As Maurice tells us that global warming is crap — with the confidence of a superb stockbroker and investment banker, with the decorum of a Chairman of the Deutsche Bank Asia Pacific Advisory Board and the clout of the chairman of a number of Asian business alliances, plus the impressive qualification of the Chairman of the Federal Treasurer's Financial Sector Advisory Council, notwithstanding being the Chancellor of Macquarie University and a grandiose Advisor to Marsh Group of Companies and a director of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation — we can only accept the verdict... Either Maurice is a scientific ignoramus, a singular genius who knows better than 97 per cent of the scientific brigades or is a religious cash-priest who has told us in the past that "climate change was an example of "group-think""...

As a prominent leader and creator of "group-think" himself, I believe he knows what a group-think is... if a consensus of scientific observations is a "group-think", then a group-think is not a bad thing. Religionism can be deemed also a "group think" but despite being well adhered to by many followers, religionism is a furphy of monumental proportion...

But I am not about to argue with Maurice who seems to ignore the facts of scientific value. It is possible that he has invested too much cash in coal and gas — and that he is trying to protect the value of his stocks, who knows — but one thing is for sure he is wrong about the climate.

---------------------------------

In his testimony, Dessler also addressed the myth of the 'lack of warming.' In addition to being a result of cherry picking and largely an artifact of a lack of Arctic temperature station coverage, Dessler pointed to:

"...the continued accumulation of heat in the bulk of the ocean, which is a clear marker of continued warming. And because heat can be stored in places other than at the surface, a lack of surface warming for a decade tells you almost nothing about the underlying long-term warming trends ... I judge that there is virtually no merit to suggestions that the "hiatus" poses a serious challenge to the standard model [of human-caused global warming]."

Regarding the sensitivity of the climate to the increased greenhouse effect, Dessler pointed out that the 2014 IPCC report matched the 2001, 1995, and 1990 reports, estimating an eventual global surface warming of 1.5–4.5°C in response to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Only the 2007 IPCC report slightly changed the estimated range to 2–4.5°C. Additionally, recent research has suggested that the true climate sensitivity lies on the high end of that range.

Regarding Antarctic sea ice, it's a complex issue, influenced by factors like ozone depletion and recovery and associated changes in wind patterns. However, the rapid loss of Arctic sea ice has been much largerthan the small increase in Antarctic sea ice. Moreover, the Southern Ocean around Antarctica has warmed. Thus changes in Antarctic sea ice tell us very little about global warming.

Overall, Dessler was correct that the evidence for human-caused global warming is now stronger than ever. His testimony presented a compelling case for the threat of human-caused global warming, which he considers "a clear and present danger." Dessler and Curry agreed on one key point: that our actions can't alter the path of climate change over the next several decades (though Curry sounded like the Borg, calling emissions reductions efforts "futile"). It's true that we're locked in for significant additional global warming from the greenhouse gases we've already emitted.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/jan/20/climate-change-clear-and-present-danger?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487

When considering all the factors — including that 2013 was the fourth warmest year on record for the whole planet and the warmest year on record for Australia, considering the violence of storms such as Sandy and that of the "Polar Vortex" this year (noted the warmer climes further north), plus numerous recent unusual floods in Europe and the destruction of a big swab of the Philippines by a typhoon late last year, plus other nasty little cyclones that are not mentioned in the English hegemony press because it can't be bothered with some languages, considering the warming of the oceans which absorbs about 90 per cent of climate change "heat", the acidification of the oceans — one has also to look at the arctic dwellers who have noted the place is warming up so fast they have a major problem of dividing the spoils as they can't keep up with digging for oil and other resources in that  "melting" region...

GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL. It demands understanding of complex scientific data and analysis, contrarily to the quite simple religion of cash, of which Maurice is a clever high priest. Good for him to be so, but a scientist he is not.

PEOPLE WHO ARGUE that global warming has stopped and the Earth's average temperature has not risen this century should perhaps read no further, because scientists from the United States say 2013 was the fourth warmest year globally since records began in 1880.

The National Climatic Data Center (NCDC), part of the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, says in its Global Analysis of the last year that 2013 ties with 2003 as globally the fourth warmest year on record.

