Sunday, 10 July 2011

We are not worthy! Julia. We are not worthy!

Julia has announced her package. Did anyone notice that she has promised compensation of $4.82 billion above the tax that she is collecting? The er....the compensation is MORE than the tax she is collecting.

Oh, to be perfectly fair, that $4.82 billion is over four years. So that's only $1.24 billion per annum that we have to borrow from Overseas sources such as China. So we have to add interest to that. And the additional beaurocrats to manage the tax-in, bribes-out.

Of course, that means that her budget will be out by $1.24 billion plus...... oh and let's not forget that her Climate Change Con Minister (Greg) Combet at the  CanCun Convention (CCCmCCCC) promised a % of all Climate Change Receipts (CCR) to the UN Climate Climate Con (UNCCC) - oh, and of course, CCC Combet also promised a flagfall of $597 mn before we even started paying our percentage.

So the budget is out by:

                              Julia's             $1.24 bn/annum
                   Combet's Flagfall     $0.597bn
                   Plus   GST 10%        etc  etc

The quality of mercy is not strain'd, 
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath: it is twice blest;
It blesseth him that gives and him that takes:
'Tis mightiest in the mightiest:

Why The Global Warming Agenda Is Wrong

Not only is Green energy Expensive,  it cannot meet a substantial fraction of our energy needs.

A debunking of the global warming agenda, from Roy W. Spencer, former NASA climatologist and climate expert. For more on this topic, purchase his new Broadside, "The Bad Science and Bad Policy of Obama's Global Warming Agenda."

Gillard's tax on 'carbon pollution: the facts by The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley

Press release by:      The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley

Gillard's tax on 'carbon pollution': the facts

If the Australian Government’s proposal to oblige 500 big “polluters” to engage in what the City of London calls “trading hot air” were to achieve its stated aim of cutting 5% of Australia’s CO2 emissions by 2020, and assuming HM Treasury’s 3.5% pure-rate-of- time-preference commercial discount rate for inter-temporal investment appraisals –

> By 2020, CO2 in the air would be 411.987 parts per million by volume, compared with 412 ppmv if no action were taken.
> Global warming forestalled by 2020 would be 0.00007 C°: i.e. 1/14,000 C°
> 0.00007 C° is 1/700 of the threshold below which modern instruments and methods cannot detect a global temperature change at all. 
> At this rate, total cost of the carbon tax/trade policy will be not less than $127
billion between now and 2020, not counting gasoline and power price hikes. 
> If all the world’s measures to cut greenhouse-gas emissions were as cost- ineffective as the Australian Government’s proposed policy, forestalling just 1 C°
of global warming would cost the world $1.7 quadrillion
> Forestalling all of the 0.24 C° global warming predicted by 2020 would demand
almost $60,000 from every man, woman and child on the planet. 
> That cost is equivalent to almost 60% of global GDP to 2020. 
> That is 22 times the maximum estimate of the welfare loss from doing nothing
about the climate, which is just 2.7% of global 21st-century GDP
> It is 83 times the minimum welfare-loss estimate of just 0.7% of GDP
> Garnaut’s 1.35% and 2.65% inter-temporal discount rates are very low by usual
economic standards, artificially making the cost of action seem less costly
compared with the cost of inaction than it really is. However – 
> Even at Garnaut’s artificially low discount rates, the cost of the Gillard policy
would be 7.6 to 15 times the cost of doing nothing about climate change. 
> At the 5% discount rate recommended by President Dr. Vaclav Klaus of the Czech Republic for climate-related appraisals, the cost of doing what Gillard proposes
would be 36 times the maximum cost of doing nothing. 
> For most Australian households, the $10.10/week benefit from the Gillard
scheme will exceed the $9.90/week cost, providing no disincentive to emit. 
> For 500 big “polluters” (CO2 is not a pollutant, but plant-food to green the
planet), compensation plus higher prices provide no disincentive to emit
> Thus, all the above calculations overstate the scheme’s cost-effectiveness. 
> Bottom line: It is many times more costly to try to prevent global
warming by Gillard‟s methods than to adapt in a focused way to the predicted consequences of global warming.
Conclusion: Mitigation policies cheap enough to be affordable will be ineffective: policies costly enough to be effective will be unaffordable. It is unlikely that any policy to forestall global warming by regulating, reducing replacing, taxing or trading greenhouse- gas emissions will prove cost-effective solely on grounds of the welfare benefit foreseeable from global-warming mitigation. No such benefit is discernible.
High abatement costs, and the negligible returns in warming forestalled, imply that focused adaptation to the consequences of such future warming as may occur will prove more cost-effective than any attempted mitigation. The opportunity cost of diverting trillions of dollars to mitigation is heavy. Therefore, the question arises whether mitigation should be attempted at all.
Background information
The following pages of background information demonstrate how the above results were determined. For full references, caveats, and a thorough discussion, see –
Monckton of Brenchley, C.W., 2009, Is CO2 Mitigation Cost-Effective? Lecture to the Prague School of Economics, May, 12 pp: obtainable from

