Jul 25 2008
Morgan: 55-45
Morgan has released another poll just five days after the last, from a face-to-face survey of 1067 voters conducted last weekend. The agency’s figures had previously been holding out in the pre-budget Rudd honeymoon zone, but they have now come down to earth with a drop from 60-40 to 55-45. This has partly been driven by a drop in the Greens vote to 7.5 per cent from an anomalous 11.5 per cent last time.
July 28th, 2008 at 10:41 am
Senator Abetz urged the Government to wait for a comprehensive international program of emissions reduction that would include big polluters such as India and China.
“If we put a price on carbon, it should be zero or very low until such time as the major emitters and our competitors are in the same ballpark, otherwise the environmental outcomes will be worse,” he said.
Senator Abetz is very lucky the punters do not realize how econamicaly stupid that statement is , as well as being environmental stupid
July 28th, 2008 at 10:43 am
Jen 352 Says:
July 27th, 2008 at 8:57 pm “Ron-what do you think of the POST-Kyoto ratifications?”
What “POST-Kyoto ratifications” ar you referring to ?
July 28th, 2008 at 10:51 am
gusface @ 395
Laugh!
Thats pretty funny and reminded me of something that happened years ago when I was working as a Comp Tech. This customer came in with this comp they had just bought from Cash Converters a few days earlier, they had spent a few days with it but couldn’t get “it to do anything”… All it had was this flashing “c” on the screen, lol… After much, much pain explaining that without getting windows (was win95 from memory) the best they could really hope for was to type “time” “tree” etc I sold them the copy of Win95. Whislt installing it for them I was explaining that they should get some anti-virus software as well among other things, the husband jumps up and says, “nope, no way, I don’t believe in computer virus’s, theres no oxygen inside the circuits, it’s impossible for them to survive!!!
I gave em a share copy of “gopher hunt” and just GTF outa there
July 28th, 2008 at 11:11 am
gusface Says: @ 397,
{maybe they are hoping for more rivers of gold from the party of doublespeak.}
Gus, the thought occurred to me a while back that maybe the reason why the MSM are so blindsided on the multiple shortcomings of the Libs and appear so determined to undermine Rudd Labor’s agenda of reform, is that they are hoping to spook Rudd into engaging in a similar media campaign to the ongoing misuse of taxpayers money engaged in by Howard for 11 & a half years.
I hope he resists and continues on with his program of reform and rejects any thoughts of reverting back to the corrupt manipulation of public opinion of the rodent which was developed into an art form under Howard. The MSM have suckled on the public teat for survival for far too long as it is.
It’s about time they got by on the marits of the product that they present to the general public. Not constant spin propping up an incompetent but financially generous Government or ex- Government.
July 28th, 2008 at 11:12 am
“merits”.
July 28th, 2008 at 11:19 am
gusface @ 379 -
I haven’t been able to find a solar radiation map for the Sahara, but as most of it is further from Equator than the area of Australia that has the highest, most consistent solar radiation (lime green bit in this BoM map) the Sahara would have slightly less energy falling on it.
The dark green areas have more radiation in the dry months but this drops off during the wet. However, that is also the case for our northern neighbours which presents us with a great opportunity by doing what is proposed by the EU. We could just as easily build a chain of solar farms across our north and export the power to Indonesia, PNG, the Philippines and possibly even Singapore and Malaysia. They could also provide employment for remote Aboriginal communities which might go a long way to easing their social problems.
$71 billion spread over 20+ years is peanuts. All it takes is imagination and the will. Sadly, the Opposition clearly has neither, and I’m not sure about Rudd or Australian business.
July 28th, 2008 at 11:35 am
It’s hard to believe, considering the verbal diarrhea that Milne has dished up in the last 18 Months or so but, this is a reasonably accurate and balanced report on the current and evolving Climate Change policy especially in regard to the Libs.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24086175-33435,00.html
July 28th, 2008 at 11:39 am
Mayo
also this co from canada has just released this technology
“SHEC LABS has developed solar concentrator and complementary solar receiver technology that is able to concentrate sunlight to a very high level. Sunlight has been concentrated up to 5,000 times the intensity of the sun and in commercial scale systems could be high as 11,000 to 16,000 times the intensity of the sun. This immense solar concentration creates high heat at the focal point that approach the surface temperature of the sun at 6,000 °C (11,000 °F). Metal placed at the focus is instantly melted.”
http://www.shec-labs.com/press_releases/2008-07-14.php
Scorpio
Apparently as part of the charter of responsible gvt all gvt advertising will have to be vetted and approved by the DEPT not the MINISTER
also i think an independent body was mooted by bob brown-maybe he will do a deal to get some enabling legislation thru the senate .