The annual global combined land and ocean surface temperature was 0.62°C above the 20th century average of 13.9°C, marking the 37th consecutive year (since 1976) that the yearly global temperature was above average.

The warmest year on record was 2010, which was 0.66°C above average. Including 2013, nine of the 10 warmest years in the 134-year period recorded have occurred in the 21st century. Only one year during the 20th century ‒ 1998 ‒ was warmer than 2013.

http://www.independentaustralia.net/environment/environment-display/2013-was-worlds-fourth-warmest-year--and-australias-hottest--on-record,6091

See also: http://www.climatenewsnetwork.net/2014/01/2013-was-fourth-warmest-year-recorded/

and: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-03/2013-was-the-hottest-year-on-record-for-australia/5183040

----------------------------

Gus: please note as mentioned before on this site, that according to my own estimates, 2015 should show a very noticeable warming spike for the entire world. 2014 should show some warming trend as well. This estimate being based on sun cycle activity. For the denialists out there, yes the sun has an influence on "climate change". But this is the point — even when the sun cycle was "quiet", the temperature of the surface of the planet was still rising or stayed "stationary". With El Nino still setting up, we're also due for some more heat...

There is a climate phenomenon known as the El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) that can impact on weather events across the planet.

Meteorologists and climatologists describe ENSO as being in three states – neutral, negative (El Niño) or positive (La Niña).

In simple terms, when ocean temperatures in the central and eastern parts of the tropical waters of the Pacific Ocean are unusually high, that's an El Niño.

It increases the chances of drought in eastern Australia and it tends to deliver hotter years globally. 

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2014/jan/23/climate-change-global-warming-2013-warmest-years-el-nino

Please note that no matter how much crap the denialists bankers, industrialists, shock jocks and CEOs tell you, the PRESENT global warming is driven by the EXTRA CO2 added into the gaseous mix of the atmosphere, by human activity. 

It will be more than 70 years before all children have access to primary school, says a report from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (Unesco).

World leaders had pledged that this would be achieved by 2015.

The report says 57 million remain without schools and at the current rate it will be 2086 before access is reached for poor, rural African girls.

Report author Pauline Rose describes these as "shocking figures".

The lack of education for all and the poor quality of many schools in poorer countries is described as a "global learning crisis".

In poor countries, one in four young people is unable to read a single sentence.

Greatest need

The study from Unesco, published on Wednesday in Addis Ababa in Ethiopia, is an annual monitoring report on the millennium pledges for education made by the international community.

But it warns that promises such as providing a primary school place for all children and increasing the adult literacy rate by 50% are increasingly unlikely be kept.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25811704

The Abbott Government has announced yet another pointless inquiry into the health impacts of windfarms. Dr Michael Vagg from The Conversation says it's a colossal waste of time and taxpayers' money.

SO IT APPEARS we are to be treated to another pointless examination of a manufactured controversy in the name of health science. One can only guess at the motivations for the Federal Government announcing a NHMRC-led review of the science around the purported health effects of wind farms, but you can be sure it’s not being driven by scientific curiosity.

In fact this review is probably the most futile bit of spending yet announced in the term of the Abbott administration and is exactly the sort of tomfoolery you might expect of a cabinet which has no room for science. Why? Because there is no controversy about the so-called Wind Turbine Syndrome. It doesn’t exist as a thing. It has not, as the philosophers might say, been reified.

Wind turbines have no health effects on the surrounding populations. That’s not just my personal opinion. It’s the overwhelming scientific consensus. The book is closed, the story is written, the circus has folded its tents and moved on.

It would, however, potentially suit the Abbott Government politically to keep this manufactroversy going. The conservative side of politics in this country has a well-documented preference for fossil fuel production, largely based on economic arguments and the hope of carbon capture technology to reduce carbon emissions from current coal-fired power stations. Using fringe science to advance political ends is nothing new, but this is not a political comment column so I don’t propose to stray too far from discussing that science.

read more: http://www.independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/reviving-wind-turbine-syndrome-is-just-what-youd-expect-from-a-pm-without-a-science-minister,6111

Tony Abbott pretended to support the renewable energy industry before the election but is now “launching a full-frontal attack” according to Labor’s environment spokesman Mark Butler.

