Advertisement

Carbon tax – extra ACT hit

By 5 May 2012 150

Are different arms & factions of the feds talking to each other? One lot who weighed up the carbon tax politics clearly felt that we’re a safe enough locality to add li’l ACTEW to the Clean Energy “dirty list”. Can it be a coincidence that this will hit supposed safe-Labor-seat voters in the guts?

Confusingly, another arm of the gubmint apparently decided we were wavering vote-wise and in need of pork-barrelling, hence the Manuka Oval lights announcement the other day.

Here’s the regulator’s punishment list.

So, fellow average-income-earners-not-getting-any-compensation, get set for extra nasties and carbon tax cost imposition way beyond the official calculator’s risible “$8 a week”.

Please login to post your comments
150 Responses to Carbon tax – extra ACT hit
#91
chewy1411:46 am, 09 May 12

HenryBG said :

chewy14 said :

Many people here have posted various valid reasons for disagreeing with the carbon tax.

No they haven’t.

There have only been four general classes of objections to the carbon tax here in this thread.

1/ Big Bad tax will cripple the economy and send us back to the stoneage

2/ Climate change isn’t happening/isn’t caused by CO2/can’t be stopped/etc…

3/ Australia doing its share of the effort won’t fix the entirety of the problem so why bother at all

4/ Why should we do something if somebody somewhere else doesn’t do it first

None of these are valid arguments. They are all one or more of factually-challenged, logically invalid, and/or ethically corrupt, if not downright childish.

Henry,
now you’re just changing other people’s arguments to suit your own.

1. No of course the carbon tax won’t send us back to the stone age. I don’t think anyone seriously posited that it would.
I did see a few people say that even if we decarbonised our economy back to the stone age that it wouldn’t make a difference to climate change. This is completley correct.

2. Not a serious argument. All current evidence shows that climate change is happening and is caused by man made emissions.

3. The argument is that why should we handicap our economy if it won’t make any difference to climate change which is one of the stated aims of the carbon tax?
If people want to make the argument that the carbon tax is good for the country because it will encourage growth in new technologies and reduce reliance on fossil fuels then they should make that argument.
But any argument that the carbon tax will make a difference to climate change is wrong. It’s complete symbolism.

4. The argument relates to 3. Why should we do anything when the world’s biggest emitters China, USA and India are increasing their emissions greater than our total amount yearly? Without a global agreement our efforts are futile.
There may be some symbolic and diplomatic value in being able to pressure other countries to change their behaviours because we’ve already enacted change but I personally think that value would be minimal.

#92
grump11:59 am, 09 May 12

chewy14 said :

HenryBG said :

chewy14 said :

Many people here have posted various valid reasons for disagreeing with the carbon tax.

No they haven’t.

There have only been four general classes of objections to the carbon tax here in this thread.

1/ Big Bad tax will cripple the economy and send us back to the stoneage

2/ Climate change isn’t happening/isn’t caused by CO2/can’t be stopped/etc…

3/ Australia doing its share of the effort won’t fix the entirety of the problem so why bother at all

4/ Why should we do something if somebody somewhere else doesn’t do it first

None of these are valid arguments. They are all one or more of factually-challenged, logically invalid, and/or ethically corrupt, if not downright childish.

Henry,
now you’re just changing other people’s arguments to suit your own.

1. No of course the carbon tax won’t send us back to the stone age. I don’t think anyone seriously posited that it would.
I did see a few people say that even if we decarbonised our economy back to the stone age that it wouldn’t make a difference to climate change. This is completley correct.

2. Not a serious argument. All current evidence shows that climate change is happening and is caused by man made emissions.

3. The argument is that why should we handicap our economy if it won’t make any difference to climate change which is one of the stated aims of the carbon tax?
If people want to make the argument that the carbon tax is good for the country because it will encourage growth in new technologies and reduce reliance on fossil fuels then they should make that argument.
But any argument that the carbon tax will make a difference to climate change is wrong. It’s complete symbolism.

4. The argument relates to 3. Why should we do anything when the world’s biggest emitters China, USA and India are increasing their emissions greater than our total amount yearly? Without a global agreement our efforts are futile.
There may be some symbolic and diplomatic value in being able to pressure other countries to change their behaviours because we’ve already enacted change but I personally think that value would be minimal.