July 28th, 2008 at 11:39 am
ron- the discussions at the G8 summit re post 2012.
July 28th, 2008 at 11:45 am
Milne seems to less enamoured with the Liberal brand than other conservative commentators.
July 28th, 2008 at 11:51 am
Gusface
presume the high voltage DC transmission lines that would carry the MW through PV or solar thermal concentration , could be econamicaly & logistically be constructed in the oceans north of ‘oz’ to get th export potential MayoFeral mentiond in #406 ?
(had in mind the mediterran from Afrca to Europe land mass is less width , shallower & more stable 7 not aware of engineering needed)
July 28th, 2008 at 11:54 am
I thought Milne was scathing of Nelson and Turnbull on “Insiders” too. However it has to be put in context. Milne is a Costello supporter.
July 28th, 2008 at 11:55 am
Diogenes @ 399 -
New figures (from the alcohol lobby) showed it had increased spirit sales (which is not necessarily consumption) by 10%.
You’ve almost certainly hit the nail with your qualifier about sales -v- consumption. I don’t drink but have noticed that the supermarkets increased their spirit pricing from $50 to $60 per 2 bottles in the last 6-9 months so it’s very likely most of that 10% is due to price increases.
The SMH’s article on this says:
But a Herald analysis of industry sales figures over the year to June found a decrease in the overall consumption of alcohol on a year-ended basis.
And that:
The Herald figures show that compared with June last year sales of ready-to-drink beverages measured in standard drinks have fallen 42 per cent. But the rise in sales of full-strength spirits was only 24 per cent, leaving a fall in the overall number of standard drinks sold of 8.5 per cent over the year.
In other words this is just another media beat-up. How unsurprising!
July 28th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
Nelson won’t get off scot free with his approach regarding the ETS. The Libs are taking a real chance of being labelled and perceived as weak and indecisive.
Michelle Grattan - “In a further blow to Dr Nelson, the electricity industry has accused the Opposition of potentially putting the country’s energy supply at risk if it fails to give investors certainty by nominating a date by which it would start emissions trading.”
http://www.theage.com.au/national/nelson-faces-dissent-on-emissions-policy-20080727-3lqj.html
July 28th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
{Apparently as part of the charter of responsible gvt all gvt advertising will have to be vetted and approved by the DEPT not the MINISTER}
Gus, I am hoping that Labor sticks with that and also the reform of the “freedom of Information” Legislation they promised.
The changes you mentioned must have given the MSM no end of sleepless nights after the gravy train they have been riding for the past decade.
The opportunities presented to the media by the new FoI amendments seem to have gone un-noticed. The ability to do proper investigatory journalism once these amendments are in place is a golden opportunity for the MSM to regain some relevancy rather than just falling back on media releases and political spin by politicians.
July 28th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
Or just making it up as they go.
“Labor insiders say”, “a Liberal Party Official was reported as saying”,
“people think”, adnausium.
July 28th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
Jen 409 Says:
July 28th, 2008 at 11:39 am
“ron- the discussions at the G8 summit re post 2012.”
Part of the G8 Summitt was a CC discusion called the “G8 plus 5″ (the other 5 big poluters China India Brazil Mexico South Africca
They all agreed CO2 emmission need to be cut by 50% buy 2050 !!!! Kyoto agreed to that 10 years ago and now says min 80% (as does Bob Brown) This “G8 plus 5″ agreement is a con on us all
This G8 +5 (’GED’) is what both McCain and Obama want as th forum to future negotiate CC , ie. OUTSIDE of Kyoto China & India want to get OUT of Tyoto , and the US does NOT want to get IN to Kyoto (all selfishly) This new forum competing to Kyoto is the mechanism Its all dirty selfish world politcs
If you read my IPPCC scientists scenarios quoted in #389 , the Kyoto signatories are obligated to set emmission targets to meet at least one of th 6 climate scenarios , and obviously th US & its politcans want a lower emmssions target than that They do not want to pay th econamic price we & th EU ar preapred to pay Neither is China & India IF they can get out of Kyoto , and the Yanks ar showing them th door out , a competing Kyoto forum with 50% reductions by 2050
The bigggest blame belongs to th most selfish , the US They ar th ONLY ones in Kyoto , and they ar doing the ’spoiling’ …successfully , with “there” alternitive , with th resyt of th G8 forsed to follow like teddy bears to the muscle of US power
July 28th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
They ar th ONLY ones NOT in Kyoto
July 28th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
OK - thanks ron.
July 28th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
Jen
I presented the reasons for the greedy big 4 wanting not to ratify Kyoto (the US) and wanting to get out of Kyoto (China & India , probabley Russia also)
There object is to avoid the Scientists scenarios , there motives (econamic selfish greed)
Th reverse argument is Kyoto is made up of 182 countries who’ve ratifyied Kyoto and one the US who hasn’t (Kazistan will this year)
Therefore 182 Countries happily signed Kyoto mark 1 with emmissions targets (with China India russia free first round passes)
EVERYONE in the world is happy to have Kyoto mark 11 under Kyoto Sceintists scenarios EXCEPT guess who , the US who does not want to come in , and the three bad emmiters China India & Russia who want to get out
.
(th remaining 6 of th G8 ar supporters of Kyoto)
July 28th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
Ron- I do appreciate your explanations and I also understand your concerns.
My own understanding of the detail is pretty limited so I am trying to read up on the various positons and policies re: CC and howto best manange it.
July 28th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
left of field gossip
apparently talcum and afew others are having drinkies and nibbles with the hoi polloi around the traps this week.
both as focus group feedback and also a bit of fleshpressing and horsetrading methinks
results later
July 28th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
ps its invite only
(and their was me ready to do a tootsie-but mrs g wasnt impressed)
July 28th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
The best line ever delivered by a climate change expert a Professor nonetheless.
Professor Barry Brook heads Adelaide University’s research institute for climate change and sustainability, “Climate scientists don’t use temperature charts to “prove” global warming.
They use the scientific principles of physics, chemistry, geology, biology, and so on, to form ideas and to make predictions. Then they go out and test them.”
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/vvvv/desc/#commentsmore
July 28th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
JOH
time to get off the fense Do you believe Bolt & a few quacks you deny the earth is warming from human activity of CO2 OR do you believe
th 2007 latest Kyoto based full IPCC Report (called the Fourth Asessment) which includes the input of more than 1,200 of the world’s top scientific authors and 2,500 scientific expert reviewers from more than 130 countries , which gives only 6 possible climate scenarios , ALL INCREASES , with 5 of the 6 scenarios between 2.4 increase and 4 degrees and the other a 1.8 increase
July 28th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
JOH , I meant to add , seeing Bolt won’t tell you , why I segegrated 5 scenarios at 2.4 or higher thats because between 2 and 3 degres the CC is irresverisble NO 2nd chanses for th world Await your answer
July 28th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
just posted this in reply to JoM
“hey andy
when the CC happens
you and all the deniers can huddle around your bum
I mean the sunshines out of it
well doesnt it?”
wonder if it will make it.
July 28th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
Ron it is not irresverisble! Why are then China and India prepared to damn the world by not doing anything about alleged CC?
Why haven’t any of the predictions come true? Where is aramgeddon?
July 28th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
John of Melbourne
#425
Please do avoid my simple queston i asked in #425 , with another queston
I await your answer , then i’ll be happy to answer your queston & will do so properley
July 28th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
typo KOH ,
Please do NOT avoid my simple queston i asked in #425 , with another queston
I await your answer , then i’ll be happy to answer your queston & will do so properley
July 28th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
Ron I do not believe cabon dioxide by itself is soley responsible for global warming. I fail to see a causal relationship with man made carbon dioxide emissions and climate change; as noted by Bolt although our emissions keep increasing the climate has not gotten warmer.
July 28th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
JOH
still did not answer my #425 You simply brought up man to CO2 is not a causel realionship to CC
That is not the same as my question do you believe all scientists in #431
patiuent am i , I will addres your separate point of the relationship man , CO2 and temperature increase
1,200 of the world’s top scientific authors and 2,500 scientific expert reviewers from more than 130 countries state ” it is “very likely” that emissions of heat-trapping gases from human activities have caused “most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century.”
.
(IF yoiu want to know what ‘very likely’ is its a scientyific term = to 90% PLUS chance For a layman without that responsibility its =100%)
So i’ve answered your causel argument doubt , do you beleve the above 3,700 worldss best sciientists conclusion ?
July 28th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Ron how many ways do I have to say no?
Ron I to am a scientist an engineer infact. Throughout my schooling and my time as an engineer I have never heard, seen nor read that the term, “very likely” can be expressed quantitatively therefore can you please explain to me how you came up with the the figure of 90% to explain the term very likely?
July 28th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
JoM @ 431 -
although our emissions keep increasing the climate has not gotten warmer
So the fact the 8 warmest years on record have occurred in the last 10 years, that glaciers are disappearing for the first time in recorded human history and beginning after the start of the industrial revolution, that the North Pole is expected to be ,a href=”http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/jun/27/north-pole-may-be-ice-free-september/”>ice free in September for only the second time in 50+ million years (the first was, briefly, in 2000) are just figments of imagination or coincidence?
July 28th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
Take 2
JoM @ 431 -
although our emissions keep increasing the climate has not gotten warmer
So the fact the 8 warmest years on record have occurred in the last 10 years, that glaciers are disappearing for the first time in recorded human history and beginning after the start of the industrial revolution, that the North Pole is expected to be ice free in September for only the second time in 50+ million years (the first was, briefly, in 2000) are just figments of imagination or coincidence?
July 28th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
JOH
“Ron how many ways do I have to say no?”
Well once would do JOH I asked you for an answer to #425 yes or no , BUT You did not answer I asked you a different queastion in #432 yes or no , BUT You did not answer
so its no use getting upset bacause an ilerate person like me (who read th IPPCC Reports) asks you a queston you ar uncomfortable in answering
JOH “Ron how many ways do I have to say no” Is not an answer either If you want to say “no #425″ AND “no #432″ justt simply do so I await your answer ??
.
.
“Ron I to am a scientist an engineer infact Throughout my schooling and my time as an engineer I have never heard, seen nor read that the term, “very likely” can be expressed quantitatively”
Well why do you not read the IPPCC Report done by 3,700 of th Worlds top scientists because they use th term , in fact the term ‘very likely’ is used repeatedly Other times ‘likely’ is used , other times “more likely than not’ is used When the IPCC ascribes a likelihood to a scientific finding, the term used reflects a specific range of certainty as defined by a chart with “very likey” defined as 90% PLUS chance
Await your clarification
July 28th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
If CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing at 2ppm annually, and CO2 is the agent which is responsible for locking in the earth’s heat, then surely any measures to halt the rise, whatever the cause, is vital to the survival of life on earth.
July 28th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
433
John of Melbourne
avoids answering Ron’s question
Is apparently ignorant of probability and confidence levels
bah
July 28th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
So JOM, do you need 100% proof before you think we do anything?
July 28th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
none so blind…
July 28th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
Jovial Monk @ 438
Ditto
Diog @ 322
Has anyone discussed how they plan to keep the RAH operating as a hospital, whilst removing all of the asbestos - (particularly in the sections built in the late 50’s and 60’s)?
July 28th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
These days the views of creationsist are ignored. No one even bothers to diss them. So why are some of you trying to bother talking with global warming skeptics? Don’t waste your breath, they are dinosaurs! (Dinosaurs didn’t die in Noah’s flood by the way).
July 28th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
Dinosaurs didn’t die in Noah’s flood by the way
No, they never existed, the Deity just spread some big bones about to fool us. Everyone knows that
July 28th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
“very likey” defined as 90% PLUS chance. Are the skeptics saying they have 100% proof CC is BS or are they saying more than likely or very likely it is? In which case JOH’s objection to “very likely” applies to his anti CC argument as well.
July 28th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
In other news. News Ltd are sh1tt1ng themselves. The propaganda will soon start in full force. The players should not let themselves be duped.
Apparently, from what I have been told (I am not a lawyer), league contracts are not worth the paper they are written on. They are all constructed around a salary cap, which is a restraint of trade, and therefore all contracts are unconstitutional.
I have never believed in the saying “what goes around comes around” but we have had a GST and now an ETS, the wedge on Tampa and now a wedge on CC, and now a superleague on superleague. Oh yeah!
July 28th, 2008 at 6:44 pm
445- And they are talking about arresting the player. When was the last time someone was arrested for failing to deliver a civil contract? I know a lot of builders who would be in deeper doo doo than Sonny Bill then. It’s a civil matter and that is where it is likely to stay. (You can be arrested for breaking a court order in a civil matter however, but I still can’t see an extridiction happening to get a guy to play football).
July 28th, 2008 at 6:44 pm
Grace
There are architects plans which allow for the asbestos. I think most is in the East Wing which is not going to be altered.
July 28th, 2008 at 6:48 pm
Yes Fairman, the propaganda has just started LOL. Apparently other players are being targeted?
July 28th, 2008 at 7:02 pm
This is a non-Newspoll week, right?
July 28th, 2008 at 7:11 pm
“Liquor industry accused of distorting alcohol figures”.
“Earlier today the Distilled Spirits Industry Council (DSIC) said new data showed an increase in the volume of alcohol sold since the introduction of the so-called alcopops tax and urged the Government to reconsider it.
It says sales of pre-mixed drinks are down 30 per cent, but sales of full-strength bottles of spirits are up 46 per cent from April to June.
However, tax office figures released this afternoon by the Government show sales of pre-mixed drinks have gone down by 54 per cent, with total sales of all spirits down by 23 per cent.”
Now who to believe?
July 28th, 2008 at 7:16 pm
Wrong, BSF.
July 28th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
Can I clarify something on the philosophy of science.
Science can NEVER prove a theory, unless it’s a mathematical proof. Science only verifies or disproves theories. To verify or disprove a theory takes evidence. It’s like proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt which is really just a level of probability with which the jury is comfortable.
At the moment, the jury (the IPCC) says there is a 95% chance that global warming is happening and is due to human activity, rather than the observations of climate being due to other factors (random changes, solar flares, normal variations etc).
So people like Bolt who say human-caused CC is not happening are 95% likely to be wrong, ie there is a 1 in 20 chance he is right (which probably is true for most things he says).
There is a 5% chance that Ron, Jen, etc etc are wrong.
July 28th, 2008 at 7:19 pm
Fielding saying he might block the alcopop rise. I sure that will go down with well with the rest of the fundies.
If they don’t pass legalisation authorising it, the funds actually have to be returned to the taxpayer….. perhaps a giant booze up is in order. (In the end, it will be retro applied by different legalisation if the bill is defeated or else it will be chaotic to the point of craziness).
July 28th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
451 - Time flies when the Liberals are having no fun.
July 28th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
Amigo ronnie, i hope this is not the end of our beautiful friendship.
I have to disagree with you on the selfishness of China and India. Yes the great satan USA is selfish. they simply want to maintain their standard of living and DGAF about everyone else.
Whereas China and India, the majority of people there are still too poor to be selfish. As survival is still the primary focus of living. Rich man eats whenever he wants, poor man whenever he can.
In addition, China and India are big emitters because:
1. their huge population which will take long long time to reduce, if ever. unless we start culling Chinese and Indians. I remember Mao called the USA a paper tiger (with the nuke bombs) by offering Dwight Eisenhower as to how many cities and million of Chinese that the USA wanted to nuke and cull.
2. China and India are still the factories of the world. making cheap goods for the developed countries so that we can enjoy our standard of living. We are the one that still polluting, not them.
July 28th, 2008 at 7:32 pm
BSF
No funds will be returned, there is a precendent for this, a tax increase on beer was knocked back by the Senate.
