The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Poor want climate policies that work > Comments

Poor want climate policies that work : Comments

By Max Rheese, published 23/2/2012

Rudd confident says that climate policy parameters cannot choose 'saving the planet' over economic progress.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. All
Some figures:

1 In Australia between now and 2015 $13.2 billion will be given to sustainable energy projects; at the same time the feed-in tarrif solar panel scheme in NSW will cost $1.75 billion; other ‘energy’ schemes like Flannery’s Geodynamics have cost $100's of millions. None will produce any energy; you might as well put the money in Al Gore's wine cellar.

2 Also in Australia government 'climate' bureacracies, at all levels of government, are costing ’100′s of millions to run.

3 World wide it is nose bleed time. The Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) is an organisation which promotes AGW and controls over CO2 emissions. The CDP represents 655 institutional investors, with a combined $78 trillion under management.

4 Superannuation fund support of AGW is gigantic. The UNEP FI, a large Super fund with strong associations with the IPCC has funds worth $15 trillion under its control. Likewise the The Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (IIGCC) is strongly involved in promoting and investing in pro-AGW projects and has $7.5 trillion under its control.

5 Back in Australia the head of CSIRO is Megan Clarke, formerly of Rothschilds Bank, who runs, in a private capacity, sustainability projects. Between them the pro-AGW CSIRO and BOM cost $1 billion to run. Then there is Purves, Wootton and Woods dishing out millions to the cause. And what about government grants to the pro-AGW scientists; nearly $400 million.

What the poor should get is some of the money currently being wasted on 'solving' the non-existent problem of AGW.
Posted by cohenite, Saturday, 25 February 2012 1:27:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"non-existent problem of AGW"

On the other hand:

http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2012/02/22/response-to-wall-street-journal-16/
Posted by bonmot, Saturday, 25 February 2012 3:15:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
That's amusing bonny; the same link was put up at Jennifer Marohasy's as though it meant something; I replied there:

Comment from: coheniteFebruary 25th, 2012 at 11:59 am

luke links to Bickmore at Real Climate who claims to “take apart” the arguments of the recent anti-AGW letters. Geez, it’s crap, even by RC’s usual head up the kyber and whistle dixie standards.

I especially like Bickmore’s centrepiece graph which he uses to prove the models do well next to observations; it’s got an ensemble range greater than the whole temperature increase which means some models at the beginning of the temperature period are showing a higher temperature level than what other models are showing at the end of the period.

No doubt luke will say it is the ensemble mean which counts and the 95% certainty attached to that mean; but again, that is nonsense; a model may have multiple runs and be observationally consistent with just one; that is why weighting occurs; but we don’t know how the graph was compiled and what weightings were used, whether it was the best run of each model or the mean of each model which was then used to compile the ensemble mean.

The point of this is that models can fluke the right correlation with the data but that mostly they don’t as the spread shows and that applies to individual models as well as ensembles.
Posted by cohenite, Saturday, 25 February 2012 3:35:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Geez it's crap" Anthony?

You sound like Tony Abbott who gets his "science" from media shock-jocks or anti-global warming blogs sites.
Posted by bonmot, Saturday, 25 February 2012 3:59:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lets not say non existent climate change.
Get your information from one site NASA. They are real scientist's, with the gear to measure and see.
Get on solar and save a fortune.
Posted by 579, Saturday, 25 February 2012 3:59:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Having read Charlton’s essay, I believe Max’s summary here covers the issues well. I can only hope that Bob Brown has also read the essay – but I seriously doubt it. I suspect if he had he would have dismissed it out of hand as right wing nonsense. As to getting the current government with it’s outright ban on anything nuclear (even very safe submarines) to adopt Charlton’s new paradigm – I wouldn’t hold my breath.
Posted by Martin N, Saturday, 25 February 2012 4:03:10 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy