Copenhagen summit dec '09, scam.

[xtremerus]

That was my understanding. The 'compensation' is just a temporary tax break on the carbon tax for 'X' years. It is to have the massive increase, in so called cheap coal power, spread over a longer time. Handy for pollies to get re-elected. The carbon tax revenues will subsidise getting the green alternative energy schemes up and going.
How do the alternative energy sources fund themselves, after coal is given up for power generation? You pay for the FULL cost.
Analogy: How do you make a Bentley more attractive to buy? Make that Hyundai you buy, increase to the same price as the Bentley over a number of years. The only thing is, you will still only be driving an Hyundai.

[MO]

Originally Posted by olfella

It is also one of our biggest export earners, so how can we say to the countries buying it, cut back on its use? I think it really puts Australia between a rock and a hard place.

And one of our biggest buyers will be cutting back in about 5 to 8yrs,China.

[Hillbilly F Truck]

THE RUDD GOVERNMENT’S COPENHAGEN JUNKET LIST

December 2009

The following 114 officials or representatives of the Australian Government and of State administrations attended the UN climate conference at Copenhagen in December 2009 –

1. Kevin Michael Rudd, Prime Minister
2. Penelope Wong, Minister, Clim. Chg. & Water
3. Louise Helen Hand, Ambassador for Clim. Chg.
4. David Fredericks, Dep. Chf. of Staff, Dept. of the Prime Minister
5. Philip Green Oam, Sen. Policy Advr., Foreign Affairs Dept.
6. Andrew Charlton, Sen. Advr., Prime Minister’s Dept.
7. Lachlan Harris, Sen. Press Sec., Prime Minister’s Office
8. Scott Dewar, Sen. Advr., Prime Minister’s Office
9. Clare Penrose, Advr., Prime Minister’s Office
10. Fiona Sugden, Media Advr., Prime Minister’s Office
11. Lisa French, Prime Minister’s Office12. Jeremy Hilman, Advr., Prime Minister’s Office
13. Tarah Barzanji, Advr., Prime Minister’s Office
14. Kate Shaw, Exec. Sec., Prime Minister’s Office
15. Gaile Barnes, Exec. Asst., Prime Minister’s Office
16. Gordon de Brouwer, Dep. Sec. Prime Minister’s Dept.
17. Patrick Suckling, 1st Asst. Sec., Intl. Div., Prime Minister’s Office\
18. Rebecca Christie, Prime Minister’s Office
19. Michael Jones, Official Photographer, Prime Minister & Cabinet
20. Stephan Rudzki
21. David Bell, Federal Agent, Aus. Federal Police
22. Kym Baillie, Aus. Federal Police
23. David Champion, Aus. Federal Police
24. Matt Jebb, Federal Agent Aus. Federal Police
25. Craig Kendall, Federal Agent, Aus. Federal Police
26. Squadron Leader Ian Lane, Staff Offr., VIP Operations
27. John Olenich, Media Advr., to Minister Wong, Office of Clim. Chg. & Water
28. Kristina Hickey, Advr. to Minister Wong, Office of Clim. Chg. & Water
29. Martin Parkinson, Sec., Dept. of Clim. Chg.
30. Howard Bamsey, Special Envoy for Clim. Chg., Dept. of Clim. Chg.
31. Robert Owen-Jones, Asst. Sec., Intl. Div., Dept. of Clim. Chg.
32. Clare Walsh Asst. Sec., Intl. Div., Dept. of Clim. Chg.
33. Jenny Elizabeth Wilkinson, Policy Advr., Dept. of Clim. Chg.
34. Elizabeth Peak, Princ. Legal Advr., Intl. Clim. Law, Dept. of Clim. Chg.
35. Kristin Tilley, Dir., Multilat. Negots., Intl. Div., Dept. of Clim. Chg.
36. Andrew Ure, Actg. Dir., Multilat. Negots., Intl. Div., Dept. of Clim. Chg.
37. Annemarie Watt, Dir., Land Sector Negots., Intl. Div., Dept. of Clim. Chg.
38. Kushla Munro, Dir., Intl. Forest Carbon Sectn. Intl. Div., Dept. of Clim. Chg.
39. Kathleen Annette Rowley, Dir., Strategic & Tech. Analysis, Dept. of Clim. Chg.
40. Anitra Cowan Asst. Dir., Multilat. Negots., Dept. of Clim. Chg.
41. Sally Truong, Asst. Dir., Multilat. Negots., Intl. Div. Dept. of Clim. Chg.
42. Jane Wilkinson, Asst. Dir., Dept. of Clim. Chg.
43. Tracey Mackay, Asst. Dir., Intl. Div., Dept. of Clim. Chg.
44. Laura Brown, Asst. Dir., Multilat. Negots., Intl. Div., Dept. of Clim. Chg.
45. Tracey-Anne Leahey, Delegation Mgr., Dept. of Clim. Chg.
46. Nicola Loffler, Sen. Legal Advr., Intl. Clim. Law, Dept. of Clim. Chg.
47. Tamara Curll, Legal Advr., Intl. Clim. Law, Dept. of Clim. Chg.
48. Jessica Allen, Legal Support Offr., Dept. of Clim. Chg.
49. Sanjiva de Silva, Legal Advr., Intl. Clim. Law, Dept. of Clim. Chg.
50. Gaia Puleston, Political Advr., Dept. of Clim. Chg.
51. Penelope Morton, Policy Advr., UNFCCC Negots., Intl. Div., Dept. of Clim. Chg.
52. Claire Elizabeth Watt, Policy Advr., Dept. of Clim. Chg.
53. Amanda Walker, Policy Offr., Multilat. Negots., Dept. of Clim. Chg.
54. Alan David Lee, Policy Advr., Land Sector Negots., Dept. of Clim. Chg.
55. Erika Kate Oord, Aus. Stakeholder Mgr., Dept. of Clim. Chg.
56. Jahda Kirian Swanborough, Comms. Mgr., Ministerial Comms., Dept. of Clim. Chg.
