Added to blogroll: Jules' Klimaatblog

If I was Dutch* and living below sea level, I would be informing myself about AGW and climate change, big time. And voting for bigger dykes. Jules' Klimaatblog is me, if I were Dutch*. And funnier...



But is he really that funny? He sounds serious.

Deze blog om wat meer achtergrond te geven over klimaatverandering, en tevens over het lobbywerk dat het wetenschappelijk debat tracht te contamineren met als bedoeling de wetenschappelijke conclusies op deze wijze bij het grote publiek af te doen als onbeslist en of onbetrouwbaar.

Let's ask Bablefish...

These blog to what more context to give concerning climate change, and tevens concerning the entrance hall work which tries the scientific debate at contamineren with the intention the scientific taking off conclusions this way at the general public as outstanding and or onbetrouwbaar.

Yes funny. Ignoring 'onbetrouwbaar' and Zen translating from bablefish to zEnglish I get...This blog seeks to provide context and background to climate change concerns, and to expose the lobbies that have contaminated the public airing of the scientific debate with the intention of confusing the general public's understanding of the scientific conclusions.

Check it out: good blogroll, lot's on AGW denialism, global warming primers, great visuals, half of it is in English, and between the English and the graphs, etc, you can roughly get a sense of what Jules is saying. Bablefish helps some. Well, you can see how much. But the point is that you know what Jules is saying because it is what every other scientific realist has been saying for 20 years — there are these freaks called Big Fossil Fuel who fund propaganda outfits to run interference on the public understanding of what climate science is telling us. The intention is to keep selling cheap oil and coal for as long as possible, disinformation is big money for as long as they don't have to factor in the cost of their pollution.

*A Dutch-speaking Belgian, in fact.

Technorati Tags: global warming, climate change

AGL green paper briefing notes

The Rudd Green Paper Carbon Policy Briefing Note of the first Australian company to trade on the Chicago Climate Exchange, AGL, is accessible from their website.

Carbon Policy Briefing Note

Date: 16 July 2008
Subject: Commonwealth Green Paper
The Commonwealth Government has released a Green Paper outlining preferred positions for the introduction of an emissions trading scheme called the “Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme”.

Key Considerations for your Business
› Are you a liable party under the scheme (do you emit more than 25,000 tonnes)?
› If you are trade exposed, are you likely to be compensated?
› Will your energy bill increase?
› What can you do to reduce emissions and take advantage of
opportunities under the scheme?
› Are there cashflow issues associated with your participation in this scheme?
› What are the taxation implications of this scheme for your business?

So, what are the key considerations for your business?

Genetic scientist ages L. Ron Bolt

Michael James is a Senior Research Fellow and Director for the Genome Variation Laboratory at the Queensland Institute of Medical Research. The way he fisked L. Ron Bolt's now famous 7 graphs will fray the telomeres of The Great Denier.

He does a great job debunking Bolt, and explains why. Top and tail:

This communication concerns some misinformation that Herald Sun columnist Andrew Bolt has been publicising since late last week. Bolt claims his "seven graphs" from reputable sources prove conclusively that the world is cooling not warming and Arctic ice is not thinning.

He first presented it in his blog last Thursday and then on Insiders on ABC on Sunday he heavily promoted it and aggressively challenged Annabel Crabb to dispute these findings, all, of course, to attack the government’s Green Paper and Garnaut Report. Then on Monday he ran another related story as a follow up (Arctic Ice) and Tuesday another follow up. Being something of an agnostic on the topic myself I thought it was worth looking at, but was then appalled at how he has totally misinterpreted the graphs he presents.

[...]

I think it is important that loud polemicists like Bolt spouting distorted nonsense need a counterbalance in the media.

And here's the guts. L. Ron Bolt's first graph: "World is cooling"

Andrew Bolt apparently is basing his argument -- that the world really is cooling rather than warming -- on a short blip in the data around January 2008. But the logical comparison is shown by the blue ovals which very roughly centre on the average for the time periods (note the ovals are identical in size); it is obvious the recent period is up to 0.3 degrees warmer. In his graph 2, the same data is plotted but now extending back to 1979 -- it shows even more clearly the average warming over the period 1999-2007.

L.Ron Bolt's forth graph: "Arctic sea ice is thickening"

Andrew Bolt bases his erroneous claim that Arctic sea ice is not thinning on two weeks of the most recent data for 2008 (highlighted in red on graph) and only in comparison to the same period in 2007; in fact the data confirm it is thinning. The US laboratory that provided this graph also claims: "According to scientific measurements, Arctic sea ice has declined dramatically over at least the past thirty years, with the most extreme decline seen in the summer melt season." So, should we make broad sweeping conclusions from 2 weeks’ data or from yearly, or 20 years (1979-2000) or 30 years of data?

I posted a comment in response to Bolt's article (mine is one amongst over 500 comments from mostly appallingly ignorant ranters) -- but of course I couldn't post the graphs.

I had a look for the comment but couldn't find it. Guess it was Boltmoderated out.

UPDATE

You can just hear L. Ron Bolt's telomeres unravelling as he composed this response.

L. Ron Bolt denies AGW thrice (today)

L. Ron Bolt bashes his pulpit, berating anyone who prints politically on climate change:

Global warming believer Tim Colebatch in The Age today tries to bat away an inconvenient truth - that the world hasn’t actually warmed for a decade. But more fervent than informed, he simply proves he doesn’t understand the argument, and probably doesn’t want to.

AS THE Liberal Party turns into a battleground between those who believe Australia should do its share to tackle global warming and those who deny that global warming exists....

Actually, that’s not the line of battle at all, Tim. For instance, you can believe global warming exists, but still think it crazy to try to stop it (the Bjorn Lomborg line until recently). Or, as in my case, you can think global warming indeed existed, at least until 1998, and may well resume - yet still think it’s important to consider the fact that there hasn’t been any warming for a decade, against all predictions. And then doubt, therefore, that man caused what warming has occured.

That, in fact, is the real argument that you so crassly define and try to dismiss.

...the graph at right is worth seeing.

I don’t have access to your graph as it appeared in The Age, Tim, but it is essentially this one below, and from exactly the same source:

But there is one modification. See that predicted spike in temperature for 2007, Tim? Didn’t happen, did it? Compare that prediction to the real data of 2007 in your own graph, Tim. Turned out to be a colder year, as is this one. Yet the organisation that produced this graph, and that prediction, is the one you rely on to assure us the great global warming apocalypse continues its relentless course. Still trust them, Tim?

That organisation that produced that graph turns out not to be the UK Meteorological Office and the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia that Tim says he sourced his graph from:

The data comes from the UK Meteorological Office and the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia… It’s one of just three data sources on global temperatures, but the one deniers like to use.

It happens to be a BBC produced graph L. Ron. If you click on the link, you will find this nugget that you withheld from your readers:

The 60% probability that 2007 would set a new record meant that it "was more likely than not", he concluded.

So the BBC editorialised the graph, it was not produced by the Met, as L. Ron unhappily thunders on about. There were no predictions offered by them, just probabilities.

Technorati Tags: global warming, climate change

Royal Society gives Great Global Warming swindler a Right Royal Bollocking

From DeSmogBlog:

The UK's Royal Society, one of the oldest and most prestigious scientific bodies in the world has released this statement today on the Ofcom ruling that the "Great Global Warming Swindle" television movie misrepresented the views of some of the world's most distinguished scientists:

clipped from www.desmogblog.com Martin Rees, President of the Royal Society said: "TV companies occasionally commission programmes just to court controversy, but to misrepresent the evidence on an issue as important as global warming was surely irresponsible. 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' was itself a swindle. The programme makers misrepresented the science, the views of some of the scientists featured in the programme and the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. "The science of climate change is complex; however the weight of scientific evidence shows that global warming caused by human actions is happening now, and is set to continue. There is certainly a need for ongoing debate on climate change and on what we are going to do to tackle it but this programme made little or no contribution to that debate."

Very funny Fuel Watch spoof from Get Up

The bowser wowsers in Parliament House want to rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic rather than address the real long-term solutions to rising petrol prices.

View this new ad we've made to cut through the oil slick - and chip in to put it on the air!


Well done! We've reached our first target of $50,000 - but let's keep going!!

If we raise $75,000 we can reach an extra one million viewers, and get our ads to air even sooner.

TARGET: $75,000 - Let's get this ad on air!

$072,886 raised already!

UPDATE: NOW ON AIR

Al Gore rails America for a Clean Energy "Moon Shot"

Watthead have the good oil.

By Alisha Fowler and Jesse Jenkins

Today, Al Gore became a major ally in the ongoing effort to build consensus around an investment-centered approach to solving our energy crisis and inspiring our nation to tackle the energy challenge as the defining task of our era.

Gore issued a truly ambitious challenge for America "to commit to producing 100 percent of our electricity from renewable energy and truly clean carbon-free sources within 10 years." The organization he leads, the Alliance for Climate Protection, estimates the cost of making such a "moon shot call" a reality at 1.5 to 3 trillion dollars of public and private investment over 30 years. He issued this call to "all Americans - in every walk of life: to our political leaders, entrepreneurs, innovators, engineers, and every citizen."

Technorati Tags: global warming, climate change

Rocket scientist brought back to earth

In the comments section of the blog of L. Ron Bolt, a cry of dissent. Or was it a straight-out diss?

Ezzthetic replied to Alan of Sydney
Mon 21 Jul 08 (06:20pm)

I would have asked asked her to address the statement Dr. David Evans posed in last Friday’s The Australian

She might have asked you why you are relying on the views of someone who is just a computer programmer.

Evans was a “consultant” a the Australian Greenhouse Office, but not as an environmental expert (which he isn’t). He was merely writing a Windows desktop application for them.

Google cache will get you every time. What a poseur "rocket scientist" this Dr Evans is.

Now what I just is did is called argumentum ad hominem, and this is perfectly legitimate — but only when used against specific denialists, like AGW deniers.

On the other hand, Tim Lambert has chosen to reply to the argument itself, and the not attack the person making the argument.

UPDATE
Desmogblog clear the air: Evans is a self-promoting computer geek, not a science geek.


Technorati Tags: Global warming, climate change

People to Rudd: Grow spine, show climate leadership

Yes.

Australia said it when we recently voted, and we are saying it now in response to the opposition abandoning bipartisanship on climate change, and the government politically neutralising the issue by adopting Howard's old Shergold Report recommendations.

Reproduced in full. Phillp Coorey reports:

Don't fiddle a world burns

AN OVERWHELMING majority of voters support Kevin Rudd's drive to tackle climate change and 77 per cent believe Australia should press ahead and cut its greenhouse gas emissions, regardless of what other countries do.

The latest Herald/Nielsen poll, the first since last week's green paper on a proposed emissions trading scheme, finds that Australians are willing to pay the price for cutting carbon emissions, even though most do not understanding how the scheme
will work.

When informed that greenhouse gas abatement would cause the price of goods and services to increase, 68 per cent said they were prepared to pay more while 24 per cent were opposed.

The poll coincides with another bleak assessment of the Murray-Darling River system, handed to federal and state ministers, saying there may not be enough water to guarantee supply to regional towns by 2010. It recommends that available water be used only for human consumption in towns of the lower Murray-Darling.

As the Government started a multimillion-dollar "awareness" campaign on its climate action last night, the poll found six of every 10 voters either slightly understood or had no understanding at all of the emissions trading scheme. However, two-thirds still supported introducing a scheme.

The poll of 1400 voters was taken from Thursday to Saturday. On Wednesday, the Government released its green paper outlining how a domestic emissions trading scheme would work.

In the preceding week, the Coalition was split over climate change. Its leader, Brendan Nelson, contradicted senior colleagues by saying Australia should do nothing until other big polluting countries acted. Only 19 per cent of respondents to the poll agreed with this course of action.

The poll finds the Government about as popular now as it was at the election. On a two-party-preferred basis, Labor leads by 54 to46 per cent and, on primary votes, by 43 to 40 per cent. Both show small shifts to the Opposition since last month's poll but the movements are within the margin of error and not enough to give the Opposition great heart.

Mr Rudd's approval rating remains relatively unchanged at 66 per cent compared with 36 per cent for Dr Nelson. Mr Rudd leads Dr Nelson as preferred prime minister by 65 to 20 per cent, a 3-percentage point drop.

With climate change policy full of political risk, 54 per cent are satisfied with the way Mr Rudd is handling the matter while 38 per cent are unhappy. The Government will welcome the findings as it is battling an increasingly hostile Opposition and corporate
sector.

"These findings suggest clear support for the Government's climate change policy," the Nielsen research director, John Stirton, said. However, last month's poll showed 78 per cent wanted the Government to intervene over petrol prices and Mr Stirton said this gave "food for thought about the real depth of support for a
tough policy on climate change".

Last night the Government launched its taxpayer-funded advertising campaign to promote awareness of the proposed trading scheme. Labor had been critical of the Howard government's political advertising but the Climate Change Minister, Penny Wong, said this campaign would adhere to new guidelines that require the
auditor-general's approval.

The Treasurer, Wayne Swan, said: "We want to have a very mature conversation with the Australian people about this because big economic reforms like this are not cost-free."

The shadow treasurer, Malcolm Turnbull, said Labor was rushing when "great care and deliberation" were needed to protect industry and households. He suggested the Coalition would oppose gradually reducing total emissions allowed under the scheme until other countries cut theirs.

Thoughts on Rudd's Petrol Excise Cut 'n Run

Considered thoughts on the green paper on emissions trading from Oikos. He has approximately the same take on the petrol excise offset as I have, though is more eloquent in expressing it.

There are two ways to look at this – from a practical perspective or from a principle perspective. Either way, my view is that cutting the petrol excise isn’t good but isn’t really all that bad either.

The practical implication of cutting excise and therefore neutralising the impact that the scheme has on the petrol price is that...

Oikos also prefers for the review of the excise cut after a three year period to be a permanent cut instead, — why defer uncertainty for three years. I agree, it also makes Labor a political target, by keeping open the notion among industry lobby groups they can keep getting exemptions. The opposition has already signalled they could break from bipartisanship.

I don't know what configuration of emissions trading scheme is best for Australia, but surely political courage is an enabling ingredient.

Green paper tinged with blue hue

In the wake of the release of the Green paper, Michelle Grattan pings the electorate to see if they are still awake:

NO WONDER the Opposition is struggling in its efforts to pick a fight with the Government over its emissions trading scheme. The green paper model differs only marginally from the one John Howard endorsed last year.

The main variation is in timing. The Howard scheme, based on a report from a task group headed by then Prime Minister's department secretary Peter Shergold, was to start in 2011 or 2012. The Rudd plan is due to kick off in 2010.

For the rest, the similarities are great, including compensation in each scheme for the trade exposed sector and for other badly affected industries, notably electricity generators (although the green paper is rather tougher on both, as well as focusing on the household sector, brushed over in Shergold).

Notably, Howard had petrol in. As he boasted, "this emissions trading scheme will be world class in its coverage and governance" and would avoid "political fixes".

He did not propose any "fix", as the Rudd scheme does, to neutralise petrol's inclusion. Of course oil prices have shot up in the past year. The Coalition has shifted ground: it urged, and Labor adopted, an offset to ensure petrol prices don't rise as a result of the scheme.

In light of its history, it is a bit rich for the Opposition to be jumping up and down about the Government's plan to review this offset after three years' operation — which means five years from now.

There is continuity even in the bureaucratic work behind the two schemes. The Coalition's task group was serviced by a secretariat headed by Martin Parkinson, then a senior Treasury officer. Parkinson drafted the group's document. Now he is secretary of Penny Wong's Climate Change Department, established by this Government, and the most important bureaucrat in putting together the green paper.

In preparing the Shergold report, the challenge for the task group was to come up with something acceptable to Howard, at heart a climate change doubter, whatever his latter-day conversion under political pressure. Howard personally wrote the terms of reference, which inevitably made the report conservative.

The task group was successful: Howard adopted the report, more or less holus-bolus, although his government didn't last long enough to implement its measures.

The green paper is a statement of Rudd Government policy. In this case, the challenge has been to err on the side of caution and a slow start for reasons of political necessity, despite Labor's rhetoric about the imminent threat from climate change.

Approaching the task from different perspectives, the two exercises converged on a common centre.

I blame the Liberal opposition partisanship in the issue, in all but name. They are not really presenting as a party that is serious, rather as a ratbag collection of interest groups and factions. I would like to see an opposition that holds the Government to their election promises, asking why Garnaut is being swept aside for Shergold, for instance.

The rest of Grattan's piece sketches out the political landscape that new legislation will have to chart a course through.

Technorati Tags: global waming, climate change

Green Paper is cautious politics

The great Emissions Trading Scheme Sell begins, and the Rudd Government opens by signalling that they ease the pain of introducing the EMT, or whatever they will call it.

HOUSEHOLDS earning up to $150,000 and the nation's heaviest polluters will be helped to cope with the introduction of an emissions trading scheme in 2010 that the Government says will be "calm and measured".

Sounds a bit soft to me. A price signal should function as a price signal. But I don't have to stay in power, and it looks as if the Liberals have decided against a bipartizan approach. That makes me grumpy.

Labor have to position themselves for a hasty implementation, be seen to do so, yet not expose themselves to the Opposition canard that it makes no sense moving before China, India and the US. Someone should blow that damn meme out the water.

So what's the damage?

Releasing the green paper outlining the shape of the scheme, the Minister for Climate Change, Penny Wong, confirmed that increases in petrol prices would be neutralised by corresponding reductions in fuel excise.

She refused to guarantee that this would continue beyond 2013 and said motorists should start considering what types of cars they would be driving by then.

On first impression, I have doubt that market behaviour would change much by watering down the medicine. Economically, it misses the point. But, there is satisfying logic in weaning the Government of this revenue and reducing their conflict of interest with the oil lobby. I believe the revenue is about $2 billion a years, and Rudd's 'fiscally conservative' government is sure to fund the shortfall from revenue raised from issuing carbon permits to industry.

In addition, horrible hikes in the cost of oil are predicted anyway. I've been reading suggestion that market pressures going to have more of an impact on the cost of fuel, than a carbon tax.

Back to the question of damage:

When the scheme begins, electricity and gas prices will rise immediately. Under a $20-a-unit carbon price, electricity bills would increase by 16 per cent, gas bills by 8 per cent and the overall cost of living by 0.9 per cent.

Using some of the billions in revenue the scheme will generate, low-income households - those earning up to $53,000 a year - will receive full compensation through either the tax or family payments system.

Middle-income households - earning up to $150,000 - will receive partial compensation. Pensioners, carers, the elderly and others will have their pensions increased to compensate fully.

The payments will start either when or before the scheme begins and will help insulate Labor against expected electoral fallout.

So how are they going to fund this electoral fire-break?

A cap will be put on the amount of carbon that can be emitted. Within this cap, 1000 of the nation's biggest polluters will have to buy permits for each tonne of carbon they produce. The costs will be passed on to consumers and companies can trade unwanted permits. These are designed to act as incentives to reduce emissions.

The carbon price - the cost of each permit - will depend on the level of emissions.

UPDATE

Reaction (and a growing round-up of of reactions) from Not a Hedgehog: "Piss.Weak."

Technorati Tags: global warming, climate change

Pell: AGW Science Is Papal Bull

My one question to Cardinal George: If current global warming isn't man-made, then is it God's fault?

Then there is that other question. The one that stands out like The Dog Bollocks.

clipped from slimpickens.wordpress.com Is Pell exercising his Primacy of Conscience? In stating that he is a climate change skeptic, is Cardinal Pell exercising the Primacy of Conscience in defiance of Papal Infallibility and the authority of Benedict XVI’s warning that climate change and abuse of the environment is against God’s will? Or is he just indulging in a bit of the old secular relativism?

ASX preparing to trade carbon

Greed is good, but green greed is best.

The ASX has their eyes on their share of the $46.5 trillion investment market that the International Energy Agency says is required to reduce the world's CO2 emissions by 50 percent by 2030, 21.5 years away.

Robert Elstone | July 14, 2008

AS record high prices for coal, gas and oil - together with speculation as to the impact of the forthcoming emissions trading scheme on the Australian economy - dominate the headlines, the existing infrastructure of the Australian Securities Exchange remains a conduit to help firms raise and allocate capital as well as manage the risks associated with fluctuating energy and environmental product prices.

The International Energy Agency estimates that a $US45 trillion ($46.5 trillion) investment would be required to reduce the world's carbon dioxide emissions by 50 per cent by the year 2030.

Domestically, the National Generators Forum estimates that $150 billion is required to meet a 60 per cent reduction on year 2000 emissions by 2050.

While these estimates appear staggering, a well-designed ETS will generate an acceptable rate of return on the investment required. In other words, superannuants and other investors will be beneficiaries of the transformation process.

To put in context what needs to be achieved over the 42 years until 2050, one only has to look back over the same duration since 1966 to see how far that investment in new technologies and the sophistication of financial markets have advanced.

In 1966, we did not have personal computers or futures contracts on financial instruments such as equity indices and interest rate securities, let alone active derivative markets for compliance instruments such as emission permits and renewable energy certificates.

This is good news for prescient Australian companies who are already trading overseas, like AGL trading abatements on the Chicago Climate Exchange.

Technorati Tags: global warming, climate change

George Bush proud to lead world's biggest polluter

Just how embarrassing is it to be an American these days?

On average, they are seriously and sadly thick: firstly for having bought the line that Saddam was responsible for 9/11, and secondly, for re-electing George Bush.

But even more stupid than that is their pathetic excuse for a president, himself. I don't care that he comes from a wealthy family, that does not hide their lack of class. You ain't met flashier trailer trash than George Dubya Bush.

Oh George Bush is having quite a grand time at the annual G8 conference in Japan. He’s not molesting Angela Merkel this time, but he is embarrassing everyone: “The American leader, who has been condemned throughout his presidency for failing to tackle climate change, ended a private meeting with the words: ‘Goodbye from the world’s biggest polluter.’ He then punched the air while grinning widely, as the rest of those present including Gordon Brown and Nicolas Sarkozy looked on in shock.” Punched the air? Best George W. Bush imagery ever.

Good riddance. H/t: Wonkette

Technorati Tags: global warming, climate change