Radiative flux is a continuous flow of radiant energy at some surface, denominated
in Watts per square metre (W m–2).
Radiative forcing is a change in the net radiative flux at the tropopause, the top of the climatically-active region of the atmosphere.
The mitigation cost-effectiveness of any policy intended to mitigate global warming by reducing CO2 concentration in the air is the cost of forestalling 1 C° of CO2-induced global warming, on the assumption that all measures to mitigate that warming up to a target year are as cost-effective (or cost-ineffective) as that policy.
On the same assumption, the global abatement cost of a policy is the cost (expressed as a percentage of global GDP taken as increasing yearly at 3% real, and discounted at some inter-temporal discount rate) of forestalling all warming from CO2 and other manmade climate influences up to the target year (in this case, 2020).
Base data (with sources)
3.4 C°: cent.est. of 21st-century manmade warming: (IPCC, 2007, p.13, table SPM.3).
8 W m–2: cent.est. of 21st-century radiative forcing (IPCC, 2007, p. 803, fig. 10.26).
5.35: CO2 radiative-forcing coefficient: (Myhre et al., 1998; IPCC, 2001 & 2007: A2).
280 ppmv: Estd. CO2 concentration in the air in 1750 (IPCC, 2001 & 2007: A2).
390 ppmv: Measured CO2 concentration in 2010 (NOAA; ESRL).
22 ppmv: Projected CO2 concentr. growth, 2011-2020 (IPCC. 2007, A2 scenario).
836 ppmv: Projected CO2 concentration in 2100 (IPCC, 2007, A2 scenario).
5%: Proposed cut in Australian emissions by 2020. (Gillard announcement, 2011).
1.2%: Australian CO2 emissions as % world emissions (from Boden et al., 2010ab).
$10.1 bn/yr: carbon trading cost (23/26 x $11.5 bn given in Garnaut, 2011).
$0.9 bn/yr: renewable energy support ($9.2 bn over 10 years: Gillard, 2011).
$1.6 bn/yr: administration costs (Wong, 2010).
$0.3 bn/yr: costs of coal & steel support averaged over 10 years (Gillard, 2011).
$60 trillion: Global annual GDP (World Bank, 2011).
51%: CO2 forcing as a proportion of all 21st-century manmade forcings (IPCC, 2007).
0.1%: Pure rate-of-time-preference inter-generational discount rate (Stern, 2006).
1.35% & 2.65%: Pure rate-of-time-preference discount rates (Garnaut, 2008).
2.75% & 3.22%: Pure rate-of-time-preference discount rates (HM Treasury).
3.5%: Standard pure rate-of-time-preference discount rate (HM Tsy Green Book).
5.0%: Pure rate-of-time-preference discount rate (President Dr. Vaclav Klaus).
The true cost of putting a “price” on carbon dioxide
Using the base data and HM Treasury’s 3.5% discount rate, we determine –

First, the CO2 concentration in 2020 if Garnaut’s proposal is fully implemented:
       412 ppmv minus 25% of 1.2% of 22 ppmv = 411.987 ppmv.