The Govt. of the day set up a “community fund” to distribute the tax.
Although Stephen Riden is as usual confused.
“If the Senate doesn’t authorise the collection of this matter the manufacturers and the wholesalers have the right to go to court to claim it back,”
“They have paid the tax, they are the ones who have sent the cheques. They do have rights under the tax and customs act.
Er no Stephen they have collected the tax - not paid it.
July 28th, 2008 at 7:41 pm
“Jan 19, 2001 - Australia’s biggest brewers have taken the government to court to recover excess taxes that drinkers have been paying for six months.
They want to be repaid tens of millions of dollars in beer excise should the Senate scrap existing increases in the tax. The money could be poured back into drinkers’ glasses through cheaper beer, or donated to charities.
Drinkers have been paying a doubled excise rate, plus a sales tax, since July 1. The price of draft beer increased as much as 11%, while the tax on packaged beer was up only 1.9%. The tax increase was introduced as a “tariff proposal,” a provision instrument by which the government imposes a tax increase on the condition that it will legislate within 12 months to make it legal.
However, the Australian Democrats and Labor have said they will scrap the excise increase in the Senate. Both parties say the government promised in the 1998 election campaign that tax reform would increase the price of beer by just 1.9%. ”
The more things change - the more they stay the same.
July 28th, 2008 at 7:44 pm
I still prefer a giant booze up.
July 28th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
….
slap
July 28th, 2008 at 7:49 pm
William, any idea if Mr Mumbles will be visited by that newspoll truck again tonight?
July 28th, 2008 at 7:52 pm
Isn’t there a flaw in the alcopop vs spirits argument? As I said before, sales to not equal consumption.
Alcopops are usually consumed immediately. A bottle of spirits isn’t. A party-goer who switches from alcopops to spirits will buy a bottle of vodka and rum for example. They don’t drink them all on the same night. There will be plenty of those half drunk bottles on their shelves waiting for the next party. So after the initial glut of extra purchases of spirits, there should be a levelling out at a lower amount.
July 28th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
Ron it’s JoM not JoH!
I am examining the IPCC report at the minute and yes you are correct the IPCC use a likelihood terminology to indicate the “probability” of the occurance/outcome. Had you expressed it like that I would have understood.
In relation to your questions:
# 425 I believe Bolt.
# 432 I am yet to be convinced by the scientist (follow link below)
Ron I refer you and otthers on this site to the technical summary ecspecially TS.6 Robust Findings and Uncertainties http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_TS.pdf
Makes for interesting reading
July 28th, 2008 at 8:08 pm
Diogenes,
Absolutely. The interesting question is why is the Alcohol Industry is fighting this so hard. Probably because it affects their profits???
It seems there is a statistics war atm between the government and the industry.
Now who do you believe?
Exhibit 1. Makes their living entirely from selling alcohol products.
Exhibit 2. Makes part of their living from the selling of alchohol products.
The Alcohol industry are probably concerned that they are about to come under the same scrutiny as the Tobacco Industry.
July 28th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
Diogenoski
#452
“So people like Bolt who say human-caused CC is not happening are 95% likely to be wrong. There is a 5% chance that Ron is wrong”
You probabley smiled when you types that knowing in i’d come Biolte has one quack at 95% chance of being wrong and i’ve got 3,700 of th Worlds top scientists EACH saying there’s a 95% chance of being right as a level of certainty IF my first 1,000 scientists have th 95% , whats the use of my other 2,700 troops in adding a little premium , now one cann’t get 100% but reckon the quack got over rated at 5% & i don’t want them deniers to hav anything to hang onto , reckon most of that quacks 5% is nil & the 5% is “not 100% sure”
July 28th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
There is no doubt that the rich countries and rich individuals within countries, generally got that way and stay that way by a disproportionate per capita contribution to CO2 emissions. The usual caveats and qualifications apply.
There is also no doubt that the poor countries and poor individuals within wealthy countries, are, and will, generally suffer more proportionately from the effects of increased concentrations of CO2. Thus the 800 million who, according to the UN figures, last year went to bed somewhat hungry each night are now going to bed somewhat hungrier because of the increased price impact of biofuels and droughts. The UN figure for children who actually died of starvation is up towards five million. Of course, UN figures can be quite dodgy but there is a core of truth there. The relatively rich will explain that there is plenty of food but that some people are hungry because of poor distribution of the available food supplies. Quite.