+1

#93
HenryBG4:28 pm, 09 May 12

Chewy exposes his wrongness, again:

I-filed said :

Allow me to correct you. Flannery is paid $180,000 for three days a week, 40 weeks a year. More like $200 an hour, actually.

I’m tempted to ask, “Is that true, or did you read it in the Australian?”. but that would be cheating, because I already know that it is what was reported in the Australian and I already know that it is also untrue.

Flannery is paid $180k *pro rata*. Obviously the concept of *pro rata* is beyond your average mathematically-challenged denialist, but perhaps if you put just a little effort in, you might end up better informed than The Australian was planning on you being.

#94
HenryBG4:32 pm, 09 May 12

Chewy is wrong, again:

grump said :

…….. while our standard of living goes backwards and we descend in to the next stone age hardly seems a bright way to move forward.

See, there are loons posting here who state exactly what you say nobody has stated.

The fact that those loons approve of the thoughts *you* are sharing with us speaks for itself, too….

#95
chewy144:53 pm, 09 May 12

HenryBG said :

Chewy is wrong, again:

grump said :

…….. while our standard of living goes backwards and we descend in to the next stone age hardly seems a bright way to move forward.

See, there are loons posting here who state exactly what you say nobody has stated.

The fact that those loons approve of the thoughts *you* are sharing with us speaks for itself, too….

Actually if you could read what I wrote I said “I don’t think anyone seriously posited that”. Apologies if some people did, you can take that issue up with them.

And you’re making a serious logical fallacy by suggesting that my arguments are wrong because some people who agree with them have posted other incorrect material.

Anyway, you’re obviously not going to accept that there is legitimate debate here, so have fun beating up on the climate sceptics. I’m sure you’ll enjoy yourself.

#96
26048:09 pm, 09 May 12

HenryBG said :

I am not entirely convinced your “belief” is particularly well-informed, when all you have to do is read one more line of that document:

The 100-year linear trend (1906-2005) of 0.74 [0.56 to 0.92]°C[1] is larger than the corresponding trend of 0.6 [0.4 to 0.8]°C (1901-2000)

Now, think about it: you have two 100-year-long linear trends. By adding a mere 5 years’ data to obtain the second one, you have increased the slope of the trend by 25%.

That’s because the temperature increase was so laughably minimal between 1900-2000 – 0.006 degrees Celsius per year, on average. The increase between 2000-2005 only works out at around 0.035 degrees Celsius per year – hardly something to write home about.

Incidentally, if it was such a big increase, what did humans start doing between 2000-2005 to precipitate such catastrophic global warming that they hadn’t been doing between 1900-2000?

#97
HenryBG9:15 pm, 09 May 12

2604 said :

HenryBG said :

I am not entirely convinced your “belief” is particularly well-informed, when all you have to do is read one more line of that document:

The 100-year linear trend (1906-2005) of 0.74 [0.56 to 0.92]°C[1] is larger than the corresponding trend of 0.6 [0.4 to 0.8]°C (1901-2000)

Now, think about it: you have two 100-year-long linear trends. By adding a mere 5 years’ data to obtain the second one, you have increased the slope of the trend by 25%.

That’s because the temperature increase was so laughably minimal between 1900-2000 – 0.006 degrees Celsius per year, on average. The increase between 2000-2005 only works out at around 0.035 degrees Celsius per year – hardly something to write home about.

Incidentally, if it was such a big increase, what did humans start doing between 2000-2005 to precipitate such catastrophic global warming that they hadn’t been doing between 1900-2000?

There are 5 problems with your response.

1. When confronted with evidence of your selective quoting and the fact that the missing data shows quite clearly an accelerating trend, you refuse to take this on board and modify your belief.

2. Your idea that “humans start doing” something in 2000-2005 would be reflected in data from the period 2000-2005 seems fairly unrealistic.

3. You seem to think that a long-term increase of 0.006 degrees per year is “laughable” – is that a scientific measurement?

4. You seem to fail to be able to contrast 0.006/year with 0.035/year, figure out this is a 600% increase, and correctly appreciate the significance of this and the scale of the acceleration of the warming trend.

5. You haven’t deferred to any expert opinions to help you understand the data.

All in all, the selective quoting makes me doubt your integrity, while the rest of it makes me doubt your ability to learn from your mistakes and your capacity to ever use sources correctly to arrive at a correct analysis.

