that when the Wind plants drop, those Natural Gas Plants can then ‘turn on’ (euphemistically speaking)and deliver the power to the grids immediately, so that brown outs and blackouts do not eventuate.
If they did not do this, then when the wind drops and the grid has less power available than what is being consumed, this overloads those other plants, shutting them down, causing that cascading effect, thus brown and black outs.
That is why CO2 emissions are rising. especially in that Natural Gas fired sector.
Pity help the grid controller who relies solely on Wind power to make up the total needed absolutely, and then the wind drops.
Tony.
10
Stupid humans think they have a monopoly on C02 emmisions haha..
here:
“These entrapped droplets represent the state of the magma prior to eruption. As a result, Helo and fellow researchers from McGill, the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute, and the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, have been able to prove that explosive eruptions can indeed occur in deep-sea volcanoes. Their work also shows that the release of CO2 from the deeper mantle to Earth’s atmosphere, at least in certain parts of mid-ocean ridges, is much higher than had previously been imagined”
source
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110328151734.htm
Also re Philipines volcano
“MANILA – PHILIPPINE authorities said on Sunday more people had been evacuated from towns and villages near a volcano island close to the capital amid increasing signs of seismic activity.
The National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council said the number evacuated had increased to 1,375 as of Saturday from four towns near Taal volcano, while seismologists recorded 10 volcanic earthquakes overnight.
Water temperatures and gas emissions also increased, seismologists said.
‘This large rise in CO2 (carbon dioxide) concentration indicates gas release from the magma at depth,’ the council said.”
Well there you go lets stop it and TAX the mantle!
10
@Ross,
James Lovelock, originator of the Gaia nonsense and one of the foremost population control advocates, has four chldren and eight grandchildren. You won’t find that little fact on any of the sites consecrated in his honour. Hypocrites all …
Pointman
10
I’m struggling to see what the overall point behind this piece is. It has no structure, only slander. I’d say that if we spent more time reading peer-reviewed pieces of information that we would be better informed on the realities of what is actually happening to the planet as a result of our over-exploitation of natural resources. Pieces such as this one contributes very little, if anything, to discussions on what is a very important topic.
10
@Bulldust #6
“I find it amusing that Alannah MacTiernan, failed Fed seat contender, likens the skeptics to 1930s Germans of a certain political persuasion*”
I wonder if this is the same Alannah MacTiernan that was caught drunk driving whilst she was WA Minister for Transport.
She has so much credence over here in WA that she is nicknamed the ‘Poison Pygmie’.
10
TonyfromOz:
Your comment at #31 suggests that you would be interested to read an explanation of the problems of windpower for electricity generation explained in a Prestigious Lecture I had the honour to provide a few years ago. It can be read at
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/courtney_2006_lecture.pdf
Richard
10
My comment to this piece in the Australian today got published.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/greens-renewable-plan-sparks-power-price-fears/story-fn59niix-1226050771544
Milne is an ideologue with a mad glint in her eye! The aim of the Greens is to quite literally turn back the clocks and have us living much as great grandparents would have done pre WWII with no modern conveniences (dishwashers, TV, washing machines, microwaves all take energy and we can forget about private car ownership). It borders on subsistence, almost 3rd world like existence. To achieve this they need to control power/energy = rationing. 100% renewable means energy costs beyond the reach of the average person, and it means brownouts and industry collapse. Within their ranks they also have the likes of Clive Hamilton advocating the suspension of our democratic rights so that they can militantly shove their ideology down the throats of Australians (militancy, radicalism and turmoil is what he incites in a speech at the Climate Action Summit on April 9). This would be slightly amusing if it was not for the fact that Labor has formed Govt with these people!
10
Richard S Courtney@36
Can’t speak for TonyfromOz, but I found your paper really informative. Thanks Richard.
10
I guess that is because you aren’t getting your misinformation out there fast enough?
10
Johnny Brooks @ 39
You are the top rated WARMENIST today! Al Gore would be proud of your GAIA submission!
Johnny – three quick questions?
1. How much Co2 is emitted when you burn one Tonne of Natural Gas?
2. How much CO2 is emitted when you burn one Tonne of Brown Coal (65% water)
3. How much CO2 is emitted to produce one wind turbine that produces enough power equivalent to one tonne of natural gas?