However, some of the relatively rich are starting to get a bit agitated because they understand that it is not only the relatively poor who are going to suffer but that all bets might be off for the relatively rich as well. Now, that really would be nasty. They are beginning to think that there is a Titanic-type situation and know, with reasonable confidence as per discussion above, that (a) once the water gets over the first bulkhead (aka one of the irreversible thresholds), the ship is stuffed, (b) there aren’t enough lifeboats and (c) in any case, the available lifeboats won’t have anywhere much to go.
Nevetheless, many of the powerful rich in countries like Russia, the US, Australia, China, India and Japan are betting that while they might get a bit warm, they won’t be the ones to get really scorched. Quite rightly, they calculate that, at the very least, they will be last ones to be feeling the heat. So they are happy with any delays in action and absolutely delighted with the do nothing populist tactics of politicians in various countries who are, in effect, saying: ‘You poor (Australian, Indian, Chinese - put in the name of any nation) punters can’t possibly be expected to do something off your own bat. Not fair on the struggling masses!’ The battlers ought to be suspicious that the parties generally held to be representing the wealthy are the ones running these lines. Will the punters be dudded again? I am very, very curious to see what happens next.
July 28th, 2008 at 8:27 pm
A bit of history - Bundy used to sell Bundy & Coke for a short period, they then decided it would be more profitable to sell Bundy & Cola. So they bought out a cola company so they could make profits on the Bundy and the Cola.
The Bundy company also sold its Cola to other RTD manufacturers and as “no frills” cola in supermarkets.
The spirits industries were making a squillion from cola, strawberry fizz, peach fuzz etc. That is why they are squeaking now.
July 28th, 2008 at 8:38 pm
JoM
sorry for wrong name , i could throw some info now to rebut , but as you’ve quoted that secton i should reply re that specificaly as well , will refresg the secton & come back to you
July 28th, 2008 at 8:45 pm
JoM
By th way as a matter of curiosity , why ar Turnbull & Horatio implementing a CC policy ? Why do they not believe Bolt that th world is not warming ?
July 28th, 2008 at 8:46 pm
Cheers Ron
July 28th, 2008 at 8:54 pm
Swannie told the liquor Industry they could go jump lol
July 28th, 2008 at 9:27 pm
Yes Vera, you don’t have to make your party laugh in Q.T. to be a good treasurer.
Could a country like Russia be blamed for not giving a rats about Global Warming. I mean, you could freeze the balls off over there?
July 28th, 2008 at 9:32 pm
“I fail to see a causal relationship with man made carbon dioxide emissions and climate change”
I like how the arguement used by climate change deniers mirrors that by the tobacco lobby about lung cancer. But then (with the help of Andrew Bolt), I was led to this group of nutters:
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=10594
It all makes sense now.
July 28th, 2008 at 9:32 pm
You could freeze you balls off in the eastern states at the moment.
July 28th, 2008 at 9:36 pm
464 ron
JoM could use your arguments the other way round. There are 3700 of the “world’s top scientists” “each and every one” who says there is a 5% chance that man-made climate change is not happening. The reasons for that 5% uncertainty are in the IPCC report JoM linked.
July 28th, 2008 at 9:48 pm
You’ve got to laugh: the Liberal Party in 2008 is in favour of teenage binge drinking, fat profits for the petrol companies and the continuation of global warming: Nelson is even more backward looking than Howard, if that’s possible LOL
July 28th, 2008 at 9:53 pm
475 Prog, yes, but a woman form Narellan thinks Kevin Rudd cares more about China’s economy than Australias.
(And you just know Nelson wouldn’t make that story up)
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24086175-7583,00.html
July 28th, 2008 at 10:05 pm
Hey Progressive 475,
Where’s the concern troll angle in that post? You’ve disguised it cleverly.
July 28th, 2008 at 10:06 pm
Was “the woman from Narellan” Pat Farmers mum?
