Concern on Carbon Costs of Camel Cull.

Cartoon: By Nicholson.

Carbon Sense is always worth a visit. On this occasion I found Vivs Global Warming Quiz which is very informative and begins with the following disclaimer:

Caution: This section contains sound science, not media hype, and may therefore contain material not suitable for young people trying to get a good grade in political correctness.

Here is the latest press release from him.

By Mr Viv Forbes, Chairman, The Carbon Sense Coalition, Australia.

The Chairman of the Carbon Sense Coalition, Mr Viv Forbes, today claimed that the plan by Australian PM Rudd to cull one million camels may have unexpected carbon tax consequences.

Forbes explains:

“PM Rudd proposes to spend $19 million shooting one million wild camels.

“A big camel probably weighs about a tonne, so Mr Rudd is going to let a million tonnes of valuable meat rot under the Centralian sun.

“Each camel probably has about 190 kg of carbon sequestered in its body. As it rots and absorbs oxygen, this carbon will increase into about 700 kg of carbon dioxide which will then dissipate into the atmosphere.

“If the Australian Senate is silly enough to pass the Wong carbon dioxide Ration-n-Tax Scheme this shootout will thus trigger a huge carbon tax liability.

“At a carbon emission price of say $40 per tonne of carbon dioxide, the carbon tax on one million rotting camels would be about $28 million.

“If we add to that the actual cull costs of about $19 million and the carbon tax due on helicopter emissions and other activities, the total cost of the cull is about $50 million.

“This illustrates the dangers of costly unexpected consequences resulting from complex poorly designed bills being rushed through both Australian and US Legislatures by Mr Rudd and his buddy Mr Obama. Luckily Senators in both countries will probably reject this nonsense.

“If not, this $50 million invoice for the full costs of the camel shootout should not be presented to the taxpayers, but sent to Cull Commander Senator Garrett.

“This may convince him to chase up a few old Territorian buffalo shooters who could make a tidy profit at no cost to the taxpayer by culling the camels and selling the meat to Taiwan. Or we could sell permits to a few big game hunters. Or sell live camels to the Arabs.”

Viv Forbes
info@carbon-sense.com
Chairman, The Carbon Sense Coalition

Dan Rather, calls for Government Media.

Cartoon: Cox and Forkum.

I have on a number of occasions reported on the difficulties some of the mainstream media are finding themselves in with bankruptcies and falling revenues. I have on some of those occasions made the point that this is caused in no small part by the public losing confidence in the media because of blatant political bias:

There is a tendency among commentators to blame the current economic problems for this situation, along with the growing influence of the Internet. I have to note though that in many of these reports, including this one that there is reference to the last couple of years, note: - Revenue has fallen more than 20 percent since 2006.

There is another probable cause in my opinion, and that is that they have lost touch with the public at large, and have in the last election cycle seriously pissed off a fairly large proportion of their readers. ……. While in the past media have often favored one or another party, in the last election there was blatancy about it.

Few people are so biased as to be angered at reporting of things that may harm their parties chances, we all make mistakes, our candidates are the same, and when these are reported most of us are intellectually honest enough to accept that, “That was a stuff up.” Problems arise though when there is a constant bombardment of negatives toward one side while nothing but positive news is reported on the other. If media constantly beat one side of the spectrum around the heads, those people stop buying those papers.

Probably one of the clearest indications of the sad demise of the standards of the media is the latest offering from Dan Rather. Dan you see feels that “traditional journalism is under siege” and that media reform should become an “immediate national priority,” as well as claiming that “a democracy and free people cannot thrive without a fiercely independent press.”

Waxing lyrical, he went on to claim; “A truly free and independent press is the red beating heart of democracy and freedom. This is not something just for journalists to be concerned about, and the loss of jobs and the loss of newspapers, and the diminution of the American press’ traditional role of being the watchdog on power. This is something every citizen should be concerned about.”

In a somewhat ironic twist he railed about what he called, “the erosion of quality journalism, because of the corporatization, politicization, and “trivialization” of news. Those three factors, Rather argued, have fueled the “dumbing down and sleazing up of news” and the decline of “great American journalism.”

Dan, you see was the liberal hack who presented a Four Corners episode on Bush’s service record just prior to the 04 election, which was intended to discredit Bush and put Kerry into the White House. In order to achieve this the program produced documents that were so badly forged, (or as CBS says, “unable to be verified,”) that live thread bloggers had published the inconsistencies prior to the end of the show.

After this he still has the gaul to criticize online blogging and reporting, because of what he sees as their lack of accountability. Yeah, right.

And most bizarre of all, in his quest for what he calls, “A fiercely independent press without which democracy and free people cannot thrive,” he wants President Obama to establish a commission on public media and independent reporting.