#98
HenryBG9:38 pm, 09 May 12

chewy14 said :

Actually if you could read what I wrote I said “I don’t think anyone seriously posited that”. Apologies if some people did, you can take that issue up with them.

Oh, I will! It would just be nice if the people who aren’t loons would stop encouraging the people who are loons. They don’t really help your argument much, for starters, let alone contribute to adult discussion.

I’d like to potentially apologise in return to you for getting it wrong about Tim Flannery’s salary – according to this:
http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22committees%2Festimate%2F5957d555-d5af-406a-9d73-21b790a8d86d%2F0004%22
he has been put on the equivalent to an SES Band3, pro rata’d down to 3 days per week.

As I understand it, SES3 should cover 230-280K. Pro rata’ing that down gives a max of 168K. So it doesn’t seem to add up either way you look at it. I suspect the “he’s SES band 3″ is more likely to be wrong than the “he’s on $180k/year”. Normally, it’s a safe bet that whatever you read in The Australian is wrong, but perhaps this is one of those rare occasions where they got it right.

Senator IAN MACDONALD: I can take it round the long way. Is Mr Flannery still being paid, what, $180,000 for an average of two days work a week? Is that still the case?

Mr Comley : On the question of the remuneration of Professor Flannery, nothing has changed from the previous evidence we have provided, which is that Professor Flannery is paid equivalent to a deputy secretary position on a pro rata basis, which is expected to be around three days per week.

Senator IAN MACDONALD: What does that mean in actual figures? What does a deputy secretary get?

Mr Comley : There is a range, but in terms of the figure you have quoted, that number of around $180,000 a year is correct.

Senator IAN MACDONALD: That has changed, though, since we last spoke about it?

Mr Comley : No. I am saying there has been no change in the remuneration arrangements of Professor Flannery since we last discussed this at estimates.

Senator IAN MACDONALD: That equates to three-fifths of a relevant deputy secretary’s salary.

#99
gazket10:41 pm, 09 May 12

HenryBG – you have been trolling this thread for 4 days now. Talk about flogging a dead horse

Climate change , global warming = hoax, scam, FRAUD

#100
260411:01 pm, 09 May 12

HenryBG said :

1. When confronted with evidence of your selective quoting and the fact that the missing data shows quite clearly an accelerating trend, you refuse to take this on board and modify your belief.

Translation: “Why aren’t you gullible enough to change your opinion based upon a single, five-year period of exceptionally hot weather, and to believe that this constitutes an “accelerating trend” that will result in average global temperatures increasing by an average of 0.25 degrees Celsius per year over the next quarter century despite those temperatures having only increased at average rates of between 0.006 and 0.035 degrees per year over the past 100 years?”

HenryBG said :

2. Your idea that “humans start doing” something in 2000-2005 would be reflected in data from the period 2000-2005 seems fairly unrealistic.

But given the link between human activity and global warming, which is obviously a sacrosanct concept, this sudden increase (like global warming generally) must have been caused by human activity. So tell me, what did human beings do between 2000-2005 or the immediately preceding years that they hadn’t been doing since at least the early 1950s? And why was the increase so sudden? Were 600% more cars on the road all of a sudden?

HenryBG said :

3. You seem to think that a long-term increase of 0.006 degrees per year is “laughable” – is that a scientific measurement?

Laughable: not a scientific measurement. 0.006 degrees per year (one degree every ~166 years): definitely a scientific measurement.

HenryBG said :

4. You seem to fail to be able to contrast 0.006/year with 0.035/year, figure out this is a 600% increase, and correctly appreciate the significance of this and the scale of the acceleration of the warming trend.

Oh I can see the increase. I just don’t agree that a single five-year period constitutes a trend. It certainly isn’t a sound basis for concluding that a permanent and life-threatening warming trend is underway.

HenryBG said :

5. You haven’t deferred to any expert opinions to help you understand the data.

The data seem pretty straightforward to me. What expert opinions have you drawn upon?

HenryBG said :

All in all, the selective quoting makes me doubt your integrity, while the rest of it makes me doubt your ability to learn from your mistakes and your capacity to ever use sources correctly to arrive at a correct analysis.

Speaking of using sources correctly to arrive at a correct analysis – remind me again which tax cuts will be available for people earning $80,000-plus as compensation for the carbon tax, given your analysis that the on-costs of the carbon tax would be “offset by lower taxes on all of us”?