Secondly, the radiative forcing the policy forestalls over the 10-year period:
       5.35 x the natural logarithm of (412/411.987) = 0.00017 W m–2.

Thirdly, how much warming Professor Garnaut’s proposal will forestall by 2020:
      3.4 / 8 x 0.00017 = 0.00007 C°, or about 1/14,000 C°.

Fourthly, the cost of the carbon-trading policy in year 1:
       ($10.1bn + $1.6 bn + $0.9 bn + 0.3 bn) = $13 bn.

Fifthly, the total cost of carbon-trading policy from 2011-2020:
       $13 bn increased by 3%/year & discounted at 3.5%/yr: total $127 bn/10yr.

Sixthly, the amount of CO2-driven warming over 10 years if we do nothing:
        3.4 / 8 x 5.35 x the natural logarithm of (412/390) = 0.125 C°.

Seventhly, the mitigation cost-effectiveness of Australia’s carbon trading policy:
       $127 bn / 5% of 1.2% of 0.125 C° = $1.7 quadrillion/C° forestalled.

Eighthly, total global GDP from 2011-2020:
       $60 trillion/year in 2010, hiked by 3%/year: total $708 trillion/10yr.

Ninthly, the global abatement cost of the policy:
       (100 x $127 bn) / 5% of 1.2% of 51% of $708 trillion = 58.4% of GDP.

Tenthly, the global abatement cost of the policy per capita of world population:
       58.4% of $708 trillion divided by 7 bn world population = $59,000/head.
Table 1 summarizes the effect of various inter-temporal discount rates. The action/inaction ratio compares the action cost with the upper-bound inaction cost.
TABLE 1                                   Stern            Garnaut #1        Garnaut #2         Treasury          Klaus
ROTP discount rate                     0.1%             1.35%                2.65%                  3.5%          5.0%
Policy cost                                  $153 bn       $142 bn              $132 bn            $127 bn         $117 bn
Mitigation cost-effect.               $2.1 qd/C    $2.0 qd/C            $1.8 qd/C         $1.7 qd/C     $1.6 qd/C
Abatement cost/head                 $71,500        $66,500              $62,000           $59,000          $55,000            
Global abatemt. cost                   $499 tr        $465 tr                $433 tr              $414 tr            $383 tr     
Abatemt. as % GDP                      70.4%         65.6%                  61.1%              58.4%             54.0%        
Global inaction cost                     5-20%       2.2-8.6%               1.0-4.1%          0.7-2.7%       0.4-1.5%
Action / inaction                          3.5x             7.6x                     15x                    22x               36x

M of B: 10 July 2011

Global Warming - American Style

Year to Date (Jan - Jun) Temperature
Contiguous United States

Some of the following data are preliminary and have not been quality controlled.
For official data, please contact the NCDC Climate Services and Monitoring Division at

Year to Date (Jan - Jun) 1998 - 2011 Data Values:
Year to Date (Jan - Jun) 1998 - 2011 Average = 49.81 degF
Year to Date (Jan - Jun) 1998 - 2011 Trend = -1.24 degF / Decade
This is big news indeed.  Both Oregon and Washington just experienced the coldest Spring in over a century, using official NCDC data going back 117 years.  The April through June period most closely approximates the Spring period. 

(H/t Ken Schlichte & Gordon Fulks)

The San Franciso Chronicle reports that

California’s long-term cooling trend proves the  global warming fraud.

California's coastal regions appear to be getting more rain and cold weather while inland areas such as Fresno are getting hotter, according to an analysis of 40 years of climate statistics.
The analysis, by meteorologist Jan Null, showed that average temperatures have increased since 1981 in only two of eight California cities surveyed compared with the 30 years starting in 1971. The information, compiled using National Climatic Data Center statistics, shows more annual rain has also fallen everywhere except in Southern California.
The data may appear to bolster the arguments of global warming skeptics, but Null said the findings actually fit in with the predictions of scientists who believe the climate is changing as a result of human-caused carbon emissions.