57. H.E. Sharyn Minahan, Ambassador, Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK
58. Julia Feeney, Dir., Clim. Chg. & Envir., Dept. of Foreign Affairs & Trade
59. Chester Geoffrey Cunningham, 2nd Sec., DFAT, Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to Germany
60. Rachael Cooper, Exec. Offr., Clim. Chg. & Envir., Dept. of Foreign Affairs & Trade
61. Rachael Grivas, Exec. Offr., Envir. Branch, Dept. of Foreign Affairs & Trade
62. Moya Collett, Desk Offr., Clim. Chg. & Envir. Sectn., Dept. of Foreign Affairs & Trade
63. Rob Law, Dept. of Foreign Affairs & Trade
64. Robin Davies, Asst. Dir. Gen., Sustainable Devel. Gp., Aus. Agency for Intl. Devel.
65. Deborah Fulton, Dir., Policy & Global Envir., Aus. Agency for Intl. Devel.
66. Katherine Vaughn, Policy Advr., Policy & Global Envir., Aus. Agency for Intl. Devel.
67. Brian Dawson, Policy Advr., Aus. Agency for Intl. Devel.
68. Andrew Leigh Clarke, Dep. Sec., Dept. of Res. Devel., Western Aus.
69. Bruce Wilson, Gen. Mgr., Envir. Energy & Envir. Div., Dept. of Resrc. Devel., W. Aus.
70. Jill McCarthy, Policy Advr., Dept. of Resrc., Energy & Tourism
71. Simon French, Policy Advr., Dept. of Agriculture, Fisheries & Forestry
72. Ian Michael Ruscoe, Policy Advr., Dept. of Agriculture, Fisheries & Forestry
73. David Walland, Acting Supt., Nat. Clim. Centre, Bureau of Meteorology
74. Damien Dunn Sen. Policy Advr., Aus. Treasury
75. Helen Hawka Fuhrman, Policy Offr., Renewable Energy Policy & Partnerships
76. Scott Vivian Davenport, Chf., Economics, NSW Dept. of Industry & Invest.
77. Graham Julian Levitt, Policy Mgr., Clim. Chg., NSW Dept. of Industry & Invest.
78. Kate Jennifer Jones, Minister, Clim. Chg. & Sustainability, Qld. Govt.
79. Michael William Dart, Princ. Policy Advr., Office of Kate Jones, MP, Qld. Govt.
80. Matthew Anthony Jamie Skoien, Sen. Dir., Office of Clim. Chg. Qld. Govt.
81. Michael David Rann, Premier, S. Aus. Dept. of Premier & Cabinet, S. Aus.
82. Suzanne Kay Harter, Advr., Dept. of Premier & Cabinet, S. Aus.
83. Paul David Flanagan, Mgr., Comms., Govt. of S. Aus.
84. Timothy O’Loughlin, Dep. Chf. Exec., Sust. & Wkfc. Mgmt., S. Aus. Dept. of Premier
85. Nyla Sarwar M.Sc, student, Linacre College, University of Oxford
86. Gavin Jennings, Minister, Envir. & Clim. Chg. & Innovation, Victorian Govt.
87. Sarah Broadbent, Sustainability Advr.
88. Rebecca Falkingham, Sen. Advr., Victoria Govt./Office of Clim. Chg.
89. Simon Camroux, Policy Advr., Energy Supply ***. of Aus. Ltd.
90. Geoff Lake, Advr., Aus. Local Govt. ***.
91. Sridhar Ayyalaraju, Post Visit Controller, Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK
92. Tegan Brink Dep. Visit Controller & Security Liaison Offr., Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK
93. Melissa Eu Suan Goh, Trspt. Liaison Offr. & Consul, Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK
94. Lauren Henschke, Support Staff, Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK
95. Maree Fay, Accommodation Liaison Offr., Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK
96. Patricia McKinnon, Comms. Offr., Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK
97. Eugene Olim, Passport/Baggage Liaison Offr., Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK
98. Belinda Lee Adams
99. Jacqui Ashworth, Media Liaison Offr., Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK
100. Patricia Smith, Media Liaison Offr., Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK
101. Martin Bo Jensen, Research & Public Dipl. Offr., Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK
102. Mauro Kolobaric, Consular Support, Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK
103. Susan Flanagan, Consular Support, Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK
104. Stephen Kanaridis, IT Support Offr., Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK
105. George Reid, Support Staff, Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK
106. Ashley Wright, Support Staff, Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK
107. Jodie Littlewood, Support Staff, Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK
108. Thomas Millhouse, Support Staff, Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK
109. Timothy Whittley, Support Staff Driver, Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK
110. Julia Thomson, Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK
111. Donald Frater, Chf. of Staff to Minister Wong Office of Clim. Chg. & Water
112. Jacqui Smith, Media Liaison, Dipl. Miss. of Aus. to DK
113. Greg French, Sen. Legal Advr. (Envir.), Dept. of Foreign Affairs & Trade
114. Jeremy Hillman, Advr., Prime Minister’s Office