The Coalition went to the election promising to keep the renewable energy target (RET), which underpins investment in energy sources such as wind and solar.

But the prime minister has now taken control of a scheduled review in his own department and says the RET may have outlived its initial purpose and needs to be reassessed because it increases power prices.

“The Liberals went to the election saying there was no difference between the parties on renewable energy, but they weren’t being straight with the Australian people because now they are launching a full-frontal attack,” Butler said.

Butler said Labor would stick with its opposition to the repeal of the carbon tax when parliament resumes this month, but was now also preparing “to ramp up a community campaign in support of renewable energy”.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/feb/06/tony-abbott-launching-a-full-frontal-attack-on-renewable-energy-industry

A major review into the impact of clean energy on retail power prices is expected to clear the way for the Government to make significant changes to the Renewable Energy Target (RET).

The study of the RET will be headed by former Reserve Bank board member Dick Warburton and will report back to the Government by the middle of the year.

It will feed into the Energy White Paper process, and a senior Liberal has told the ABC it will provide the Government "cover" for "let's kill the RET"

Speaking after a meeting of Cabinet in Canberra, Environment Minister Greg Hunt and Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane said the review was always due to occur this year under legislation.

"There are no surprises," Mr Hunt said.

Mr Macfarlane said the actual cost of renewable energy needed to be made clear to householders paying their electricity bills every quarter.

"It will be an extensive review. It won't be a desktop audit. It will be a complete review," he said.

"One of the things we want to do with this review is establish the actual cost of renewable energy and of the other schemes that the states have put in place - there is at the moment a blurring of what costs what.

"The role of panel will be to clearly enunciate what renewable scheme is contributing how many dollars to each individual and each industry's bill.

"Renewable energy has a role to play and it's now time to look at where this scheme is going."

Industry and environmental groups knew this review was coming, the ABC's national environment reporter Jake Sturmer says:
The feeling from both sides is 'bring it on'.
The Renewable Energy Target was introduced in 2001 by then prime minister John Howard.
Its aim was to create an extra 9,500 gigawatt-hours (GWh) of power by 2020.
In 2009, the Labor government increased the figure to ensure renewable energy made up the equivalent of 20 per cent of Australia's electricity (41,000 GWh).
The Climate Change Authority (CCA) reviewed the policy in 2012.
It found the Government should keep its target, despite changing demand forecasts and some electricity generators saying it would drive the cost of power up by billions of dollars.
Given the CCA is in the process of being disbanded by the Government, it's now up to the expert panel to test those claims.
And according to the Clean Energy Council there's not a moment to waste – with $18 billion worth of investments claimed to be in the pipeline.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-17/government-to-review-renewable-energy-target/5265044

The Morwell open cut coal mine fire means that any further talk of coal being the cheapest practical source of power now needs to be qualified by the words ― 'as long as it doesn't catch fire'. Lachlan Barker does the sums.

I WAS TALKING WITH A FRIEND this week and I told him I was doing a piece on the fire at Morwell.

He replied:

"Yes, I've been quite busy lately, but every night when I caught a bit of the news, I seemed to see the fire at Morwell and I kept wondering — 'why don't they put it out?'"

Fair question.

ABC Science Online has an excellent article explaining why coal fires burn for so long.

Essentially, whenever you pile up a large amount of coal you create the risk of spontaneous ignition, due to compression and trapped heat. And, of course, the reason we dig coal up in the first place is that it burns.

What's more, it burns for a long, long time.

But consider this: when was the last time you heard of a solar panel going up in flames?

Thus we have a rather nasty situation going on at Morwell — and its similarities to Fukushima are rather frightening.

Fukushima is, of course, a nuclear power station in Japan that was hit with a tsunami which lead to the destruction of the plant and the radioactive poisoning of the surrounding area.

Morwell, most sources agree at this time, was hit by an arsonist, who set fire to the brown coal in an abandoned part of the Hazelwood mine.

From that start, we now have a situation where due to high winds and hot summer temperatures in Victoria, the coal is still burning and, with each passing day, the chances of putting it out diminish.

http://www.independentaustralia.net/environment/environment-display/morwell-fire-uncovers-coals-costs,6253

See toon at top...

