Gillard says the scheme will cost $394 million over four years and take 200,000 clunkers off the road in that period.
It will not achieve either goal.
 |
| Shag on Rock Apologies to Josh |
The overwhelming majority of the world's climate scientists concur: the emission of greenhouse gasses as a result of human activity is contributing to a rise in temperate and to the resulting climate change that poses nothing short of an existential threat.Three thoughts out of three wrong. Whatever happened to Journalistc Integrity? Whatever happened to Sceptical Journalism?
The four Ds of thinking like a journalist exemplify these qualities. They are:Looking at the Age and their support for the global warming hoax, they have completely failed in every respect to think like good journalists.
1. Doubt — a healthy skepticism that questions everything.
2. Detect — a “nose for news” and relentless pursuit of the truth.
3. Discern — a priority for fairness, balance and objectivity in reporting.
4. Demand — a focus on free access to information and freedom of speech.
"The overwhelming majority of the world's climate scientists"The consensus notion has been pushed by three flawed yet peer-reviewed papers:
THE "ALL QUIET EVENT": For the 4th day in a row, solar activity is extremely low. Compared to the beginning of July, when sunspots were abundant, the sun's global X-ray output has dropped by a factor of ten. Moreover, on July 17th the sunspot number fell all the way to zero. We call it "the All Quiet Event."
As July 19th unfolds, the sun is no longer completely blank. Three small sunspots are emerging, circled in this image (above) from NASA's Solar Dynamics Observatory. |
Today's reversal of our carbon laws represents a tragedy for our politics, a travesty for public policy and a train wreck for climate action. (link)The simple facts are that
Another Issue of "Carbon Sense” prepared by Viv Forbes
and The Carbon Sense Coalition.
Please pass on. We rely on our supporters to spread the word.
TO DOWNLOAD THIS NEWSLETTER WITH ALL FIGURES INTACT, CLICK THE FOLLOWING LINK:
http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/death-by-delay.pdfhttp://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/death-by-delay.pdf
www.carbon-sense.com18 July 2014
“The difference between taking a part of my life,
and taking my whole life, is just a matter of degree.” Anon
 |
| Special thanks to Mr. Larry Pickering for permission to reproduce this cartoon. If you like, you can follow him on facebook or visit him at pickeringpost.com/ Copyright L Pickering 2014 |
Anthony Cox
We've got a strong amendment which is based on consistent views over a number of years from Labor about emissions trading.Can he be serious? Let's examine the party's positions.
Climate change is not just an environmental challenge. It is so great we should be at the stage now in this country where climate change is beyond politics.
 |
| Image: I'm 41 |
In Denialism, New Yorker staff writer Michael Specter reveals that Americans have come to mistrust institutions and especially the institution of science more today than ever before. For centuries, the general view had been that science is neither good nor bad—that it merely supplies information and that new information is always beneficial. Now, science is viewed as a political constituency that isn’t always in our best interest. (bold added)His book seems not to cover the man-made global warming debate, however the non-science of the "consensus" scientists has surely contributed greatly to the the public's mistrust of the scientific community.
That quote by Michael Specter is brilliant for describing what true skepticism should be. In the media machine today, the term “skeptic” is often applied to people who accept pseudoscience because they are “skeptical” of mainstream science: “vaccine skeptics,” “climate skeptics,” “pharmaceutical skeptics,” and so on. The term gives these people (and other similar groups) a bit too much credit. Generally, they are ignoring proof and evidence. Michael Mann, a climate scientist from Pennsylvania State University, summarized it best when he said, “Denying mainstream science based on flimsy, invalid, and too-often agenda-driven critiques of science is not skepticism at all. It is contrarianism … or denial.”
A true skeptic is willing to look at all of the scientific evidence available and is willing to analyze it without bias. When the evidence says something, a skeptic can accept the outcome before them…until new evidence is presented.Looking at the scientific "proof and evidence" available, rather than FQTQ's 'pseudoscience,' we can see that the rise in atmospheric Carbon Dioxide follows the rise in global temperature (link)
After temperatures rise, on average it takes 800 years before carbon starts to move. The extraordinary thing is that the lag is well accepted by climatologists, yet virtually unknown outside these circles. The fact that temperature leads is not controversial. It’s relevance is debated.While it only needs once, the Man Made Global Warming (AGW) hypothesis has been falsified many times. As Einstein said: “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”
When future generations try to understand how the world got carried away around the end of the 20th century by the panic over global warming, few things will amaze them more than the part played in stoking up the scare by the fiddling of official temperature data. There was already much evidence of this seven years ago, when I was writing my history of the scare, The Real Global Warming Disaster. But now another damning example has been uncovered by Steven Goddard’s US blog Real Science, showing how shamelessly manipulated has been one of the world’s most influential climate records, the graph of US surface temperature records published by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). (See also WUWT.)
....I was a columnist for the New York Daily News, recently arrived in the United States after more than 30 years in Israel. I had heard about global warming, of course, but I hadn’t thought much about it. Israel has other, more pressing issues.
In May 2001, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change published its third report, which got a lot of media attention. I looked through it and realized immediately that I had no chance of understanding the science.
I was in good company – I doubt there are half a dozen journalists in captivity who can actually understand the mathematical and chemical formulas and computer projections. That’s what press releases are for.
One item got my attention. It said: “Projections based on the Special Report on Emissions Scenarios suggest warming over the 21st Century at a more rapid rate than that experienced for at least the last 10,000 years.”
I called the professor, one of the authors of the report, for a clarification (he remains nameless because we were off the record). “If global warming is caused by man-made emissions,” I asked, “what accounts for the world warming to this same level 10,000 years ago?”
There was a long silence. Then the professor said, “Are you serious?” I admitted that I was.
The professor loudly informed me that my question was stupid. The panel’s conclusion was indisputable science, arrived at after years of research by a conclave of the world’s leading climate scholars. Who was I to dispute it?
I told him I wasn’t disputing it, just trying to understand how, you know, the world could have been this hot before without the help of human agency.
Maybe this is just a natural climate change like ice ages that once connected continents and warming periods that caused them to drift apart or …
At which point I heard a click. The professor hung up on me. At that exact moment I became a climate skeptic. I may not know anything about science, but I have learned over a long career that when an expert hangs up in the middle of a question, it means that he doesn’t know the answer.