[Hillbilly F Truck]

1 January 2010

His Excellency Mr. Kevin Rudd,

Prime Minister, Commonwealth of Australia.

Prime Minister,

Climate change: proposed personal briefing

Your speech on 6 November 2009 to the Lowy Institute, in which you publicly expressed some concern at my approach to the climate question, has prompted several leading Australian citizens to invite me come on tour to explain myself in a series of lectures in Australia later this month. I am writing to offer personal briefings on why “global warming” is a non-problem to you and other party leaders during my visit. For convenience, I am copying this letter to them, and to the Press.

Your speech mentioned my remarks about the proposal for world “government” in the early drafts of what had been intended as a binding Copenhagen Treaty. These proposals were not, as you suggested, a “conspiracy theory” from the “far right” with “zero basis in evidence”. Your staff will find them in paragraphs 36-38 of the main text of Annex 1 to the 15 September draft of the Treaty. The word “government” appears twice at paragraph 38. After much adverse publicity in democratic countries, including Australia, the proposals were reluctantly dropped before Copenhagen.

You say I am one of “those who argue that any multilateral action is by definition evil”. On the contrary: my first question is whether any action at all is required, to which – as I shall demonstrate – the objective economic and scientific answer is No. Even if multilateral action were required, which it is not, national governments in the West are by tradition democratically elected. Therefore, a fortiori, transnational or global governments should also be made and unmade by voters at the ballot-box. The climate ought not to be used as a shoddy pretext for international bureaucratic-centralist dictatorship. We committed Europeans have had more than enough of that already with the unelected but all-powerful Kommissars of the hated EU, who make nine-tenths of our laws by decree (revealingly, they call them “Directives” or “Commission Regulations”). The Kommissars (that is the official German word for them) inflict their dictates upon us regardless of what the elected European or any other democratic Parliament says or wishes. Do we want a worldwide EU? No.

You say I am one of “those who argue that climate change does not represent a global market failure”. Yet it is only recently that opinion sufficient to constitute a market signal became apparent in the documents of the IPCC, which is, however, a political rather than a scientific entity. There has scarcely been time for a “market failure”. Besides, corporations are falling over themselves to cash in on the giant financial fraud against the little guy that carbon taxation and trading have already become in the goody-two-shoes EU – and will become in Australia if you get your way.

You say I was one of “those who argue that somehow the market will magically solve the problem”. In fact I have never argued that, though in general the market is better at solving problems than the habitual but repeatedly-failed dirigisme of the etatistes predominant in the classe politique today.

The questions I address are a) whether there is a climate problem at all; and b) even if there is one, and even if per impossibile it is of the hilariously-overblown magnitude imagined by the IPCC, whether waiting and adapting as and if necessary is more cost-effective than attempting to mitigate the supposed problem by trying to reduce the carbon dioxide our industries and enterprises emit.

