Deja Vu

Bugger the smoking angle, you must be enjoying the new found sensation of making sense!

It's not a compliment....

watch out for paranoia too....apparently

Good luck with the gaspers though......evil, evil things.

Can't think of ever thinking you worthy of a compliment, tbh.  You must have misunderstood.

Take another pill, you're losing your clarity

Here IS a compliment.

Congratulations on making an effort to rid yourself of a devilish habit. Again, I wish you success in slaying the dragon.

Cheers

Weird



again

http://www.redd-monitor.org/2013/04/16/the-eu-emissions-trading-scheme-has-failed-time-to-scrap-the-ets/

NGO report busts the myths of the Emissions Trading Scheme
Why it must be replaced with direct action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions

Brussels, April 15th– The European Parliament votes tomorrow on the European Commission’s proposal to backload 900 million emissions permits within the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS). This vote assumes the EU ETS can be reformed, but ahead of the vote, a new report shows that the problems of the EU ETS are systemic and unresolvable. Keeping this failed system in place would further delay real action to reduce emissions in Europe.

The report “EU ETS myth busting: why it can’t be reformed and shouldn’t be replicated”, has been published by several signatory organisations[1] from the “Time to scrap the ETS” declaration. It looks at a number of claims made in defence of the EU ETS and shows why they are not valid.

A key myth is that is that the EU ETS has reduced greenhouse gas emissions. The slight decrease in emissions from 2008 and 2010 was in fact related to the economic crisis. There has been no real shift in the way energy is produced or used by industry. The EU ETS is incapable of triggering the transformation and regulatory actions necessary for a sustainable and just path that could be achieved through clear direct policies, explains the report.

“The vote on backloading is the wrong debate. No amount of structural tinkering will get away from the fact that the EU has chosen the wrong tool to reduce emissions in Europe. It is inherently too weak to get the EU to where it needs to be in the necessary timescale. To achieve its goal of keeping the increase in global warming within two degrees centigrade, itself totally inadequate, the EU can no longer wait for the market to deliver,” says Hannah Mowat from FERN.

Another myth busted in the report is that the EU ETS is a flexible and cost-effective tool to reduce emissions. “The question is, cost effective for whom? Businesses have managed to make windfall profits by passing costs onto consumers from permits to pollute which they got free of charge. In Phase I and II this was put down to market teething problems, but seven years on, these issues remain and are getting worse”, states Belén Balanyá, from Corporate Europe Observatory.

The report also pulls to pieces the idea of the EU ETS as an incentive to promote investment in cleaner energy solutions. It states that due to the massive over-allocation of permits, businesses have ensured that polluting has continued to be the cheapest option, and therefore, no noticeable investments were made in clean technologies or low-carbon solutions as a result of the ETS.

“The EU must acknowledge that the ETS experiment has not worked. Trying to fix this scheme will in fact close the door to effective and fair climate policies. We need to replace it with real action that will bring about a just transition away from fossil fuel dependence and that leaves future generations with a fair chance of avoiding uncontrollable climate change”, says Lyda Fernanda, from Transnational Institute.



the BIGGEST RORT EVER only works for the FILTHY TRADERS not the PLANET

very true Thebas they don't dive a flying about the planet..its all about the money money money
of course the comrades never discuss the benefits of global warming just the doom and gloom,cherry picking figures to scare one and all

BIGGEST RORT EVER

Beijing expands ets 

pretty much agree womble - the inevitable rort will get its way and the Club for Trading will sneak past the guard of honest citizens everywhere .. money talks

but the question - as posed - over and over - is that ....

HOW will trading co2 and allowing the biggest & richest to buy extra credits and dig up as much coal as they can afford ever REDUCE co2 emmissions



(and re your China example link .. you do understand it means they will increase trading co2 between provinces WITHIN china 

a bit like like australia trading co2 emmissions WITHIN the states of australia - clive could move money between qld & wa ... dig up as much as he wants or can afford ... pity about the environment tho as i thought the plan was to reduce emmissions lol)

BIGGEST RORT EVER

carbon tax is dead and after coalition gets returned so will be any silly idea of a traders picnic

BIGGEST RORT EVER

brilliantly written Thebas or as Mark Shean would say breeyantly presented Thebas

but unfortunately wasted on womble & co , they just don't get it......or do and are in on the rort financially like big Al

even the IPCC state the case against renewable subsidies 


The UN’s climate report has debunked Germany’s green energy subsidies as useless.