#101
I-filed11:26 pm, 09 May 12

gazket said :

HenryBG – you have been trolling this thread for 4 days now. Talk about flogging a dead horse

Climate change , global warming = hoax, scam, FRAUD

Interesting new trolling technique of HenryBG’s – where did he get the idea that “chewy” and “I-filed” are one and the same? Is he sick of responding individually, and has decided to gradually lump everyone together? He’s just adding to my perception that someone with this much time to troll RiotAct is NOT a high income earner.

#102
HenryBG8:01 am, 10 May 12

2604 said :

HenryBG said :

1. When confronted with evidence of your selective quoting and the fact that the missing data shows quite clearly an accelerating trend, you refuse to take this on board and modify your belief.

Translation: “Why aren’t you gullible enough to change your opinion based upon a single, five-year period of exceptionally hot weather,

The irony of somebody who uses a carefully selected half a sentence from an IPCC document to buttress their opinion then complaining about conclusions being drawn from limited amounts of data is quite delicious.

2604 said :

So tell me, what did human beings do between 2000-2005 or the immediately preceding years that they hadn’t been doing since at least the early 1950s? And why was the increase so sudden? Were 600% more cars on the road all of a sudden?

Who says it’s “sudden”?
Could it possibly look “sudden” to you, because you are – again – trying to draw conclusions based on looking at a single data point?

What I’m taking away from what you’ve written is the you have decided to make it a matter of faith to believe that
– human activity doesn’t cause CO2 to increase
– increased CO2 doesn’t warm the planet
– the planet isn’t warming
– the warming of the planet isn’t accelerating

These beliefs of yours fly in the face of physics and observation and put you pretty much on-par with a flat-earther.

#103
HenryBG8:13 am, 10 May 12

Here you go, 2604:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html

http://www.bom.gov.au/announcements/media_releases/climate/change/20120104.shtml

These are the facts. Improve your understanding and avoid embarrassment by reading them instead of secondary sources.

#104
Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd8:29 am, 10 May 12

Because henrybg is such a god aweful troll, people are not takeing him seriosly, think the boy who cried wolf but on teh interwebs.

To anyone not taking him seriously in this thread, then i guess that = you are either trolling yourselves or incredibly ignorant/in denial or brainwashed. Global warming is real as proven by scientists. Alan jones, news papers and religious fools are not scientists.

#105
Jim Jones8:44 am, 10 May 12

gazket said :

HenryBG – you have been trolling this thread for 4 days now. Talk about flogging a dead horse

Climate change , global warming = hoax, scam, FRAUD

Earth = flat

BWAAAAA HA HAH AHAHA HA

#106
dungfungus9:16 am, 10 May 12

The Earth is definitely flat; otherwise, how come a spirit level is not curved.
I checked at my front door this morning and again, there is no sign of the sea invading my street.
Don’t know why I need my electric blanket so early this year so I guess global warming hasn’t reached my neighbourhood yet.
BTW, my electricity is colourless; didn’t know it could be purchased green. Are any other colours available?
Got to put on my tin foil hat now and go for a pensioner walk before the heat comes.
Don’t forget to take your medication HenryBG.

#107
Jim Jones9:52 am, 10 May 12

dungfungus said :

The Earth is definitely flat; otherwise, how come a spirit level is not curved.
I checked at my front door this morning and again, there is no sign of the sea invading my street.
Don’t know why I need my electric blanket so early this year so I guess global warming hasn’t reached my neighbourhood yet.
BTW, my electricity is colourless; didn’t know it could be purchased green. Are any other colours available?
Got to put on my tin foil hat now and go for a pensioner walk before the heat comes.
Don’t forget to take your medication HenryBG.

If the earth is so round, how come we all don’t just slip off the edges and fall off, huh? Explain that, mister smarty-pants scientist. The whole thing is just a massive scam to get money … and stuff.

#108
dungfungus10:55 am, 10 May 12

Jim Jones said :

dungfungus said :

The Earth is definitely flat; otherwise, how come a spirit level is not curved.
I checked at my front door this morning and again, there is no sign of the sea invading my street.
Don’t know why I need my electric blanket so early this year so I guess global warming hasn’t reached my neighbourhood yet.
BTW, my electricity is colourless; didn’t know it could be purchased green. Are any other colours available?
Got to put on my tin foil hat now and go for a pensioner walk before the heat comes.
Don’t forget to take your medication HenryBG.