You can contact Christine Milne for the answer!
10
David@40
May I suggest a further question, to be answered by our children’s childr…
4. How much CO2 is emitted when you burn one wind turbine?
10
MaxL @ 41
Around 500 tonnes of CO2 just to manufacture plus the transport, erection and the cleaning by helicopter for the largest wind turbines. Over a 20 year LCA and 20% working time (wind) they should be made into monuments to the WARENISTS – our childens children will be able to recognise these as the GAIA lemmings that they were.
The biggest problem is the environmental damage that these things cause once installed!!!!
10
Jo – In your article above in line three you quote
The Climate Spectator is full of very powerful people with interests in renewables etc etc. Have a look at the WARMENISTS in this group – they will be implanted in history as the biggest Al Gore suckers (but money grubbers since KR)
They own the following: Crikey Eureka Report SmartCompany Climate Spectator StartupSmart
and Business Spectator.
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/oneoffpages/about_us
Check the donations to the GREENS, BOB BROWN, ADAM BRANDT AND CHRISTINE MILNE by this mob of lemmings and greedy AGW WARMENISTS
10
Jo,
The problem is that policies are being shoved into place so that when this “warming” is shown to be false, it will cost far more to correct the course and the damage.
10
Johnny Brooks at 39
A 1.5 MW wind turbine of a type frequently seen in the United States has a tower 80 meters high. The rotor assembly (blades and hub) weighs 48,000 pounds (22,000 kg). The nacelle, which contains the generator component, weighs 115,000 pounds (52,000 kg). The concrete base for the tower is constructed using 58,000 pounds (26,000 kg) of reinforcing steel and contains 250 cubic yards of concrete. The base is 50 feet (15 m) in diameter and 8 feet (2.4 m) thick near the center.
You are looking at 350 tonnes of material consisting of 250 tonnes of concrete and 100 tonnes of steel – and Johnny Brooks say these WARMENISTS have a concern for the environment. The AGW Warmenists are environmental vandals – look at this:-
You’re batty Johnny!!!
10
Care to do the calcs on this baby, David @#45? I’d love to see it in a squall! Here’s a land-based turbine from the same manufacturer (Vestas) to give some idea.
(via WUWT)
10
John Brookes: @39
Aww good on ya Johnboy. The first “warmenist” to step on stage to face an adoring crowd of tomato throwers.
And I see your submission is up to the usual (sub)standard.
Well done….
10
“These conservatives see environmentalism as a profound threat to their world.” – Clive Hamilton.
Oh, I must be mistaken Clive. I thought that global governance might be the profound threat.I look forward to your retort on the subject of Agenda 21.
10
“These environmentalists see conservatism as a profound threat to their world” – MaxL
Conservatives want to conserve the current environment, environmentalists want to change it.
10
Those newspoll questions are open, unspecific to the point of being meaningless! How do separate out those who think it’s partly manmade, but do not think it’ll be catastrophic, from those who think it’s partly manmade & will be catastrophic? And, how do you separate out those who don’t believe in climate change -the AGW theory- from the ignorant ones who don’t believe there is natural climate change at all!? There is ample room for misunderstanding with those questions. Is it deliberate? They read like a bloody online poll: Just YES or NO, with no fine distinctions.
10
MaxL: @49
Excellent Max. You’re a true visionary. One slight adjustment though…you left out the word governance!
It should read:-
“These environmentalists see conservatism as a profound threat to their world governance” – MaxL
10
John@50
You ask if it is deliberate:- “And, how do you separate out those who don’t believe in climate change -the AGW theory- from the ignorant ones who don’t believe there is natural climate change at all!?”
May I suggest that if you can’t distinguish between those who don’t believe in climate change – from those who don’t believe there is natural climate change, that the wording of the survey was deliberate. That is, it was worded in such a way that it is intended that you will accept their interpretation.
Consider the available answers and if you can think of one alternative answer, then the survey is deceptive.
Don’t accept the results of any quantitative survey as an indication of what the participants actually think. Qualitative surveys, where the participants can say whatever they want, are the only true indications of what people think.
10
TLD@51
I just love one liners like that, they leave themselves open to parody.
I’ve noticed that given a microphone, people will readily say what they are thinking, and that is something they can’t later deny. EG. “There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead”.
