The arguments for AGW policy action have been conclusively exploded so many times that I swear we could raise the money for such policies by charging the warmists $1 every time they re-run these refuted arguments.

Even if there were no issue as to the climate science, science does not supply value judgments, whereas policy requires them. Strike one.

The valid argument that doing nothing will have environmental and economic costs applies equally to doing something. Since policy advocates are completely unable able to show that any given policy action would result in net benefits, rather than net costs for human society as a whole, therefore: Strike two.

(If it’s true that the resources can be provided “free” then the solution is for all those in favour of such measures to provide the capital at no cost to themselves or anyone else. What could be fairer than that? It’s a fantasy. But if it’s true, it requires no policy response.)

Policy advocates ignore the ethical dimension. People are already going hungry and sick and poor. Forcibly diverting capital on a massive scale from productive to loss-making activities directly implicates those doing it in causing the deaths and sickness of other people, whether they understand so or not. Strike Three.

In reality however, there *are* issues about the climate science. 89 percent of the weather stations don’t comply with their own minimum standards of accuracy! Strike Four.

The data, by themselves, are just reams and reams of temperature measurements. To understand them requires interpretation, which requires judgment. Governments have paid billions to thousands of scientists to find global warming, and they have done so. It’s not a "conspiracy". Rather, all over the world, acting independently, in thousands of little decisions, these publicly-funded 'scientists' have ‘adjusted’ (manipulated) the data trends unidirectionally *up*. The value judgments to do that are *not* supplied by the science. They are supplied by the scientists’ personal interests in grants, conferences, status, and perhaps a bit of pious fretting. If all the manipulations *up* were replaced with manipulations *down*, they would show global cooling. Strike Five.

REgarding "Climate Change" just follllow the money and the connections!

It's not that hard. What I found most refreshing in the article is the GOLDMAN SACHS connections with Turnbull...

It seems every character 'SCREAMING' out for 'fight climate change' is somehow connected to GOLDMAN SACHS or.. some similar networked body.

GORE Chaiman-> GENERATION INVESTMENTS CEO= David Blood..also a GOLDMAN SACHS operative in his former life.

Even Landis and Gyrr CEO Cameron Orielly is ex Goldman Sachs and L&G make SMART meters......

There is a network of business people.. investment bankers.. who are networked into a HUGE MORAL ISSUE of our time..i.e.Climate Change the SCAM of the century.

Finding SOROS mentioned also re-inforces this...

Don't forget mr UN Environment "Maurice Strong" and the Chicago Climate Exchange connection (He is a director)

Or BOB CARR who positioned himself with mouth/pockets wide open as CEO of ENVEX a carbon trading company in Sydney (affiliated with CCX)

A good article.. fills in some of the blanks.

Curmudgeon depreciation is the book-keeping name for repayments. That is the main cost of renewables. Please do the calculations yourself. Don't just take costs from articles without seeing exactly how they are derived.

Networks do not have to be remade to accommodate wind and there is no need to add in additional generator reserves. Wind generation can be easily accommodated in our existing network while the level is below 20% of total output.

Renewable energy does not have to be subsidised if we use interest free credit to fund them. You ask where does the money come from to pay for the energy? The answer - like all investments - is that it comes from the profits generated by the investment.

Our current financial system creates most new money through the monetization of assets. When we monetize an asset we should charge interest on the money because the money created represents an existing asset.

However, we do not have to use savings or money from existing assets or from taxation to fund new assets. We can fund new assets through interest free credit repaid from the earnings of future assets. This will favour some assets over others but that is a different argument. The fact is that interest free credit makes renewables profitable at today's prices and there are sound economic reasons for moving down this path - not the least is that it will stabilise energy prices at current levels or less.

Did you know that 40% of profits in the Australian Economy go to financial organisations which do not produce anything. Getting rid of interest on some funding of new assets will move some of the finance profits to those who produce goods and services.

Fickle Pickle
That is just nonsense. If it's true, then why don't you and everyone else who agrees with you, fund it yourselves? If it's true, there's no need for policy action, because it can be funded by the profits on the machines of perpetual motion.

It would only be true that financing adds "nothing" to the project if no-one had to undertake the risk or delay. But all action is uncertain, and everyone prefers results sooner rather than later. Therefore these functions are valuable.

That's why you, and everyone who agrees with you, are not offering to fund it voluntarily, isn't it? That's why you're trying to force everyone who doesn't agree with you to fund it under compulsion, isn't it?

By the way, I notice you have simply evaded the five points I raised which show that the entire thing is baseless.

A conservative historian takes on modern science...and thinks he knows better.
Frankly James, I'll take the opinion of the 97% of publicly funded professional scientist's over your view.
There are *not* "Many thousands of high profile scientists" who disagree. First, are they climatologists? Having a PHD in *something* does not entitle one to a professional opinion. "Many Thousands" is pure hype and not even remotely credible.
Feeding the poor is a laudable aim, but distributed power systems that extract the ambient energy are much more likely to be of assistance than traditional centralised systems that involve worldwide transport! Pardon me for being sceptical when Big Oil and conservatives say Green energy investment should be spent on the poor! Like, when were they ever a priority to you?
As for the feasibility of renewables...until fossil fuels are not taxpayer subsidised we cannot compare apples with apples. They get tax breaks for exploration, extraction, transport and distribution. Being vertically integrated, most fossil fuels are now competition free zones where profits can be moved within the industry stack to where taxation is minimised and profits maximised. Except for the odd country like Norway, a large portion of the worlds economic activity is being channelled to very few...who are encouraging anti-GW articles and memes like this one.
I laugh when folks believe there is a world-wide science conspiracy, yet they ignore the blatant efforts of industry to avoid accountability. I do agree that politicians are abusing the situation...science and politics are a *bad* combination.

Peter,

I am in the process of working on the details for such a system with a major Australian Organisation. So yes we will be doing it and yes it does require no policy response. It can and will be done without the need to involve government policy - but it is easier and more effective if governments are involved.

With respect to your points nowhere have I said that funds add nothing to a project. What I have said that we not need to pay interest on credit that is used to fund new assets. Indeed that is what happens with equity investing. We do not pay interest to investors as well as pay dividends. Credit repaid from future earnings is true investing and charging interest on credit is unnecessary and unjustified.

Risk on renewables is close to zero for many existing well proven technologies and there is no reason to factor in a cost of risk - or if we feel the need it is very low cost and can be achieved with a one time insurance rather than an ongoing interest fee.

Without interest charges renewable systems are profitable so your comments about directing investment elsewhere is not relevant. Energy is a crucial input to prevent hunger and sickness - not money per se. The ethics of charging people for credit to build energy infrastructure is something I would very much like to explore.

I have not said anything on whether climate change is caused by human activity so I will ignore points four and five.

Unfortunately few people understand the nature of money. We think it has to always be interesting bearing but there are many situations where it is unnecessary and inappropriate for us to charge interest on money.