Green power useless – if there is emission trading

In its report the IPCC emphasises the futility of subsidies for renewable energy parallel to an emissions trading system:

“The addition of a CO2 reduction policy to a second policy does not necessarily lead to greater CO2 reductions,” it says in a literal translation of the IPCC’s Technical Summary:

“In an emissions trading scheme with a sufficiently stringent cap other measures such as subsidising renewable energy have no further influence on total CO2 emissions.”

Thus, the IPCC now confirms what the Scientific Advisory Board of the Federal Ministry of Economics, the Monopolies Commission or the President of the Ifo Institute, Hans -Werner Sinn, have been saying for years:

Under the fixed cap of European emissions trading with its precisely calculated amount of pollution rights renewable energy subsidies only lead to a shift of CO2 emissions, but not to their reduction.

http://www.thegwpf.org/german-government-falsifies-ipcc-summary-on-climate-policy/

lolol ... again ... it is you who are scraping the barrel ..

but in your scrape you use 'scrape' back against someone else reporting facts

you do this by quoting ... 

newleftwingwaltzingmatilda ... and (non)independentleftwing.com 

but you just don't see it i guess


for example ...

when the previous govt (under whatshername) ABOLISHED the solar rebate sceheme where did you post your horror and disbelief and an article from the newindependentleftwing rags

when the previous govt (under .. well you know who) abandoned the first major renewable chance at WHYALLA for all australia (and the world) to see if solar could run and entire industry/town and be viable ... where did you post your horror and disbelief and an article from the newindependentleftwing rags


everyone was waiting to see if Whyalla could work ... and hopefully change everything ... but no it was abandoned
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-06-07/solar-thermal-plant-blow-for-whyalla/4738758


to me you seem less interested in the environment ... or energy practice ... and totally devoted to just seeing labor holding the purse strings again 


so i say back to you ..

you seem to care about so much     

(well only about politics that is  )

regarding the last post from Thebas that is......

Climate sceptics see a conspiracy in Australia's record breaking heat

PLANET OZ
BY GRAHAM READFEARN
theguardiandotcom


Bureau of Meteorology says claims from one climate sceptic that it has corrupted temperature data are false

Australia's hottest year of 2013 started with a heatwave that caused widespread bush fires. In January the Holmes family from Tasmania took refuge under a jetty as wild fires raged around them. Australia’s hottest year of 2013 started with a heatwave that caused widespread bush fires. In January the Holmes family from Tasmania took refuge under a jetty as wild fires raged around them. Photograph: Tim Holmes/AP

You could cut the triumphalism on the climate science denialist blogs right now with a hardback copy of George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four.

Their unbridled joy comes not in the wake of some key research published in the scientific literature but in the fact that a climate sceptic has got a mainstream newspaper to give their conspiracy theory another airing.

The sceptic in question is Dr Jennifer Marohasy, a long-time doubter of human-caused climate change whose research at Central Queensland University (CQU) is funded by another climate change sceptic.

I choose the Nineteen Eighty-Four analogy in my introduction because it is one of Marohasy’s favourites. She likes to compare the work of the Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) to the various goings on in Orwell’s fictional dystopian novel.

The conspiracy theory is that BoM is using a technique to selectively tamper with its temperature data so that it better fits with the global warming narrative.

The people at NASA are in on it too.

Now the great thing about conspiracy theories is that, for believers, attempts to correct the record just serve to reinforce the conspiracy. Like a video clip of the moon landing on a constant loop, the whole thing feeds back on itself.

Correspondence posted on Marohasy’s blog shows she has been pushing her claims for months that BoM has “corrupted the official temperature record so it more closely accords with the theory of anthropogenic global warming”, according to a letter she wrote to Liberal Senator Simon Birmingham, whose parliamentary secretary portfolio includes responsibility for the agency.

Marohasy lays it on thick in the letter, accusing the bureau of engaging in “propaganda” and littering the text with claims of “corruption”.

The Australian’s environment editor Graham Lloyd was approached to cover the “story” and stepped bravely forward with four pieces in recent days covering Marohasy’s claims.

Lloyd wrote there was now an “escalating row” over the “competence and integrity” of the BoM despite the fact that Marohasy has not published her claims in a peer reviewed journal (the two papers mentioned in Lloyd’s story actually relate to rainfall prediction, not temperature).

Yet this matters not.