Let us pretend, solum ad argumentum, that a given proportionate increase in CO2 concentration causes the maximum warming imagined by the IPCC. The IPCC’s bureaucrats are careful not to derive a function that will convert changes in CO2 concentration directly to equilibrium changes in temperature. I shall do it for them.

We derive the necessary implicit function from the IPCC’s statement to the effect that equilibrium surface warming ΔT at CO2 doubling will be (3.26 ± ln 2) C°. Since the IPCC, in compliance with Beer’s Law, defines the radiative forcing effect of CO2 as logarithmic rather than linear, our implicit function can be derived at once. The coefficient is the predicted warming at CO2 doubling divided by the logarithm of 2, and the term (C/C0) is the proportionate increase in CO2 concentration. Thus,

ΔT = (4.7 ± 1) ln(C/C0) | Celsius degrees

We are looking at the IPCC’s maximum imagined warming rate, so we simply write –

ΔT = 5.7 ln(C/C0) | Celsius degrees

Armed with this function telling us the maximum equilibrium warming that the IPCC predicts from any given change in CO2 concentration, we can now determine, robustly, the maximum equilibrium warming that is likely to be forestalled by any proposed cut in the current upward path of CO2 emissions. Let me demonstrate.

By the end of this month, according to the Copenhagen Accord, all parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change are due to report what cuts in emissions they will make by 2020. Broadly speaking, the Annex 1 parties, who will account for about half of global emissions over the period, will commit to reducing current emissions by 30% by 2020, or 15% on average in the decade between now and 2020.

Thus, if and only if every Annex 1 party to the Copenhagen Accord complies with its obligations to the full, today’s emissions will be reduced by around half of that 15%, namely 7.5%, compared with business as usual. If the trend of the past decade continues, with business as usual we shall add 2 ppmv/year, or 20 ppmv over the decade, to atmospheric CO2 concentration. Now, 7.5% of 20 ppmv is 1.5 ppmv.

We determine the warming forestalled over the coming decade by comparing the business-as-usual warming that would occur between now and 2020 if we made no cuts in CO2 emissions with the lesser warming that would follow full compliance with the Copenhagen Accord. Where today’s CO2 concentration is 388 ppmv –

Business as usual: ΔT = 5.7 ln(408.0/388) = 0.29 C°

– Copenhagen Accord: ΔT = 5.7 ln(406.5/388) = 0.27 C°

= “Global warming” forestalled, 2010-2020: 0.02 C°

One-fiftieth of a Celsius degree of warming forestalled is all that complete, global compliance with the Copenhagen Accord for an entire decade would achieve. Yet the cost of achieving this result – an outcome so small that our instruments would not be able to measure it – would run into trillions of dollars. Do your Treasury models demonstrate that this calculation is in any way erroneous? If they do, junk them.

You say “formal global and national economic modelling” shows “that the costs of inaction are greater than the costs of acting”. You ask for my “equivalent evidence basis to Treasury modelling published by the Government of the industry and employment impacts of climate change”. I respond that the rigorous calculation that I have described, which your officials may verify for themselves, shows that whatever costs may be imagined to flow from anthropogenic “global warming” will scarcely be mitigated at all, even by trillions of dollars of expenditure over the coming decade.

Every economic analysis except that of the now-discredited Lord Stern, with its near-zero discount rate and its absurdly inflated warming rates, comes to the same ineluctable conclusion: adaptation to climate change, in whatever direction, as and if necessary, is orders of magnitude more cost-effective than attempts at mitigation. In a long career in policy analysis in and out of government, I have never seen so cost-ineffective a proposed waste of taxpayers’ money as the trillions which today’s scientifically-illiterate governments propose to spend on attempting – with all the plausibility of King Canute – to stop the tide from coming in.

Remember that I have done this calculation on the basis that everyone who should comply with the Copenhagen Accord actually does comply. Precedent does not look promising. The Kyoto Protocol, the Copenhagen Accord’s predecessor, has been in operation for more than a decade, and it was supposed to reduce global CO2 emissions by 2012. So far, after billions spent on global implementation of Kyoto, global CO2 emissions have risen compared with when Kyoto was first signed.

Remember too that we have assumed the maximum warming that the CO2 imagines might occur in response to a given proportionate increase in CO2 concentration. Yet even the IPCC’s central estimate of CO2’s warming effect, according to an increasing number of serious papers in the peer-reviewed literature, is a five-fold exaggeration. If those papers are right, after a further decade of incomplete compliance and billions squandered, warming forestalled may prove to be just a thousandth of a degree.