If the earth is so round, how come we all don’t just slip off the edges and fall off, huh? Explain that, mister smarty-pants scientist. The whole thing is just a massive scam to get money … and stuff.

Simple, don’t live near the edges.
Are you by any chance HenryBG’s brother-in-law?

#109
Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd11:16 am, 10 May 12

lolol

#110
Jim Jones11:19 am, 10 May 12

dungfungus said :

Jim Jones said :

dungfungus said :

The Earth is definitely flat; otherwise, how come a spirit level is not curved.
I checked at my front door this morning and again, there is no sign of the sea invading my street.
Don’t know why I need my electric blanket so early this year so I guess global warming hasn’t reached my neighbourhood yet.
BTW, my electricity is colourless; didn’t know it could be purchased green. Are any other colours available?
Got to put on my tin foil hat now and go for a pensioner walk before the heat comes.
Don’t forget to take your medication HenryBG.

If the earth is so round, how come we all don’t just slip off the edges and fall off, huh? Explain that, mister smarty-pants scientist. The whole thing is just a massive scam to get money … and stuff.

Simple, don’t live near the edges.
Are you by any chance HenryBG’s brother-in-law?

I’m not married. I refuse to get married because of the whole gay marriage thing. I don’t want to get married only to discover that the bloody lefty gummint is gonna force me to be a gay because I’m married. I didn’t fight in all those world wars for my country only for the gummint to turn around and tell me I have to be a gay.

#111
VYBerlinaV8_is_back11:35 am, 10 May 12

Jim Jones said :

dungfungus said :

Jim Jones said :

dungfungus said :

The Earth is definitely flat; otherwise, how come a spirit level is not curved.
I checked at my front door this morning and again, there is no sign of the sea invading my street.
Don’t know why I need my electric blanket so early this year so I guess global warming hasn’t reached my neighbourhood yet.
BTW, my electricity is colourless; didn’t know it could be purchased green. Are any other colours available?
Got to put on my tin foil hat now and go for a pensioner walk before the heat comes.
Don’t forget to take your medication HenryBG.

If the earth is so round, how come we all don’t just slip off the edges and fall off, huh? Explain that, mister smarty-pants scientist. The whole thing is just a massive scam to get money … and stuff.

Simple, don’t live near the edges.
Are you by any chance HenryBG’s brother-in-law?

I’m not married. I refuse to get married because of the whole gay marriage thing. I don’t want to get married only to discover that the bloody lefty gummint is gonna force me to be a gay because I’m married. I didn’t fight in all those world wars for my country only for the gummint to turn around and tell me I have to be a gay.

I only believe in gay marriage when both chicks are hot.

#112
davo10112:21 pm, 10 May 12

gazket said :

HenryBG – you have been trolling this thread for 4 days now. Talk about flogging a dead horse

Are you sure? How exactly do you tell the difference between the troller and trollee?

gazket said :

Climate change , global warming = hoax, scam, FRAUD

To right! Exactly the same as those laws of thermodynamics–just a big hoax perpetrated by the energy companies to make me buy more of their products.

#113
Diggety10:35 pm, 16 May 12

Just going through the comments, I see some have taken Tim Flannery’s word as gospel, or have used his appraoch to get a certain point across.

Flannery has for a long time, and still is, well outside the accepted science on anthropogenic climate change. Flannery’s selection as a communicator of ACC was a poor choice and has demonstrably set back popular attitude to climate mitigation and adaption.

But it’s a bit of a catch 22, let him go and it’s a political defeat, keep him on and deal with the liability.

I think people find it hard to accept that our utilisation of resources to support our way of life can influence Earths’ temperature- I don’t blame them. But if using a figure proposing extreme scenarios based on “what if” models of 25 years ago where ACC was in it’s infancy is counter intuitive and counter productive.

P.S. The carbon tax is pretty sh*t policy for wide variety of reasons, IMO. The following ETS on the other hand could be pretty good with some improvements.

#114
HenryBG12:14 am, 17 May 12

Diggety said :

Flannery has for a long time, and still is, well outside the accepted science on anthropogenic climate change. Flannery’s selection as a communicator of ACC was a poor choice and has demonstrably set back popular attitude to climate mitigation and adaption.