Ummm, (sorry, I’m getting old,) who said that?
10
The Loaded Dog: #51
Spot on LD (not a Dalmation joke)
it is a shame that so many very smart people miss your point.
Now for my main reason for posting:
@Treeman #2
Fighting this tax on economic grounds is akin to a fox terrier on a chain biting thin air …Attacking the very basis of the argument for taxing CO2 is more like letting a pit bull off the leash!
WHAT A LOAD OF CRAP.
Sorry, but no other words for it.
It needs a joint effort, science, economics and politics.
I’ll give you Three absolutely truthfull economic arguaments to stew on Treeman.
1. Norway introduced a ‘Carbon Tax’ and CO2-E emissions skyrocketed by 43% per capita.
2. Combet ‘Cooks the Books’ – yes Greg Combet has at least two sets of books, and the figures are all different (right back to 1990).
3. We will end up sending more money to the UN this year than we are paying IN TAX for the Queensland Flood Levy. (and Christine Milne wants us to keep sending)
Look at the Poll again mate, 78% of Australians believe in Climate Change, even Abbott does, the science alone will no longer win the arguament.
BUT: WE are WINNING, because we attack on all sides and all aspects.
@connolly: #13
Good luck on Wednesday connolly.
Tell them about Norway mate 🙂
10
MY THOUGHT FOR THE NIGHT
Totally off Topic
If Wayne Swan is going to create 500,000 New Jobs, and is also going to reduce our Unemployment Rate from 4.9% to 4.5% (- 0.4%)
THEN: (with our current Unemployment Rate of 596,000)
1. He needs to make urgent plans for at least 497,616 immigrant workers.
OR
He thinks, mistakenly, that he has an initial workforce of 125 Million to start with.
OR
He plans to REDACT, RETRENCH, or otherwise DESTROY, 497,616 jobs in AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRY, before he creates these ‘new 500,000 jobs’.
The Math works, but of course Swan wouldn’t know anything about Math, after all he is just a Treasurer.
10
One thing that everyone must remember (and I believe most do) is that you do not reverse direction on a dime. The results are encouraging as more and more people wake up and examine the evidence and come to their own conclusion. But there are 2 things working against reality. One is that most people either do not care enough or have the time to research the issue and discern the truth. The other is that the Warmenists are very well funded – through private donations, but mostly our tax money – and while truth is the counter to this misinformation, it takes time to get out when you are operating on a shoestring budget.
10
“bunny” (26),
Graham Readfearn is in for another bitch slap down…
What an Oxygen Thief!
Lord Monckton – Brisbane Debate. Video 1/9:-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGXngQDgAPY
Viewers will note the clown on the right of the panel from the Courier Mail, “Graham Readfearn”. He runs – or ran – a Green Blog for the paper. The morning after this debate his own paper reported that Monckton had won the debate game, set and match and that Mr Readfearn had to be pulled up several times by the moderator for crud epersonal attacks. A few days later readfearn did a dummy spit and resigned from the C-M . A telling story. The worm is turning in the scam.
PS What are “Graham Readfearn’s” background and academic qualifications, if any?
It would be interesting to find out……
10
WHAT A FARCE !! – “Cate Blanchett to save Gillard’s Carbon DIOXIDE (PLANT FOOD) tax”
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/cate_to_save_gillards_tax/
PS Cate Blanchett Is A Propaganda Mouthpiece For Al Gore !
Cate Blanchett – Climate Change Presenter:-
http://www.theclimateprojectus.org/newsletter_view.php?id=7
10
@Damian (57)
from linkedin:
Graham Readfearn’s Education
University of Central Lancashire
Diploma, Newspaper Journalism
1995 – 1996
Eminently qualified! As is Cate. (& Al, for that matter)
10
Every generation has its own collection of nitwits and impressionable hangers-on to some fad usually based on fallacy – such as the “hippie movement.” The tail end of this distribution of feeble minded are susceptible to things like “scientology.”
The present generation seems to have an unusually large proportion of mindless followers of a senseless concept. Maybe it’s something in the water?
10
I have just watched the “The Bolt Report” on Australia’s Channel 10.
I recommend it another reporter that has his head screwed on the right way!
http://ten.com.au/boltreport.htm
10