Now ask yourself this. Are you, personally, and your advisers, personally, and your administration’s officials, personally, willing to make the heroically pointless sacrifices that you so insouciantly demand of others in the name of Saving The Planet For Future Generations? I beg leave to think not. At Flag 1 I have attached what I have reason to believe is a generally accurate list of the names and titles of the delegation that you led to Copenhagen to bring back the non-result whose paltriness, pointlessness and futility we have now rigorously demonstrated. There are 114 names on the list. One hundred and fourteen. Enough to fill a mid-sized passenger jet. Half a dozen were all that was really necessary – and perhaps one from each State in Australia. If you and your officials are not willing to tighten your belts when a tempting foreign junket at taxpayers’ expense is in prospect, why, pray, should the taxpayers tighten theirs?

You say that climate-change “deniers” – nasty word, that, and you should really have known better than to use it – are “small in number but too dangerous to be ignored”, and “well resourced”. In fact, governments, taxpayer-funded organizations, taxpayer-funded teachers, and taxpayer-funded environmental groups have spent something like 50,000 times as much on “global warming” propaganda as their opponents have spent on debunking this new and cruel superstition. And that is before we take account of the relentless prejudice of the majority of the mainstream news media.

How, then, it is that we, the supposed minority who will not admit that the emperor of “global warming” is adequately clad, are somehow prevailing? How is it that we are convincing more and more of the population not to place any more trust in the “global warming” theory? The answer is that the “global warming” theory is not true, and no amount of bluster or braggadocio, ranting or rodomontade will make it true.

You say that our aim, in daring to oppose the transient fashion for apocalypticism, is “to erode just enough of the political will that action becomes impossible”. No. Our aim is simply to ensure that the truth is widely enough understood to prevent the squandering of precious resources on addressing the non-problem of anthropogenic “global warming”. The correct policy response to a non-problem is to have the courage to do nothing. No interventionist likes to do nothing. Nevertheless, the do-nothing option, scientifically and economically speaking, is the right option.

You say that I and others like me base our thinking on the notion that “the cost of not acting is nothing”. Well, after a decade and a half with no statistically-significant “global warming”, and after three decades in which the mean warming rate has been well below the ever-falling predictions of the UN’s climate panel, that notion has certainly not been disproven in reality.

However, the question I address is not that but this. Is the cost of taking action many times greater than the cost of not acting? The answer to this question is Yes.

Millions are already dying of starvation in the world’s poorest nations because world food prices have doubled in two years. That abrupt, vicious doubling was caused by a sharp drop in world food production, caused in turn by suddenly taking millions of acres of land out of growing food for people who need it, so as to grow biofuels for clunkers that don’t. The scientifically-illiterate, economically-innumerate policies that you advocate – however fashionable you may conceive them to be – are killing people by the million.

You say my logic “belongs in a casino, not a science lab”. Yet it is you who are gambling with poor people’s lives, and it is you – or, rather, they – who are losing: and losing not merely their substance but their very existence. The biofuel scam is born of the idiotic notion – a notion you uncritically espouse – that increasing by less than 1/2000 this century the proportion of the Earth’s atmosphere occupied by CO2 may prove catastrophic. At a time when so many of the world’s people are already short of food, the UN’s right-to-food rapporteur, Herr Ziegler, has roundly and rightly condemned the biofuel scam as nothing less than “a crime against humanity”.

The scale of the slaughter is monstrous, with food riots (largely unreported in the Western news media, and certainly not mentioned by you in your recent speech) in a dozen regions of the Third World over the past two years. Yet this cruel, unheeded slaughter is founded upon a lie: the claim by the IPCC that it is 90% certain that most of the “global warming” since 1950 is manmade. This claim – based not on science but on a show of hands among political representatives, with China wanting a lower figure and other nations wanting a higher figure – is demonstrably, self-servingly false. Peer-reviewed analyses of changes in cloud cover over recent decades – changes almost entirely unconnected with changes in CO2 concentration – show that it was this largely-natural reduction in cloud cover from 1983-2001 and a consequent increase in the amount of short-wave and UV solar radiation reaching the Earth that accounted for five times as much warming as CO2 could have caused.

Nor is the IPCC’s great lie the only lie. If you will allow me to brief you and your advisers, I will show you lie after lie after lie after lie in the official documents of the IPCC and in the speeches of its current chairman, who has made himself a multi-millionaire as a “global warming” profiteer.