EMMA ALBERICI, PRESENTER: One of Tony Abbott's first acts in Government was to appoint Maurice Newman as the head of his Business Advisory Council. Mr Newman is the former Chairman of both the Stock Exchange and the ABC. He's our guest this evening and he joined me earlier in the studio for this exclusive interview. 

Maurice Newman welcome to 'Lateline'.

MAURICE NEWMAN, CHAIRMAN, PM'S BUSINESS ADVISORY COUNCIL: Thanks Emma.

EMMA ALBERICI: Now, Clive Palmer thinks the $1.5 billion worth of money the Government has set aside to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is money better spent on the aged pension. What's your view?

MAURICE NEWMAN: Well, I don't quite know what he means by that. When he says it should be spent on the old age pension, does he mean we should increase the pension, that it should replace other money? I don't quite know what Mr Palmer is talking about frankly.

EMMA ALBERICI: It's no secret that you don't agree that man-made CO2 is causing global warming. Given there is now consensus among 97 per cent or so of climate scientists across the world that the view - around the view that human activity is responsible for climate change, what would it take to convince you?

MAURICE NEWMAN: We know first of all that the survey which came out with the 97 per cent number was flawed in the first place. So we don't pay any attention to that. What we do look at...

EMMA ALBERICI: There have been roughly three that have come up with that.

MAURICE NEWMAN: They all come up with flawed methodologies. So we don't pay any attention to that. We know that there are a whole host of scientists out there who have a different point of view, who are highly respected, reputable scientists. So the 97 per cent doesn't mean anything in any event because science is not a consensus issue. Science is whatever the science is and the fact remains there is no empirical evidence to show that man-made CO2, man-made emissions are adding to the temperature on earth. We haven't had any measurable increase in temperature on earth for the last 17.5 years. If you look back over history, there's no evidence that CO2 has driven the climate either. So I know that this is a view which is peddled consistently, but I think that the edifice which is the climate change establishment is now starting to look rather shaky because mother nature is not complying.

EMMA ALBERICI: I just want to take you up on that because it would appear that there is strong consensus, at least among - certainly when it comes to the IPCC, that is a group that has brought together under the auspices of the United Nations, the science around the world, it doesn't actually do science itself, it just collates all the science and puts it forward. Now 195 countries contribute to that. Nineteen academies of science across the world, including I have to say the Australian Bureau of Meteorology, the CSIRO, NASA, the American Academy of Sciences, the British equivalent, the Canadian equivalent, some really reputable bodies around the world are now agreeing that it's human activity that's causing climate change. So I'm wondering, who is it that's influencing you so that is so convincing you otherwise?

MAURICE NEWMAN: I just look at the evidence. There is no evidence. If people can show there is a correlation between increasing CO2 and global temperature, well then of course that's something which we would pay attention to. But when you look at the last 17.5 years where we've had a multitude of climate models, and this was the basis on which this whole so-called science rests, it's on models, computer models. And those models have been shown to be 98 per cent inaccurate.

EMMA ALBERICI: By?

MAURICE NEWMAN: By Roy Spencer, who's carried out a thorough review of all of the models and the empirical data which against both land-based and satellite-based measuring. And they were found to be wrong.

EMMA ALBERICI: He's one scientist, climate scientist.

MAURICE NEWMAN: It's not a question of being a scientist.

EMMA ALBERICI: But he is a climate scientist.

MAURICE NEWMAN: Yes he is a climate scientist.

EMMA ALBERICI: He is. He was at NASA. His colleagues at NASA disagree with him.

MAURICE NEWMAN: There's a study that came out from NASA in the last few weeks which says that the impact of CO2 on the upper atmosphere brings about a cloud and the result of that is a bit like our own body temperature moderating as a consequence of perspiring. So you get an albino effect which reflects sunlight. If you want a correlation between global climate, don't look to CO2, look to the sun's activity, there will you find a very close correlation.

EMMA ALBERICI: What do you mean?