I see some people have taken Rupert Murdoch’s word as gospel, or have used his approach to get their point across.

How instead of following sheeplike in the footsteps of the ignorant, reactionary radio shock-jocks by trying to slime the scientists, you deal with the actual facts that are on the table.

ie, the very real facts that we’re still releasing a lot of CO2 by burning fossil fuels, CO2 is trapping heat that would otherwise escape the atmosphere, the Earth is heating up, glaciers and ice caps are melting, oceans are rising, and the heads of US intelligence agencies and the IEA are warning of some very dire consequences if we continue allowing anti-science morons to hijack public policy debate in this area. Fancy dealing with these facts instead of just indulging in (unreferenced and fact-free) character assasinations?

#115
Diggety2:51 am, 17 May 12

HenryBG said :

Diggety said :

Flannery has for a long time, and still is, well outside the accepted science on anthropogenic climate change. Flannery’s selection as a communicator of ACC was a poor choice and has demonstrably set back popular attitude to climate mitigation and adaption.

How instead of following sheeplike in the footsteps of the ignorant, reactionary radio shock-jocks by trying to slime the scientists, you deal with the actual facts that are on the table.

ie, the very real facts that we’re still releasing a lot of CO2 by burning fossil fuels, CO2 is trapping heat that would otherwise escape the atmosphere, the Earth is heating up, glaciers and ice caps are melting, oceans are rising, and the heads of US intelligence agencies and the IEA are warning of some very dire consequences if we continue allowing anti-science morons to hijack public policy debate in this area. Fancy dealing with these facts instead of just indulging in (unreferenced and fact-free) character assasinations?

Ah, I see you haven’t read Tim Flannery’s book entitled The Weather Makers: The History and Future Impact of Climate Change

Read that, then read the best available current science and compare.

Sometimes I think he is intentionally trying to make a dick of ACC, rather than advocate action. He just gives deniers a platform to deny. Then on the other unscientific hand, he gives Henry’s a platform to be Henry’s.

Stick with the science old man. It’s our best bet.

P.S. If you’d like to guide the CT back on topic, I’m all keyboard.

#116
SnapperJack6:14 am, 17 May 12

HenryBG said :

Diggety said :

Flannery has for a long time, and still is, well outside the accepted science on anthropogenic climate change. Flannery’s selection as a communicator of ACC was a poor choice and has demonstrably set back popular attitude to climate mitigation and adaption.

I see some people have taken Rupert Murdoch’s word as gospel, or have used his approach to get their point across.

How instead of following sheeplike in the footsteps of the ignorant, reactionary radio shock-jocks by trying to slime the scientists, you deal with the actual facts that are on the table.

ie, the very real facts that we’re still releasing a lot of CO2 by burning fossil fuels, CO2 is trapping heat that would otherwise escape the atmosphere, the Earth is heating up, glaciers and ice caps are melting, oceans are rising, and the heads of US intelligence agencies and the IEA are warning of some very dire consequences if we continue allowing anti-science morons to hijack public policy debate in this area. Fancy dealing with these facts instead of just indulging in (unreferenced and fact-free) character assasinations?

Ah, more irrational and hysterical invective from a climate change true believer. I was disappointed with Henry’s last post when – in his spray – he left out the favourite whipping boy those horrid, bushwacking shock jocks but there they are this time along with the old whipping boy Rupert Murdoch.

Henry is accurate when he says co2 levels have risen but it is having no effect whatsoever on the climate. A brief period of global warming ended in 1997 and since then the temperature has actually fallen. Glaciers and ice caps are not melting, ice levels in the Arctic and Antarctic are tracking as normal and polar bear numbers have increased in recent years. Sea levels are not rising. And who are these “heads of US intelligence agencies and the IEA” giving warnings? More fantasy. More fabrication. A bit like those non-existent “death threats” made to climate scientists at the ANU.

As far as Flannery is concerned, he has form in issuing false and alarmist statements regarding climate change. Remember his claim in 2007 that we would never have rain again and dams would never fill? He is now regarded as a pathetic comic figure – a latter-day Chicken Little warning that the sky is falling and the public are laughing behind his back and continuing with their lives as normal. He has cried wolf too often and the climate change believers are their own worst enemy upping the ante with their doomsday scenarios. It is a silly “Look at me! Look at me!” attention-grabbing exercise.