However, if you will not make the time to hear me for half an hour before you commit your working people to the futile indignity of excessive taxation and pointless over-regulation without the slightest scientific or economic justification, and to outright confiscation of their farmland without compensation on the fatuous pretext that the land is a “carbon sink”, then I hope that you will at least nominate one of the scientists on your staff to address the two central issues that I have raised in this letter: namely, the egregious cost-ineffectiveness of attempting to mitigate “global warming” by emissions reduction, and the measured fact, well demonstrated in the scientific literature, that a largely-natural change in cloud cover in recent decades caused five times as much “global warming” as CO2. It is also a measured fact that, while those of the UN’s computer models that can be forced with an increase in sea-surface temperatures all predict a consequent fall in the flux of outgoing radiation at top of atmosphere, in observed reality there is an increase. In short, the radiation that is supposed to be trapped here in the troposphere to cause “global warming” is measured as escaping to space much as usual, so that it cannot be causing more than around one-fifth of the warming the IPCC predicts.

My list of the Copenhagen junketers from Australia’s governing class is attached. All those taxpayer dollars squandered, just to forestall 0.02 C° of “global warming” in ten years. Yet, in the past decade and a half, there has been no “global warming” at all. Can you not see that it would be kinder to your working people to wait another decade and see whether global temperatures even begin to respond as the IPCC has predicted? What is the worst that can happen if you wait? Just 0.02 C° of global warming that would not otherwise have occurred. It’s a no-brainer.

Yours faithfully,

VISCOUNT MONCKTON OF BRENCHLEY

[Hillbilly F Truck]

Lord Monckton is coming to Australia for a speaking tour that will include Professor Ian Plimer.
http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/?p=2750

[Hillbilly F Truck]

Christopher, Viscount Monckton, will be in Australia for a short lecture tour between 27 January and 8 February:

Wednesday 27 - 5.30pm - Grand Ballroom, The Sheraton on The Park, Elizabeth Street, Sydney
Thursday 28 - 12.30pm - Banquette Hall, Newcastle City Hall, King Street Newcastle.
Friday 29. - 12.30pm - Grand ballroom, Hilton Hotel, Queen Street, Brisbane
Friday 29 - 3pm - Town Hall Meeting - Irish Club Brisbane
Saturday 30 - 2pm - The J at Noosa Junction
Monday 1 Feb - 12.30pm - Melbourne TBA
Tuesday 2 - 2pm - Grand Ballroom, Sofitel Hotel, Melbourne
Wednesday 3 - Canberra - Venue TBA
Thursday 4.2.10 - 2pm - Adelaide - Venue TBA
Monday 8.2.10 - 12.30pm - Parmelia Hotel, Perth

[g220ba]

I still can't us taxpayers funded 114 delegates to go to copenhagen. A lot of people had a holiday on us taxpayers. I love the way he forwarded the letter on to the press of this country. Will we see this reported as it should be, We'll just have to wait and see.

[Romulus]

Nice little entourage there. If I recall correctly Australia was one of the most over-represented countries that attended Copenhagen. #19 must have been very important - even though the world media were present. Obviously he does his job better than the others.

What an absolute waste of money, and added CO2 pollution. Imaging how many trees could have been planted with the amount spent on the junket.

[XRQTR]

If this was also sent to the Australian press why then haven't we heard anything about it until now, or is this taken from an online press publication/source??

[Romulus]

Andrew Bolt will be all over this without a doubt. I think the global warming lie is coming unstuck.

[AUbigfoot]

Originally Posted by 84ltd

I still can't us taxpayers funded 114 delegates to go to copenhagen. A lot of people had a holiday on us taxpayers. I love the way he forwarded the letter on to the press of this country. Will we see this reported as it should be, We'll just have to wait and see.

I almost fell of the couch when I heard how we funded their first class flights, high rise hotel rooms etc. Defines irony.

[cs123]

Originally Posted by XRQTR

If this was also sent to the Australian press why then haven't we heard anything about it until now, or is this taken from an online press publication/source??

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news...-1225816411782

[SpoolMan]

Currently 3 climate change threads in this area of the Forum.
Could we keep them together rather than having start a new ones.
If you like send me a PM and I will merge this post with your other thread..

[g220ba]

Personally i think that's about 114 too many.

[Bundy]

It just goes to show how serious Australia is about the threat of Climate Change and findig the perfect solution via the Extra Tax Scam.

Or thats just Ruddys way of stimulating the world economy by providing work to the Copenhagen hospitality sector??

[trippytaka]

Originally Posted by Falcon Coupe

One would think an issue this big would require a referendum.

Not sure if this is about the ETS or climate change action. Firstly, most of you know I am against an ETS, but a believer in human made climate change.

