This whole thing is about Global Climate Taxes, a cornerstone of the New World Order together with the UN Migration Compact.

Put em both together and what's the bigger picture?

Global taxes are just another small step for Globalism.
Citizens of the world are already paying global taxes;
- Their governments make the payments in the form of foreign aid -

http://www.climatedepot.com/2018/12/03/un-climate-chief-has-solution-to-urgent-climate-threat-we-require-deep-transformations-of-our-economies-and-societies/

I don't know, but I have a feeling that the global warming premise is
slowly starting to fall apart. It has been top of the pops for the last
thirty years or so and nothing has changed.
More people seem to have doubts if not disbelief.
Those that speak out with some authority against global warming seem
to be becoming more prestigious in the field.

Ian Plimer's assertion that of every 84,000 co2 molecules in the air
one of them has been generated by mankind. (females just relax).
Do we believe that that extra molecule will burn up the planet ?

That was just one more argument out of many that makes me wonder.

The 'we love coal' display could be a sign the inmates have taken over the asylum. The attendees no doubt flew to Poland in kerosene burners perhaps thinking we'll each burn less fossil fuel to cover for them. Or perhaps the sacrifice is for others to make.

I wonder how much coal will be burned today if Melbourne hits 42C and aircons are on max. Funny how the heat keeps coming back.

Climate change might still be addressed, without cooking the kids, if we accept and exclusively use carbon-free power.

If it has to be coal-fired then it needs to be done very differently to how we do it now. With high-pressure boilers and steam driven turbines. And then push the power generated down miles and miles of transmission lines, where around 11% is lost.

Then staged down to user-friendly voltages and through virtually millions of miles of wires, where distribution losses could average out at around 64%.

And in total from the power plant to your meter box, a staggering 75% loss that you still pay for, in often eye watering bills.

A different way that entirely eliminates those losses is. First cook the coal utilising flameless heat, Solar thermal? Scrub the gas to further purify the extracted methane. Push down a national pipeline gas grid. Where individual users might chose to store this lighter than air gas in insulated ceiling spaces or basements in bladders, and providers might also choose to compress and store it in hardened underground facilities.

Methane acts with steel as a reductant. so given modest service tunnels that may have multiple service delivery uses, Regularly mantained pipes could serve for several centuries, be safe from fire storms, tempest and flood. And free from brownouts and blackouts. in any of those events!

Ceramic fuel cells would then convert this gas to electricity on demand 24/7 And eliminate the transmissin losses and provide power via a system which in combination has an80% energy coificient. And four times better than current coalfired power at 20%. The saving in both routine mantainence, transmission, and energy efficientcy. Could get power prices as low as 3 cents Per KwH. Just needs economy of scale.
Alan B.

It is only fitting that OLO is becomming a personal blog for Binoy von Kampmark http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/author.asp?id=715

Today OLO! Tomorrow zee Welt?

Naturally I support the Polish coal industry and as sea levels rise with global warming

offer to buy Double Bay, Brighton [1] and Byron Bay real estate for low-low prices.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brighton,_Victoria

Footnote:
Methane-consuming ceramic fuel cells use a chemical conversion process, not combustion. And as a consequence, the exhaust product is mostly pristine water.

Read recently where large solar thermal facility in the California Desert and built by private interests utilising economies of scale, were able to more than match coal for construction costs and power prices. Given adjacent gas backup and thermal heat retention in giant vacuum towers as dissolved salt.

The gas backup here would come from the coal cooking facility. Moreover, all the real costs would be almost exclusively upfront at today's prices.

And given designed longevity. The profit life three times as long as cost recovery and as inflation reduces the original cost burden.

Meaning only political intransigence prevents such projects being done on the public purse, off-budget and socializing the profits!
Alan B.

Yes Bazz, the planet is entering a cooling phase, & the warmest conmen are getting desperate. They have to get some restrictions on the population before their entire scam goes up in smoke, rather than the planet.

Binoy is of course an academic. We all know that academia has benefited highly from research grant money, so hugely that they have no idea of how they will replace that funding, when the global warming bubble bursts. That desperation is becoming more obvious as time passes, & none of their cataclysms come to pass.

Last year the frosts were so bad we lost natives, indigenous to this area. We will probably be opening sky resorts on that white stuff they said would never fall again.

Good to see another effort by the climate fraud promoters heading for well deserved failure.
They have no science to show any measurable effect of human emissions on climate, but that makes no difference to the assertion of their lies.