MAURICE NEWMAN: Well, if you look at the - if you go back in history, and you look at when the sun has been active and when the sun has been inactive, will you find the climate on earth responds accordingly. So we had the more to minimum, we go back to medieval warm period, you will find they correspond very closely to what happens with the sun. There's very little correlation with CO2, in fact, if anything, which came out of Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth, there's a six to 800-year lag between CO2 and climate.

EMMA ALBERICI: I think the one thing we can agree on is that neither of us are scientists.

MAURICE NEWMAN: Correct.

EMMA ALBERICI: But I'm just going on people with great reputations around the world, including our own Chief Scientist, Greg Hunt, the Environment Minister, Tony Abbott, the Prime Minister. I mean, around the world, there seems to be consensus that it is a man-made phenomena.

MAURICE NEWMAN: But it isn't a question of consensus. It's a question of science. And I'm asking the question: where is the empirical evidence to show that increases in CO2 impact temperatures? And as I said, we look at the climate models, 98 per cent of them were wrong. In my old business, if I had financial advisers who were 98 per cent wrong I'd fire them. It's not a consensus thing. It's a question of what has the climate done? And we've had, since 1996, 17.5 years where the temperature has shown no measurable increase. In fact, it can be argued since 2003, it has cooled off somewhat. And yet CO2 has been going up about six or seven per cent. So what do we make of that? What do we make about the pause?

EMMA ALBERICI: That it's a pause. I guess that's what scientists say. It's a pause. They look back 800,000 years as I understand it, so 17 years in the scheme of things isn't an enormous amount of time.

KERRY BREWSTER: I agree, but then you've got scientists, climate scientists now in Norway, in Germany, in Russia, in America, saying we're now going in for a period of 30 or 40 years of increasingly cool climate conditions.

EMMA ALBERICI: I'll only ask you one more questions on this because I do want to talk about other things, but both Marius Kloppers and his successor at BHP Billiton Andrew McKenzie agree that climate change is human induced. So what if those 97 per cent of climate scientists and all business people across the world, like the likes of Bill Gates and Richard Branson and the miners here in Australia, what if they're right and you and the scientists you quote are not right. Doesn't it make sense to have a policy that at least transitions Australia to cleaner fuel sources?

MAURICE NEWMAN: Emma, let's not confuse the issues. Cleaning the atmosphere, which is what carbon pollution is about, not CO2, CO2 is not a pollutant. But cleaning the atmosphere, being more efficient, all of that makes sense. That's got nothing to do with climate. That's to do with economics and being efficient. 

But I would say to all of those people who are arguing that CO2 creates global warming and man is adding to the global warming to show the empirical evidence of where this is so. Because I'm saying to you that where this originates is from models. Computer models which are wrong. Now, if you can show me where there is some sort of correlation that proves beyond doubt that what we have is global warming as a consequence of CO2 and man's contribution to CO2 in the atmosphere, well then we can have a different conversation.

EMMA ALBERICI: I'm sure there will be scientists lining up to give you that information but we'll move on.

MAURICE NEWMAN: Well we'll look forward to seeing it.

------------------------------

In this transcript of an interview with Maurice Newman, I have highlighted in Bold the name Roy Spencer... Roy Spencer is a "climatologist" who apparently thinks that "creationism is more scientific or makes more sense than evolution"... Now, Maurice is an adviser to Tony Abbott on thingstus scientificat... Why? Because Newman is a dud or an ignoramus or an imbecile and he of course sources his information on global warming from an idiot — and tells Tony Detritus what he wants to hear. Makes sense to Abbott who does not want to know anything about proper sciences that are CONTRARY TO HIS BELIEFS.

I get tired of these mongrels who claims knowing more than the rest of the scientists when all they do is basically pontificate shit with no scientific analysis to support their case... So let me tell you: Newman, Abbott and Spencer are arseholes with sociopathic wingspan and with not an ounce of knowledge about what they are talking about. But they are clever at spreading three coats of shit with the brush of porkie tarring.

Let me also say here that I believed once that there were "decent" Liberals (conservatives). Well no more. Any Liberal who are doing the devil's Abbott work (including rubbery Joe and stupid heavy lifting) are all psychos. PSYCHOS! I though better of them once... 