The problem with throwing open a vote about climate change is that the voting public don't have ALL the evidence in front of them and they will be swayed one way or another by the loudest and most opinionated of their friends. Increasing the problem is that the whole issue is one big Chinese whisper. The opinion leaders more often than not make up their minds after watching one program, hear one interview on the radio, or read one article in the paper that presents one point of view. This happens on both sides of the political fence.

I'd love a referendum, but to have one we'd need a solid 6 months of televised (totally unbiased) debates covering every single issue on both sides. And make viewing compulsory somehow... it's too big an issue to let it go to a vote without everyone having all the facts.

[trippytaka]

Originally Posted by MO

And one of our biggest buyers will be cutting back in about 5 to 8yrs,China.

So true. China will emerge from this way ahead of the game because of their solid development of renewable energy technologies.

Personally, I think regardless of which side of the climate debate you sit on, most people should start thinking that Australia needs more investment in the development and early implementation of these technologies.

I think regardless of whether you're a sceptic or a believer you know that the world is pretty much set to go down the path of reducing emissions in the next few years. China is stalling to get the most out of the cheap energy sources while they still can... and they will be ready to make the switch to "green" when they want to.

Interestingly, did anyone read this? Basically China giving the finger to the global delegation in the Copenhagen meetings... changing now doesn't suit China. They do stuff on their own time, not when told. They are, seemingly, the most powerful nation on Earth these days. China Article

[trippytaka]

Sorry for putting another post, for some reason I can't edit my last one.

Anyway, interesting article about China buying Volvo... interesting part is how China owns the majority of rare minerals on Earth, meaning when the carbon reduced future (sounds like a new line of cheese) is upon us, they will crank it.

ARTICLE

[SpoolMan]

2 threads have been merged.

[XRQTR]

Originally Posted by trippytaka

The problem with throwing open a vote about climate change is that the voting public don't have ALL the evidence in front of them and they will be swayed one way or another by the loudest and most opinionated of their friends.

Elementary my dear Watson.

This is what has been the biggest problem to date, one side HAS been louder than the other for far too long and the evidence which has been put to the people has made the majority fear the worst.

How then, by your own definition can you honestly believe that Climate Change is as it has been preached to us for all these years??

How can any of the evidence that has been put before us for so long, which in more recent times has been shown, time and time again, to be falsified/doctored/altered to suit the agenda of the CC experts?? When even by their own admission in the same texts they flaunt the fact that they have done this.

It's time people got the "other side" of the story, I get it you're family have many friends in the field, raddah raddah, but isn't a conspiracy best spread by the innocent and not by the learned?? Later followed up with the "evidence" to prove what people have "known" for quite some time.

Like you said, Chinese whispers. :

[trippytaka]

Originally Posted by XRQTR

Elementary my dear Watson.

This is what has been the biggest problem to date, one side HAS been louder than the other for far too long and the evidence which has been put to the people has made the majority fear the worst.

How then, by your own definition can you honestly believe that Climate Change is as it has been preached to us for all these years??

How can any of the evidence that has been put before us for so long, which in more recent times has been shown, time and time again, to be falsified/doctored/altered to suit the agenda of the CC experts?? When even by their own admission in the same texts they flaunt the fact that they have done this.

It's time people got the "other side" of the story, I get it you're family have many friends in the field, raddah raddah, but isn't a conspiracy best spread by the innocent and not by the learned?? Later followed up with the "evidence" to prove what people have "known" for quite some time.

Like you said, Chinese whispers. :

I'm 100% happy to open it up to proper debate and wish it would be... it's the only way to bury debate once and for all.

[durtyharry]

Originally Posted by trippytaka

Not sure if this is about the ETS or climate change action. Firstly, most of you know I am against an ETS, but a believer in human made climate change.

The problem with throwing open a vote about climate change is that the voting public don't have ALL the evidence in front of them and they will be swayed one way or another by the loudest and most opinionated of their friends. Increasing the problem is that the whole issue is one big Chinese whisper. The opinion leaders more often than not make up their minds after watching one program, hear one interview on the radio, or read one article in the paper that presents one point of view. This happens on both sides of the political fence.

I'd love a referendum, but to have one we'd need a solid 6 months of televised (totally unbiased) debates covering every single issue on both sides. And make viewing compulsory somehow... it's too big an issue to let it go to a vote without everyone having all the facts.

Well put, referendums are for things like republic or commonwealth, lyrics for the national song; things that are opinion based. Opinions on climate change are worth zilch, only facts count.

[Falcon Coupe]

Originally Posted by Falcon Coupe

One would think an issue this big would require a referendum.