Robert Carter, a world renowned climate scientist, sadly no longer with us, explained the science as follows: “However, our most accurate depiction of atmospheric temperature over the past 25 years comes from satellite measurements (see graph below) rather than from the ground thermometer record. Once the effects of non-greenhouse warming (the El Niño phenomenon in the Pacific, for instance) and cooling (volcanic eruptions) events are discounted, these measurements indicate an absence of significant global warming since 1979 - that is, over the very period that human carbon dioxide emissions have been increasing rapidly. The satellite data signal not only the absence of substantial human-induced warming, by recording similar temperatures in 1980 and 2006, but also provide an empirical test of the greenhouse hypothesis as understood by the public - a test that the hypothesis fails."
Bob Carter http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=ZUVPX02KD1UHZQFIQMGCFFOAVCBQUIV0?xml=/news/2007/04/08/nrclimate08.xml&page=2

I am pleased and vindicated to see that the usual suspects are no-where to be seen when it comes to debunking or pushing back on CC.
I am not worldly, although I have stepped on most of the 'world', but I am also not without some awareness of my surroundings.
Now simply because I cannot give an arousing account of CC does not lessen my 'feel' for the topic.
I have always refused to accept or believe the CC mantra, and always 'felt' that it did not seem logical or even possible, if based only on what man has done over the last 100 or so years.
I never accepted, what I consider as 'alarmist' statements which will see oceans rise by tens of metres (in fact up to 70 metres) world wide.
The physics do not add up, what little research I have done, yet the 'expert' would have us believe that we will be inundated in water.
I'd like to know where this water is coming from because to raise the oceans volume by as much as 70meteres, with the amount of ice, snow and clouds we have on this planet currently, sorry can't see it.
Now if we are going to import ice or water from another planet, then I will sit up and listen.
Until then, not withstanding the land masses of the earth that are already sinking, and there are a few, I will not accept the water rising fable.
I have a feeling it may rise by a few inches 2 or 3 at most.
Big deal, I can say that because it is nothing compared to the extraordinarily outrageous predictions of 60 or 70 metres.

ALTRAV,
The water for a 70m sea level rise would come from the ice in Greenland and Antarctica melting. Hypothetically if it all melted, that really is how much it would raise sea levels by.

The climate scientists knew by the early '90s that such melting, if it occurred, would take centuries. Meanwhile, although meltwater from Greenland and Antarctica would increase, most of the rise in sea level would just be from thermal expansion of the oceans. But the media weren't so interested in the truth - they seem to prefer catastrophe or nothing!

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Leo Lane,

A broken link to a 2007 newspaper report? Really?

Back then it was easy to fool people without a good understanding of statistics. But the evidence since then makes it hard for you to fool anyone but yourself.

And try to learn the difference between renown and notoriety!

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Bazz,
Despite Plimer's deliberately misleading assertions, human actions have increased atmospheric CO2 levels by more than a third.

Bazz, I'm sorry but I don't see it, I can't see it.
Come on think about it, it just is NOT possible.
I get angry when people lie to me and keep promoting the lie.
One of the reasons I can't agree with all this that the amount of emissions through burning fossil fuels, compared to the volume of air and along with the fact that the emissions are all localised.
Such as big cities, or industrial areas.
Now the heavy stuff once it's cooled down comes back to earth and goes back to join its other carbon based mates in the ground.
The other lighter than air stuff is also so diluted by the ratio of it to the air or atmosphere that I consider it negligible.
I have lived in LA, and KL and both are bad for pollution on some evenings, but come the morning they are as fresh as a new day.
No pollution.
Because KL is part of the Klang valley system between KL and port Klang it is rare to get any wind except overnight.
So CO2 accumulates in the valley, then overnight that which has not gone to ground is disbursed into the atmosphere with no residual evidence of ever having been there in the first place.

meanwhile at least 11 people have died in Europe due to huge snow storms and cold. Something the warmist predicted would not happen not to long back. Almost all facts make warmist look so ignorant.

"Despite Plimer's deliberately misleading assertions, human actions have increased atmospheric CO2 levels by more than a third."

How come were not all gasping for air then... Lol

runner,
That's a strawman. The climate scientists never predicted Europe would cease to experience snowstorms and cold. Some predicted those would get less frequent, but there wasn't a firm consensus on this – there are good reasons why the opposite could occur. Europe's weather is highly dependent on Atlantic ocean currents. Global warming could disrupt those (and has on at least one occasion) bringing more cold weather to Europe. And because global warming results in more water vapour in the air, when snow falls there's likely to be more of it.

Armchair,
>How come were not all gasping for air then... Lol
Because there has not been a significant decline in atmospheric oxygen levels. Nor are atmospheric CO2 levels anywhere near high enough to cause toxicity problems.

Why do you find it funny?

_____________________________________________________________________________________

ALTRAV,
What exactly is it that you think is not possible and why?

Unlike some other combustion products, local CO2 levels are not usually a problem at all in outdoor situations (and the few exceptions I can think of were not caused by humans). However because humans have released so much of it into the air, the global levels are affecting the climate.