I have also highlighted the "six to 800 years between CO2 and climate"... This represents one of the most ludicrous statement of all of what Maurice said to throw EMMA ALBERICI off the scent... In Al Gore movie "An Inconvenient Truth", the correlation between CO2 and climate is clearly explained and shown scientifically as being fairly close in step, despite some variation due to some flexibility in the climatic system. The J curve is noted clearly and today, if you were living in Sydney, you would know that something is not quite right: We're at the end of April and the temperature is well above 29 degrees C (7 above MONTHLY average — possibly 8.5 above daily average for this time of the year).

Hum Maurice, go and piss some more in Tony's pocket. Actually shit in it. He loves it. It gives it a nice warm feeling. Tony Abbott is an idiot.

And the "albino" effect??? Is this a typist error? Or another ignorant waffle from Newman???

This is a story about bad timing.

One of the most disturbing ways that climate change is already playing out is through what ecologists call "mismatch" or "mistiming." This is the process whereby warming causes animals to fall out of step with a critical food source, particularly at breeding times, when a failure to find enough food can lead to rapid population losses.

The migration patterns of many songbird species, for instance, have evolved over millennia so that eggs hatch precisely when food sources such as caterpillars are at their most abundant, providing parents with ample nourishment for their hungry young. But because spring now often arrives early, the caterpillars are hatching earlier too, which means that in some areas they are less plentiful when the chicks hatch, with a number of possible long-term impacts on survival.

Similarly, in West Greenland, caribou are arriving at their calving grounds only to find themselves out of sync with the forage plants they have relied on for thousands of years, now growing earlier thanks to rising temperatures. That is leaving female caribou with less energy for lactation, reproduction and feeding their young, a mismatch that has been linked to sharp decreases in calf births and survival rates. 

Scientists are studying cases of climate-related mistiming among dozens of species, from Arctic terns to pied flycatchers. But there is one important species they are missing – us. Homo sapiens. We too are suffering from a terrible case of climate-related mistiming, albeit in a cultural-historical, rather than a biological, sense. Our problem is that the climate crisis hatched in our laps at a moment in history when political and social conditions were uniquely hostile to a problem of this nature and magnitude – that moment being the tail end of the go-go 80s, the blast-off point for the crusade to spread deregulated capitalism around the world. Climate change is a collective problem demanding collective action the likes of which humanity has never actually accomplished. Yet it entered mainstream consciousness in the midst of an ideological war being waged on the very idea of the collective sphere.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/23/climate-change-fight-of-our-lives-naomi-klein

Joe Hockey thinks wind turbines are a "blight on the landscape"; David Horton suggests he may like them better if they were covered in oil and coal dust.

These kind of wtf moments seem to come every day from this worst-government-in-Australian-history Government.

"I drive to Canberra to go to Parliament ... and I must say I find those wind turbines around Lake George to be utterly offensive,” Mr Hockey told Alan Jones on 2GB. “I think they’re a blight on the landscape.”

Well, there has been much falling-about-uproarious-laughter-tinged-with-bitterness in the media and internet about this, much probably transmitted on those mobile phone towers I find utterly offensive. All along the lines of wind farms being a lot less visually offensive than coal mines. Not so much "I know that I shall never see a coal mine lovely as a tree", but "I know that I shall never see a CSG field lovely as a wind farm".

All jolly good fun along the lines of the "you gotta laugh or you'll cry" school of political commentary. But for gorsake stop laughing, this is serious.

I have written about wind farms before and here and here, trying to explain the inexplicable resistance to these valuable and aesthetically pleasing harvesters of renewable energy. And now, in a single sentence of numbing stupidity, the Treasurer of the Commonwealth of Australia sums up the problem at three levels.

At the simplest level, Joe is engaging in the mindless shockjockery language that has become the lingua franca of the know-nothing Right of Australian politics. The Knights and Dames of radio and print have quickly followed the American Republican technique of demonising and delegitimising even mildly left of Centre-Right politicians and policies by screaming abuse at them.

Not so much a case of mud sticks, but shit sticks better.