The climate science denialists, contrarians and anti-environmental culture warriors are lapping it up with headlines like “Australia Government Climate Office Accused Of Manipulating Temperature Data” and “Australian Bureau of Meteorology Accused of Criminally Adjusting Global Warming”.

This evening the BoM has released a statement that explains the processes at the bureau. I’ve posted it in full at the bottom of this post, but here’s a quote:

    Contrary to assertions in some parts of the media, the Bureau is not altering climate records to exaggerate estimates of global warming.


Homogenise this


The BoM maintains several sets of data on temperatures in Australia and the agency makes all that data available online.

One of those datasets is known as the Australian Climate Observations Reference Network – Surface Air Temperature (ACORN-SAT) and this is the one BoM used to declare 2013 was the hottest year on record.

Marohasy has been looking at some of the temperature stations that are included in ACORN-SAT and analysing the impact of a method known as “homogenisation” that the BoM sometimes employs with the ACORN-SAT data.

It’s no secret or even a revelation that the Bureau of Meteorology employs these techniques and others.

On the bureau’s website, anyone is free to lose themselves in a world of homogenised data sets, gridded temperature analysis and temporal homogeneity adjustments. Go for your life.

While Marohasy’s central claim – that BoM is doctoring figures to make them more acceptable to a narrative of warming - remains entirely untested in the scientific literature, the bureau’s methods used to compile ACORN-SAT have been peer reviewed.

Unusually, the bureau’s full response to one set of questions from Graham Lloyd has found its way onto at least one climate sceptic blog.

In the response the bureau explained why three specific site records it was asked about had been homogenised.

At Bourke, for example, the station had been moved three times in its history. Detective work had found that a noticeable shift in the readings in the 1950s had likely been due to changes in vegetation around the instrument.

At Amberley, the bureau noticed a marked shift in the minimum temperatures it had been recording, which was also likely due to the station being moved.

Another site at Rutherglen had data adjusted to account for two intervals – 1966 and 1974 – when its thought the site was moved from close to buildings to low-flat ground.

Marohasy wants heads to roll [rolls eyes] because she claims that the Rutherglen site was never moved and so there was no need to homogenise the data.

However, the bureau has documentary evidence showing that sometime before the 1970s the weather station was not in the place where it is now.

The bureau had initially spotted a break or jump in the data that pointed to a likely move at Rutherglen.

Perhaps all of these movements of temperature stations was a conspiracy in itself, cooked up in the 1950s?

Professor Neville Nicholls, of Monash University, worked at BoM for more than 30 years and from 1990 until he left in 2005 had led efforts to analyse rainfall and temperature readings from across the country. He told me:

    The original raw data is all still there – it has not been corrupted. Anyone can go and get that original data.

    Pre-1910 there was not much of a spread but also there was more uncertainty about how the temperatures were being measured. By 1910, most temperatures were being measured in a Stevenson Screen. A lot of measurements were taken at Post Offices but in many cases these were moved out to airports around the middle of the 20th century. That produces artificial cooling in the data.

    Towns for example in coastal New South Wales originally had temperatures taken near the ocean because that’s where the town was. But as the town grew the observations would move inland and that is enough to affect temperature and rainfall.

    Are we supposed to just ignore that? A scientist can’t ignore those effects. It’s not science to just go ahead and plot that raw data.

Nicholls said if people didn’t trust the way the BoM was presenting the data they could look elsewhere, such as a major project known as Berkeley Earth undertaken by former sceptic Professor Richard Muller which also used BoM data from as early as 1852 to mid-2013.
A chart showing Australia's warming trend from the Berkeley Earth project A chart from the Berkeley Earth analysis of global temperatures used data from the Bureau of Meteorology to reconstruct average temperatures for Australia going back to 1852. Photograph: Berkeley Earth


Sceptic funding


Before joining CQU, Marohasy spent many years working at the Institute of Public Affairs – a Melbourne-based free market think tank that has been promoting climate science denialism for more than two decades.

After leaving there, she became the chair of the Australian Environment Foundation, a spin-off from the IPA.

Marohasy has said that Bryant Macfie, a Perth-based climate science sceptic, funds her research at Central Queensland University.

In 2008, after Macfie had gifted $350,000 to the University of Queensland in a donation facilitated by the IPA to pay for environmental research scholarships there, he wrote that science had been corrupted by a “newer religion” of environmentalism.

In June, Marohasy made her claims about BoM to the Sydney Institute. In July she travelled to Las Vegas to speak at the Heartland Institute’s gathering of climate science denialists and assorted contrarians.