The public are growing increasingly tired of being taken as fools by the climate change brigade and their desperate clinging to a now discredited and obsolete approach to the world’s climate. It is not only pathetic and demeaning, it is embarrassing.

#117
welkin318:17 am, 17 May 12

I suppose readers are aware of the Climate Commission recent publicity – “Heatwaves, bushfires predicted to hammer NSW”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-05-14/heatwaves-bushfires-predicted-to-hammer-nsw/4009006
but do you know how easy it was for rational scientists to examine Sydney temperature data and show that Chief climate commissioner Tim Flannery was cherry picking the recent decades – since 1970 – to get his doomster conclusions.
When you examine all Sydney Observatory data you see that 1926 holds the record for the most days over 35C as shown in the graphic at the Jennifer Marohasy site.
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2012/05/climate-commission-fudges-hot-day-data/
What are the Climate Commissioners paid to turn out such misleading twaddle ?

#118
HenryBG9:14 am, 17 May 12

welkin31 said :

I
When you examine all Sydney Observatory data you see that 1926 holds the record for the most days over 35C as shown in the graphic at the Jennifer Marohasy site.
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2012/05/climate-commission-fudges-hot-day-data/
What are the Climate Commissioners paid to turn out such misleading twaddle ?

The misleading twaddle is yours.

You’ve found one record in one place which was set in 1926 and saying, “Look, this record set in 1926 hasn’t been broken yet – therefore there’s no such thing as global warming”.

I’m not sure whether *you*’re stupid, or whether you expect the audience for your twaddle might be.

Either way, stop getting your information from kook-sites on the internet.
Try the Bureau of Met – they collect data from *lots* of sites, then they analyse it *professionally* and present *factual* conclusions, eg:
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/global/timeseries.cgi

As you can see from this graph, the globe is warming.

quote comment=”406390″]
Henry is accurate when he says co2 levels have risen but it is having no effect whatsoever on the climate.

Another idiot who thinks the laws of physics don’t apply when you get your information from Andrew Bolt.

Here are some more relevant graphs from some people who don’t babble crap on talkback radio, but study data and analyse it professionally:
Warm spell duration:
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/extremes/timeseries.cgi?graph=WSDI&ave_yr=0
Hot nights:
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/extremes/timeseries.cgi?graph=HN20&ave_yr=0
Cool nights:
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/extremes/timeseries.cgi?graph=TN10&ave_yr=0
Frost nights:
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/extremes/timeseries.cgi?graph=CN00&ave_yr=0

As you can see, these graphs all tell a story, and that story doesn’t involve ignoring data before 1997 to draw stupid and amateurish conclusions.

#119
pajs9:22 am, 17 May 12

welkin31 said :

I suppose readers are aware of the Climate Commission recent publicity – “Heatwaves, bushfires predicted to hammer NSW”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-05-14/heatwaves-bushfires-predicted-to-hammer-nsw/4009006
but do you know how easy it was for rational scientists to examine Sydney temperature data and show that Chief climate commissioner Tim Flannery was cherry picking the recent decades – since 1970 – to get his doomster conclusions.
When you examine all Sydney Observatory data you see that 1926 holds the record for the most days over 35C as shown in the graphic at the Jennifer Marohasy site.
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2012/05/climate-commission-fudges-hot-day-data/
What are the Climate Commissioners paid to turn out such misleading twaddle ?

This is some of your best work. You critique some work as ‘cherry-picking’ by only covering recent decades and your evidence is a cherry-pick of a single year. More of this please.

#120
HenryBG9:57 am, 17 May 12

SnapperJack said :

As far as Flannery is concerned, he has form in issuing false and alarmist statements regarding climate change. Remember his claim in 2007 that we would never have rain again and dams would never fill? .

Yes, this would be the statement that Flannery never actually made which was invented by cretinous anti-science idiots and still parrotted to this day by gullible fools – I remember that. Apparently you do, too, Sqwark.

Follow
Follow The RiotACT
Advertisement
GET PREMIUM MEMBERSHIP

Are you in favour of Light Rail for Canberra?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

IMAGES OF CANBERRA

Advertisement
Sponsors
RiotACT Proudly Supports
Advertisement
Copyright © 2014 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.