So here is Joe, showing Alan he is one of the boys by describing wind farms in the kind of way that the likes of Mr Jones have been doing for years. No subtlety, no science, no analysis, wind farms are utterly offensively blighting the landscape. Joe knows he will get favourable treatment from Alan anyway, but a little more male bonding is never too much.

The second level is the one where we cherche l'argent.

The recent ICAC hearings in NSW have shown that, just as in America – and indeed everywhere in the world – the money to be made from exploiting fossil fuels spills over into politics and utterly corrupts the development and application of environmental and economic policies.

When Joe sees a coal mine, a gas field, an oil rig (or a uranium mine) he sees, perhaps subconsciously, political donations to his political party, donations that are indispensable in gaining or regaining power.

http://www.independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/joe-hockey-finds-wind-turbines-offensive,6441

--------------------------

See toon at top...  and see also:

hot air about wind farms...

abbott's baloney...

from oil to gas .....

renewable energy storm...

as the wind blows...

etc...

Government regulators have stripped a prominent anti-wind farm lobby of its health promotion charity status.

The status allowed the Waubra Foundation to receive tax deductible donations, concessions the Greens described as "enormous public subsidies".

A year ago the ABC revealed the Greens made a complaint to the Taxation Office and Australian Charities and Not for Profits Commission (ACNC), claiming there was no credible evidence to suggest a direct link between wind turbines and health problems.

University of Sydney Professor of Public Health Simon Chapman supports that view.

"There's very, very poor evidence of any direct effect - in fact there have been 22 published reviews since 2003 which have all reached that conclusion," Professor Chapman said.

"So in other words there's nothing intrinsic that's emitted from wind farms - sound etcetera - which in itself can cause human health problems."

Four months after the Greens made the complaint, the Commission sent a show cause notice to the Foundation.

"It is not possible for me to find that the Foundation's principal activity promotes the prevention or control of disease in human beings," Assistant Commissioner David Locke said in February.

read more; http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-12-19/waubra-foundation-stripped-of-health-promotion-charity-status/5977530

-----------------------------------

See toon at top...  and see also:

hot air about wind farms...

abbott's baloney...

from oil to gas .....

renewable energy storm...

as the wind blows...

etc...

If demand for residential solar continued to soar, traditional utilities could soon face serious problems, from “declining retail sales” and a “loss of customers” to “potential obsolescence,” according to a presentation prepared for the group. “Industry must prepare an action plan to address the challenges,” it said.

The warning, delivered to a private meeting of the utility industry’s main trade association, became a call to arms for electricity providers in nearly every corner of the nation. Three years later, the industry and its fossil-fuel supporters are waging a determined campaign to stop a home-solar insurgency that is rattling the boardrooms of the country’s government-regulated electric monopolies.

The campaign’s first phase—an industry push for state laws raising prices for solar customers—failed spectacularly in legislatures around the country, due in part to surprisingly strong support for solar energy from conservatives and evangelicals in traditionally “red states.” But more recently, the battle has shifted to public utility commissions, where industry backers have mounted a more successful push for fee hikes that could put solar panels out of reach for many potential customers.

[Solar energy’s new best friend is . . . the Christian Coalition]

In a closely watched case last month, an Arizona utility voted to impose a monthly surcharge of about $50 for “net metering,” a common practice that allows solar customers to earn credit for the surplus electricity they provide to the electric grid. Net metering makes home solar affordable by sharply lowering electric bills to offset the $10,000 to $30,000 cost of rooftop panels.

A Wisconsin utilities commission approved a similar surcharge for solar users last year, and a New Mexico regulator also is considering raising fees. In some states, industry officials have enlisted the help of minority groups in arguing that solar panels hurt the poor by driving up electricity rates for everyone else.

read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/utilities-sensing-threat-put-squeeze-on-booming-solar-roof-industry/2015/03/07/2d916f88-c1c9-11e4-ad5c-3b8ce89f1b89_story.html

Note that the same poor argument was used by our eminent Newman (see toon at top)...

Yes, should the energy provider profiteers not be able to make as much incremental profits, I ask you where is the world going to? The poor pays for the difference... It's a lot of codswallop of course but the argument holds counsel in the rusty buckets of CONservative money makers, though they really can't believe in the sauce they're cooking the syllygism (silly Syllogism) with....