The Heartland Institute is the “free market” think tank that once ran a billboard advert with a picture of terrorist and murderer Ted “Unabomber” Kaczynski alongside the question: “I still believe in Global Warming. Do You?”

Also speaking in Las Vegas was federal MP for the Queensland electorate of Dawson, George Christensen, who appeared on a panel alongside Marohasy.

Christensen described mainstream climate science as “a lot of fiction dressed up as science”.
Data shows warming

Dr Lisa Alexander, the chief investigator at the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science, explained that in Australia it was not uncommon for temperature stations to be moved, often away from urban environments.

She said that, for example, sites moved only a kilometre or so to more exposed areas such as airports would tend to record lower temperatures.

    That then creates a jump in the time series that’s not related to a jump in the climate. The bureau is altering the temperature data to remove those non-climatic effects that are due to changes like new instrumentation or site movements.

    Is the bureau fiddling the figures to fit with a global warming conspiracy? No! Are they amending the records to make them consistent through time? Yes.

Also included in the BoM’s statement comes the following graph that overlays 18 different sets of temperature data for Australia - including (in yellow) another BoM dataset which is not homogenised. The graph also includes temperature measurements by satellite.

Now either the satellites are also in on the warming conspiracy, or there’s something else going on. I wonder what that might be?


Graph showing 18 different temperature datasets for Australia from 1911 to 2010 Comparison of 18 different sources of temperature data between 1911 and 2010 including from adjusted and unadjusted data and from analyses from international authorities. Photograph: Bureau of Meteorology, Australia


Here is the Bureau’s statement in full.

    Contrary to assertions in some parts of the media, the Bureau is not altering climate records to exaggerate estimates of global warming.

    Our role is to make meteorological measurements, and to curate, analyse and communicate the data for use in decision making and to support public understanding.

    To undertake these tasks, the Bureau employs highly skilled technicians and scientists and invests in high quality monitoring equipment.

    The Bureau measures temperature at nearly 800 sites across Australia, chiefly for the purpose of weather forecasting. The Australian Climate Observations Reference Network – Surface Air Temperature (ACORN-SAT) is a subset of this network comprising 112 locations that are used for climate analysis. The ACORN-SAT stations have been chosen to maximise both length of record and network coverage across the continent. For several years, all of this data has been made publicly available on the Bureau’s web site.

    Temperature records are influenced by a range of factors such as changes to site surrounds (eg. trees casting shade or influencing wind), measurement methods and the relocation of stations (eg. from a coastal to more inland location). Such changes introduce biases into the climate record that need to be adjusted for prior to analysis.

    Adjusting for these biases, a process known as homogenisation, is carried out by meteorological authorities around the world as best practice, to ensure that climate data is consistent through time.

    At the Bureau’s request, our climate data management practices were subject to a rigorous independent peer-review in 2012. A panel of international experts found the Bureau’s data and methods were amongst the best in the world.

    The Bureau’s submissions to the review were published on the Bureau’s website, as were the findings of the review panel.

    The Bureau’s methods have also been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

    Both the raw and adjusted ACORN-SAT data and the larger unadjusted national data set all indicate that Australian air temperatures have warmed over the last century. This finding is consistent with observed warming in the oceans surrounding Australia. These findings are also consistent with those of other leading international meteorological authorities, such as NOAA and NASA in the United States and the UK MetOffice. The high degree of similarity is demonstrated in Figure 1 (above).

    The Bureau strives to ensure that its data sets and analysis methods are as robust as possible. For this reason we place considerable emphasis on quality assurance, transparency and communication. The Bureau welcomes critical analysis of the Australian climate record by others through rigorous scientific peer review processes.

These loonies will have you believe its a crime to question anything they believe in

the money grubs are out there sweating on soaking poor Oz into their web of sovereign wealth stripping

- AND FOR NOTHING ... ACCORDING TO THE IPCC


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/climate-action-could-cost-10pc-of-gdp-says-the-ipcc/story-e6frg6xf-1226883118988?nk=9da79940c104099925f137f81c0d5678#



AGGRESSIVE action to limit the increase in global mean temperature to 2C could cost more than 10 per cent of world GDP by the end of the century, according to the latest report from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on ­Climate Change.

The report confirms the billions of dollars already spent on renewable energy policies had failed to slow growth in global carbon dioxide emissions, which had accelerated in the 10 years to 2010 to become the highest level in human history.

---

CP:  say something Al   ?