July 28th, 2008 at 10:06 pm
Diogenoski
yes i know its there ! it just seems alittle inequitable that a 95% chance by each & every one of of 3,700 top scientiists & a 5% chnace of not being man made because science obviously can not give 100% , allows a single scientist th 5 % argument (and Bolt it) Anyway 95% should be enough for objective
July 28th, 2008 at 10:06 pm
[Ron I refer you and otthers on this site to the technical summary ecspecially TS.6 Robust Findings and Uncertainties http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_TS.pdf
Makes for interesting reading :-)]
There is uncertainty in all science. If you can’t handle accepting some uncertainty, then you will never be certain about anything.
Why is it that climate change denial is ultimately just another form of extremist post modernist relativism? Andrew Bolt should be lecturing about Foucault in some French cultural studies department, rather than giving hilarious interpretations of scientific data.
July 28th, 2008 at 10:12 pm
I just love how Milne thinks Nelson telling him a story about some woman contitutes “evidence”.
July 28th, 2008 at 10:15 pm
Amigo FINNS
No end will occur mate , amigos will always ride Trying to address the nuances of world politcs & CC vs Kyoto is a deep hole The US are the ultimate selfish country , were the biggest emmitters & hav got th standard of living benefits from th CO2 up in th atmosphere PRES Bush actively supports th ‘G8 +5” GED’ and sent his reps to it & opposes Kyoto When I broughtt this subject up elswhere saying da man also suports this aproach I got howled down & my risk to Kyoto’s existense point was missed in partisan da man suport ,despite his written policy NOT mentioning at all ratyfyng Kyoto BUT specifically supporting the “G8+5” forum , in fact it also calls it th ‘GED’ Th othr POTUS candidate also supports th G8+5 ‘GED’ & opposes ratifying Kyoto as well In my view most of th blame here is th selfish US and its power hungry politcians
There ar 2 poker games happening Under Kyoto presently India & China are legaly bound by a post 2012 emmissions deal is to be negotiated Th Kyoto protocols provide for ‘less developed countries’ (those that contributed less to CO2 up there) eg India & China) to get LOWER targets post 2012 So if the US ratifies Kyoto , India & China will get emmission targets , that they probabley calculate is HIGHER than they’d prefer as they naturally want to look aftr there econamy to th maximum( but because of being ‘less developed’ there targets will be LOWER than say th EU or the US) They’d probabley wear that…reluctantly I assume
But th US does not like that Kyoto poker game , because th US says selfishly that means India & China get a competittive edge with those ‘less developed countries’ lower emmissions targets , well they woul, d but th US is being selfish on competive grounds So th bully boy US says we just will not suport ratifying Kyoto (Bush AND th 2 curent candidates) , unless India & China from day one hav the same emmssions target criteria as th US , plainly that’s unfair & th US damn well knows India & China would never agree So th US and its politicans instead like a bully supports a competing non Kyoto forum the G8 +5 , because the US emmissions targets will be lower (because there’s no scientists scenarios there to restrict them & only th US will decide Indian , China & Russia also can hav lower targets in such a forum than th ‘less developed country’ lower targets they’d get under Kyoto ALL hav an econamic insentive to get out of Kyoto , and th US an incentive not to go into Kyoto Th US has opened th door for themselves to avoid Kyoto , but th carrot is there for India China & Russia to get out of Kyoto
Summary , I believe China & India should stay in Kyoto , get the ‘less developed country’ emmissions targets dispensations & the US should ratify Kyoto and join the rest of the world under th scientists scenarios pressures , to CC is solved
July 28th, 2008 at 10:23 pm
Coldest day for time of year here since 1963 but we’re getting some steady rain as well so I shouldn’t bitch.
July 28th, 2008 at 10:24 pm
Me, a concerned troll? You must be mistaking me with Lose The Election Please, is he still around? LOL
Grog: The Poisoned Dwarf is as predictable as ever! It’s a shame that his anti-Labor drivel gets so much prominence in the Monday News Ltd rags!
July 28th, 2008 at 10:29 pm
Newspoll 57-43
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24093309-601,00.html
July 28th, 2008 at 10:32 pm
Newspoll post up.