Originally Posted by trippytaka

Not sure if this is about the ETS or climate change action.

Neither, my comment was directed towards the OP's link showing a possible World Government.

[trippytaka]

Originally Posted by Falcon Coupe

Neither, my comment was directed towards the OP's link showing a possible World Government.

Fair enough... World Government. I wonder if that would be as toothless a tiger as the UN. Imagine the corruption!

[MO]

Originally Posted by trippytaka

Fair enough... World Government. I wonder if that would be as toothless a tiger as the UN. Imagine the corruption!

Probably not because Australia just like America and the UK would no longer be sovereign states .
How it would all work I'm not sure but I'm looking at it.
As it is most of Britains law now comes out of Belguim under the guise of Trade in the E.U.

[trippytaka]

Just on the China comment before, did anyone see that China is now planning (more openly) what they are going to do with the mineral reserves in Antarctica? Another red flag as to why they want to hold off on any global warming discussions with the rest of the world... it's disgusting to even consider mining such a vulnerable part of the world!

CHINA ARTIC LE

[cob115]

Originally Posted by trippytaka

Just on the China comment before, did anyone see that China is now planning (more openly) what they are going to do with the mineral reserves in Antarctica? Another red flag as to why they want to hold off on any global warming discussions with the rest of the world... it's disgusting to even consider mining such a vulnerable part of the world!

CHINA ARTIC LE

i cant belive the Labor party/movment wanted this ,its outrageous,,talk about wanting to destroy our country,yet Wong Rudd etc n all the other state idiots are still pushing it :

[Hillbilly F Truck]

This thread is no longer particular to just Copenhagen, but rather many climate change topics, as the Mods don't want a thousand threads floating around on one basic topic. This is completely understandable.

This newslink I am posting here is just one of the many reversals in theories the IPCC have made over the years. My point here is show that the science is not "settled" as they so often claim, and to further prove that open debate is needed before decisions are made. And to the people who blindly follow what they are being told by the television. Interestingly enough, China, India and the U.S refused to participate in any signing of treaties in Copenhagen. The U.S stating it won't until China and India commit.

Imagine if Turnbull and the Liberals (of which I am no fan either) had allowed Rudd to go to Copenhagen with a signed legally binding agreement that would cripple our country, only to find out we were the only ones on board?
Anyway the link;
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news...-1225822334349

THE UN's top climate change body has issued an unprecedented apology over its flawed prediction that Himalayan glaciers were likely to disappear by 2035. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said yesterday the prediction in its landmark 2007 report was "poorly substantiated" and resulted from a lapse in standards. "In drafting the paragraph in question, the clear and well-established standards of evidence, required by the IPCC procedures, were not applied properly," the panel said. "The chair, vice-chair and co-chairs of the IPCC regret the poor application of IPCC procedures in this instance." The stunning admission is certain to embolden critics of the panel, which is already under fire over a separate scandal last year involving stolen emails that mentioned suppressing data to freeze out climate change sceptics.

[cob115]

i was at one of Rudds ****ey community meetings wensday,he ,wong ARE still beating on the man made global warmiong can : he clamed the river murray was in its current state not due to over allication/poor management ,BUT CLIMATE CHANGE, god dam ************** : at least we have a new leader in the libs that also thinks its a load of left wing crap &will try to stop Rudds plans

[durtyharry]

Originally Posted by Hillbilly F Truck

This newslink I am posting here is just one of the many reversals in theories the IPCC have made over the years.

Reversal of theory? they now say the Himalayan glaciers are getting bigger due to warming?
Many reversals of theories?, please tell!

Originally Posted by Hillbilly F Truck

My point here is show that the science is not "settled" as they so often claim, and to further prove that open debate is needed before decisions are made.

No the science will never be "settled", they/we can never predict exactly how much the earth will heat by the end of next year etc, what they are certain of is over time it will get warmer and what is causing it, hardly a reason to sit on your hands and pretend nothing is happening.

Open debate?, there is already open debate amongst scientists about the extent of the effects, that's how science works. Debating with denialists with limited understanding of the science who only want to put agw to bed is a waste of thinking people's time

Originally Posted by Hillbilly F Truck

And to the people who blindly follow what they are being told by the television.

Really? The denialist machine has got inside the heads of many people by somehow pandering to their egos and insisting they are too smart to fall for the government propaganda?

No,agw its not something that was invented by government to collect more tax,ffs, it was scientists begging governments to take their evidence seriously. For years in western countries, including ours, governments rejected the advice of the scientists. Fortunately it has turned full circle and governments are looking at taking the necessary action for the long term benefit of their constituents.