AG:  ............ just shut up Clive



[   This image is no longer available.   ]

CP:  great idea Al ... i'm with you all the way ... the ETS is the best way for us (both to make a buck)
AG:  we need to trade carbon credits Clive .. everyone wins

(except the planet )

[   This image is no longer available.   ]

Seem to be posting about alot of "sceptics".  Are there no "believers" left?


The problem you have here, is that you are trying to put people into 2 groups.  Sceptics, and believers.

The sceptics all agree that climate changes, and has done throughout history.  A lot of them will even suggest that man has at least some impact on temperatures.

The "believers" on the other hand, all have their own opinion, and you would hard pressed finding any with an accurate climate model even though the believers "believe" that not only do they know that climate is changing because of man, but they know by exactly how much.

Just that they don't want to point out which of the countless inaccurate models they are believing, just that they believe.

those in favour of an ETS which does zip for the planet are NOT environmentalists...they are just complicit in the

BIGGEST RORT EVER

so are they are saying people were just waiting and holding off till the carbon tax was (just) repealed
... and then we all started leaving our lights on all night ?

or are they saying that industry has finally got back to where it was after a six year hiatus and business is booming as more lights are turned on

or is it an alarmist statement to get people to stop using electricity

... or maybe they are saying that if the carbon tax comes back ... both industry and people will turn off the lights again

or is it Gina's brand new coal mine output at Alpha that the previous govt granted to Gina less than 10 weeks after introducing the fake tax 

or are they saying ... well who knows wtf they are saying

... but in the scheme of india & china and their industrial output then what happens in Oz is about 0.01 % of an issue re co2 that could be addressed in some way


BUT maybe it's just Al & Clive trying to sneak in an ETS now on an unsuspecting Oz ... so we can dig up MORE coal while the elite rich can barter credits to see who can dig & burn the most

--------

Clive: Al its shocking ... Australia is using more electricity

Al:  Beauty Clive ... when the ETS is finally in place in we'll both make a packet .. things couldn't be better

[   This image is no longer available.   ]

A lot of scientists and waste of space ****s said smoking didn't cause cancer..

that's right Ted and the sceptics were right in the end..........

of course Green energy is the way to go c***.....BUT AN ETS does nothing to help the cause.....just suit the big players....build the green and we will all convert happily....


this is the whole point here c*** err I mean Mona err Ted...

BIGGEST RORT EVER

the mix of generation changed Thebas once the dirtier stuff got cheaper again


that's a 12th option i guess lol

the truth is the stats mean bu gger all ... but it is always interesting to know

the issue really is not how much elctricity we use individually ... whatever its cost ... the issue is what should be the primary global source that generates all the electricity

and that's where it all stops dead sadly

the shock & awe mentality of the original IPCC manifesto and the alarmist exaggerations of the Al G movie etc have done more harm to the cause i reckon than they imagine imo

.. as when they were caught out with STATS that didn't measure up to reality and false claims (like the Himalayas) then a range of people CCORRECTLY turned off ... as you couldn't tell what was reality and what was fake ... in their claims of this and that

yet after 10 years of trading co2 credits in europe we know that path is a rank failure

and after 10 years of subsidising renewables we know that path didn't work either

so its a parlous state we find ourselves in

the IPCC have now taken nuclear out of the equation in their eyes of a possible energy replacement (after germany dumped their plans for uranium based nuclear after the Japan disaster)

but when you sit down in the clear light of day you KNOW letting the rich miners pay money to the rich bankers for carbon credits - that nothing will be solved down that tortuous path

and Al G (yes again) - one of the biggest single person burners of electricity possibly on the whole planet - who bought up carbon credits in the form of "idle" green companies (ie not productive) - so that he can trade them to himself to 'balnce his footprint' (ffs) - runs around telling everybody and anybody who would be bothered listening that he is - CARNON NEUTRAL

neautral ffs - the current australian govt AND the previous govt both have a 5% reduction target

but Mr Al - preaching his gospel - is happy to be just neutral (what a grub ... really ... i mean ffs)

the ETS between the resource & money ELITES is the

BIGGEST RORT EVER

---

in relation to your war scenario you are clearly trying that old 'horns of a dilemma' trick trying somehow again to link the 2 (like the rubbish trick some use with cigarettes and other scenarios)

why not tell us what you think in relation to to IS ... but generate another THRAED for it please (i would look and discuss as long as it is NOT on the 'absolute nonsense political thread' ... which i avoid like you would a 'bad smell down a dirty back alley' )