Aidan, I realise I have NO chemical or climate experience, and I cannot give you a credible scientific answer.
It is not therefore the kind of answer deserving of your questions and expectations.
I am found wanting, when all I can say or offer is a 'feeling'.
A feeling based on following the opinions and information forever being released on the topic.
I find it impossible that such things as the oceans rising by 60 or 70 metres is possible.
Just a glance at the size of the oceans, from a two dimensional aspect, leaves me in dis-belief that the third dimension could ever be so high, when the source of all this moisture is not evident in the quantity suggested.
I clearly remember some forty odd years ago, a young friend, my age and much more intelligent than myself, showed me a topographical map of Perth and surrounding area.
He was especially interested in the escarpment, because he said by the time we reach 2000, Perth will be amongst the new reclamation of the coast as it was in the past, as signified by 'the string of diamonds', or was it pearls.
The random line of inland lakes running North and South approx 5 to 10 km inland from the coast, which was once 'The Coast'.
I found it both sad and bewildering that this guy, as intelligent as he was bought a block of land in the hills, specifically to build his house on as his answer to mitigate the future rise in sea levels.
As we can see it never happened, and as far as my gut is concerned, it never will.
If there will be any rise in the ocean levels, it will be negligible and I would like to think that it will NOT be the catastrophe that we are being told it will be.

Aiden your post demonstrates exactly how weak and pathetic the warmist changing narrative is. Facts mean nothing to you.

those who keep waffling on about doing "something" to combat Climate change are in fact those who don't do anything about it themselves.
Ether very stupid or highly hypocritical. my guess is both !

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-6579515/Scientists-warn-Earths-magnetic-North-Pole-begun-moving-erratically-speeds-50km-year.html?ito=social-facebook

Have a look at this.

I saw an article that said the poles are getting ready to flip.
Don't hold your breath though, might take a couple of hundred years.
And take a 100 years to do it.

ALTRAV,
The ice sheets are very thick. If they all melted, it really would be enough to cause a 60 or 70m sea level rise. So if that's the source of your disbelief then you're on shaky ground and iI suggest you learn more about how much ice is out there.

However, if the source of your disbelief is that you don't think it could all melt, you MAY be right. Antarctica is very cold; cold enough, it would seem, to keep the ice solid. But there are complications – we now know there are rivers below the East Antarctica Ice Sheet. AIUI they exist partly because ice has a lower melting point at high pressure, and partly because of heating from the rocks below. And ice with water below it is far more mobile than ice on dry rock. At the moment we still don't know to what extent climate change could threaten the EAIS; it could well be negligible but it may not be. However what oceanographers have known since the early 1990s is that if deglaciation occurs, it will be a very slow process, taking centuries.

Although you won't have to worry about 60m sea level rises, your gut feeling is also wrong - unless there's tremendous action on greenhouse gases, sea level rise will NOT be negligible. There's already a lot of extra heat going into the oceans, which is causing the water in them to expand, and even a 1m sea level rise will have huge consequences. And there's also the two smaller ice sheets to consider - Greenland's already slushy in summer, and West Antarctica's ice is moving faster now that the ice shelves (floating on the sea) which held it back are gone. The main threat is not the big sea level rise from complete collapse, but the continuous rise from the ice sheets losing more H2O than they gain.

We'd all like to think that climate change will not be a catastrophe. But it really depends on action, not wishful thinking.

Aidan, I am reminded of a feature done some years ago.
It was part of something else, but what they demonstrated basically, was that one cubic metre of snow produced a fraction of water, certainly no-where near a cubic metres worth.
On a much smaller scale the ice was shown to expand as it freezes and contract when melted.
Not suggesting it would all make that much difference, but neither can I accept notions of 60-70 metre rises in ocean levels.

ALTRAV,
Snow is indeed low density, as it has lots of air in it. But apply pressure and it gets compacted; the air gets squeezed out. Compact it enough and you're left with ice - a few little air bubbles remain, but overall a cubic metre contains about 900kg of H2O (whereas a cubic metre of fresh water would be about 1000kg).

Predictions of 60m sea level rises in our lifetimes are wrong, and we've known them to be wrong for over a quarter of a century. But it's NOT because there isn't enough H2O on this planet. There is, no matter how much trouble you have comprehending it.

While we are on the subject;
Craig Kelly MHR said on TV that the government 26% or the Labour's 45%
reduction on CO2 has to apply to agriculture and transport as well.
That so far it has only been considered with electricity generation.
Does it really mean that cattle herds have to be reduced by 45% and
sheep herds by 45% also ?
If so we could eat our way through those numbers.
The farmers will have to cut their diesel machine use by 45% also.
However that still leaves people. Do we have to cull the people stocks
by 45% or 26% if Labour loses the election ?
A thought, the animal rights people will claim it is discrimination
if we do not apply it to the human herd as well !

Bazz,
No, the objective is not to do less, but to do things in a more environmentally friendly way. For instance, cows don't produce as much methane (a far more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2) if they're fed marc. And vegetation can be used to reduce atmospheric CO2 - the carbon can then be stored in the soil, or in wood products, or used as fuel instead of fossil fuels.

Yes Aiden and that is why satellites show the earth greening because of more co2 ?