Australia is coming dead last among the OECD countries for its pathetic performance in CO2 mitigation.

Here's a small sample why:

1. In 2006, the NSW Government presented the operators of a coal-fired power station, Delta Electricity, with a "green globe" award for water recycling at a gala event at Parliament House, hosted by the former energy minister Joe Tripodi.

Well at least the law was enforced when red-faced recipient, Delta had to pay a pollutant fee of $397,000 for releasing 6500 tonnes of salt into the water the following year. Looking good huh and a sure way to gag the "alarmists."

Last year, independent tests on the water discharged by Delta Electricity found high levels of heavy metals.

Yet the company is not required to measure many of the toxic substances identified, and no limits are imposed on many of the metals. Well you know - the economy and all that stuff!

2. The Federal Government's national pollutant inventory names chromium VI as the second most hazardous substance on its list of 400 pollutants. Reports reveal that the Camellia peninsula, located near Rosehill Racecourse in NSW is contaminated with Cr VI and is one of the most polluted places in the state. Five companies are scrambling to clean up toxic waste on their sites. Surprise, surprise!

3. The Swan, Canning and Helena Rivers in WA are contaminated with carcinogenic fossil fuel chemicals including polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons; total petroleum hydrocarbons; polychlorinated biphenyls; organochlorine pesticides; organophosphorus pesticides, herbicides; anionic surfactants and heavy metals. Corporate polluters continue dumping hazards into the rivers and mass mortalities of fish and river dolphins continue - yay - more bludging off the environment by our "big" Australians!

4. Last year, thousands of two-headed fish larvae turned up in the Noosa River in Queensland. None survived. Investigations allegedly identified the pesticide endosulfan and the fungicide carbendazim as responsible for the mortalities.

Ambient air and the troposphere? Gulp!

Polluters rule so polluters don't pay! All that water and not a drop to drink (if you’re prudent!) A “carbon agenda?” You bet - always was, always will be!

Imagine that the Age had a report saying "Australia has around
16,000 cases new of rectil cancer annually with about half being due to red meat consumpshion.". I'm guessing a large group
of people would immediately email/write the paper about the
poor spelling and grammar. They would be outraged about slipping
standards but wouldn't notice the bigger mistakes in the
story. Another group would complain that red meat can't
possibly cause cancer of any kind. They would be really
angry also ... and wrong.

A couple of people would realise that the figure is about 4000
too high, but they probably wouldn't write about it, the same
people would probably also realise that 12000 would
include all bowel cancer not just rectal cancer.

My point is that there are mistakes and MISTAKES and many
errors have little bearing on the substance of a report.

In my view, the IPCC AR4 mistakes have been in the
realm of minor and/or embarrassing
inconsistencies, certainly nothing which throws the slightest
doubt on the reality of seriousness of AGW. Considering
the size of the report(s), the level of accuracy has been
astonishing ... too good to be true in fact, and I'll bet
there are many, many errors remaining to be found.

I'm guessing the reason they haven't been found is that
very few people except experts tend
to read things like AR4. And certainly many experts
will think twice about pointing out any errors other than serious
matters of substance given the dishonest way in which climate change deniers have seized on such problems.
This leaves error spotting to the deniers, which is probably
why so few have been found ...

Compare, for example the errors in Ian Plimer's "Heaven and
Earth", Ian Enting's critique is up
to 54 pages, with many of the errors being
matters of substance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_G._Enting).

Plimer was of course at a disadvantage. The pool of potential
knowledgeable proof readers would have been tiny.

Back into the fray –

Amicus, Friday, 2 April 2010 3:05:34 a.m.

No, it is not my opinion that right-wing think-tanks “must be wrong”. However and in consideration of much information, these neo-conservative and libertarian groups are diametrically opposed to proactive policies and strategies in tackling the issues of ‘climate change’ (whereas left-wing think-tanks generally don't). Indeed, some think-tanks go so far as to actually ‘deny’ human activity can significantly affect climate and most actively promote and lobby against taking any action in reducing our dependence on fossil fuels - hence the term ‘deny-n-delay brigade’.

I think anybody agrees political ideology (left and right) has muddied the waters; that’s why I prefer to take notice of those bodies not so politically aligned (including CSIRO and BOM btw) ... groups like:

http://www-pcmdi.llnl.gov/links/links.php#

But let’s be clear, there is nothing wrong with either the ‘right’ or the ‘left’ adopting more environmentally sustainable policies. It’s just a pity we can’t get bi-partisanship on this issue. It’s also just a pity that Mr Abbott stated he has adopted the strategy of opposing for the sake of being in opposition.

I would agree that wishy-washy compromises (be they in the form of an ETS or cap-n-trade) are ineffectual – I agree with Rapscallion on this, a carbon tax is more effectual. I also agree that ‘off-sets’ are ludicrous. I would further agree that it is ludicrous to ‘reward’ King Coal with subsidies to R&D a pipe-dream - ‘clean coal’ (CC&S). But that is the power of the ‘deny-n-delay brigade’. Am I confident that we can change things? No, but that shouldn’t stop us from trying.

As to the science, I can only suggest you investigate more. For me, I work in and study the stuff ... I only wish it weren’t true.

There is no scientific basis for the assertion of Anthropogenic global warming.

kwonder has been asked repeatedly to give a scientific basis for the assertion of AGW, and fails to do so because the whole edifice stands on the assertion, by the IPCC, that it is “very likely”. An unscientific basis, but the best that the IPCC can do.

It has been shown that the warming is all accounted from natural sources. kwonder replied to this by sliming the competent, honest scientist, Robert Carter, who participated in the study, and pointed out that there was now absolutely no basis for the assertion of any place for human emissions as a cause for global warming.

A counter study was rushed through, carried out by the Hadley miscreants. This did not stand for long, but the paper which nullified it was stalled by the same publisher which expedited the Hadley paper.

During that time kwonder crowed that the study which showed that natural sources accounted for all global warming had been discounted. Even if it had, there was still no scientific basis for AGW

If kwonder studies in science, as he says, he would have been able to see that the paper by the discredited miscreants was of no substance, and simply more of the attempt to back the AGW fraud.

Geoff Russell’s meandering nonsense gives us a clue as to his disposition, especially his statement about mistakes in the AR4 being few. It is the IPCC Summary which contains the mistakes, and demonstrates that it is not based on the science. There is no assertion in AR4 that human emissions play any part in global warming.

The assertion that it is “very likely” is in the Summary, where all the other IPCC misrepresentations occur.

To refer us to an entry in Wikipedia for a criticism of Plimer’s scholarly work, is an insult to one’s intelligence, as is the rambling nonsense which comprises Enting’s “criticism” of Plimer, which Wikipedia has the temerity to carry.

Backers of the AGW fraud continually cite Wikipedia, and the politicised CSIRO, BoM, and the Hansen manipulated NASA.

Hummph

Nick ... I (and others) have tried - but it is not possible to communicate with someone who shuts their eyes tight while clasping their ears, chanting the same old same old.

One question - have you actually read any of the papers cited in AR4?

qanda, you do describe your self perfectly, in your above post.

I would not be quite so harsh, myself, but you do deserve it.

When are you lot going to realise the jig's up, & it time to find a new rip off.