After all, how can an industry be truly independent and adhere to the truth without the government there to guide it. (Just kidding.)

About all that CO2

The following graphic is from Malcolm Roberts and gives an excellent picture of the actual proportions of gasses in the atmosphere, and certainly puts the CO2 portion into some sort of perspective. Malcolm has written a number of interesting items, and I commend the following:

Facts on the fabricators of climate alarm, and:

Physics and Laws of Nature's Show IPCC Warming theory has No Legs

Click to enlarge.

One is Plenty.

Cartoon by Bill Leak.

The following is a letter to the editor by Ron Kitching.

Kevin Rudd cannot imagine that anybody but him can have constructive ideas, let alone those which are competitive. This self proclaimed genius, has now said:

* One Health System”, which he infers, will be superior to all others. He cannot imagine any serf having an idea superior to his.

It follows that :

* One political party will be superior.

* One car model will be superior.

* One fuel provider will be superior.

* One brewery will be superior.

* One food provider will be superior.

* One Education System will be superior.

*One Religion - The Anti CO2 faith - will be superior.

* One Canberra all around development plan will be superior.

The PM’s inference is, that competition is a wasteful, socially inferior process.

Rudd’s theories are yet another experiment in socialism, regardless of the failure of such experiments in Russia and elsewhere. The warnings of certain failure by eminent economic philosophers, is also ignored.

It does not matter about the cost. The remaining taxpayers will pay.

* Of course he may have a point. One Mother - in - Law is plenty......

Cost cutting Mayor

Quite a few years ago I lost in a local government election by seven votes in a pretty brutal campaign as part of a ratepayers group which went close to sweeping the entire previous council from office. Probably the most divisive issue apart from the fact that I was well known a strong supporter of the libertarian Progress Party was my insistence that the council should not be financing brochures for tourist operators and a number of similar policies.

The local bus company operator saw red and launched a vitriolic attack, which lasted for the duration. Generally the assertion was that in some wonderful way the whole community benefited from Duncan’s pockets being full and it was their duty to help him fill them. Sadly, my argument that the tourist operators getting together and organizing their own campaign and financing it themselves would lead to a better result fell on deaf ears.

That’s why I find this guy refreshing:

On his first morning as Mayor of Doncaster in South Yorkshire, Peter Davies cut his salary from £73,000 to £30,000 then closed the Council's newspaper for "peddling politics on the rates". The mayor’s chauffeur-driven car has also been axed by Mr. Davies and the driver given another job. Mr. Davies, born and bred in Doncaster, swept to power in the May election with 24,244 votes.

Now three weeks into his job, Mr. Davies is pressing ahead with plans he hopes will see the number of town councilors cut from 63 to just 21, saving taxpayers £800,000. Mr. Davies said: "If 100 Senators can run the United States of America, I can't see how 63 councilors are needed to run Doncaster ".

He has withdrawn Doncaster from the Local Government Association and the Local Government Information Unit, saving another £200,000. Mr. Davies said, "They are just talking shops"

" Doncaster is in for some serious untwinning. We are twinned with nine other cities around the world and they are just for people to fly off and have a binge at the Council's expense".

He has promised to end council funding for Doncaster 's International Women's Day, Black History Month and the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender History Month. He has also announced he will slash funding for the town’s gay pride event, as part of a campaign against ‘political correctness’.

“I have nothing whatsoever against gays and lesbians, what they do in their private lives is absolutely fine,” said Peter Davies on his first day as Mayor. “But I don’t see why councils should be spending money on that sort of thing.” He added, “My policy on gays and lesbians is very simple. I don’t think councils should be spending money on them parading through town advertising their sexuality.”

An open letter to Malcolm Turnbull.

Cartoon by Nicholson.

The following is part of an open letter to Malcolm Turnbull, the
Leader of the Opposition by Hiram Caton. Turnbulls political philosophy seems to be based on not doing anything he can be held responsible for, and is generally born of confusion with an over-riding guiding principle of expedience.

Re: Global Warming and Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS)

In your statement regarding the ETS, you say that ‘The Coalition supports, and supported when in Government, an environmentally effective and economically responsible ETS being put in place in Australia as part of a co-ordinated global response to climate change’. You then set out nine points that define the Opposition’s policy on this critical question.

Missing from your list is recognition of a key alternative. Australia’s carbon footprint is about 1.0 percent of the global total. Accordingly, nothing that Australians do can have any effect on global warming. How then is it ‘economically responsible’ for us to incur the high costs of transition to ‘clean energy’ when it will have no effect on the reduction of global warming? Isn’t it, indeed, irresponsible to pursue this course?

……..

Rejection of the validity of IPCC global warming claims is extensive among experts, including not a few former IPCC members who have converted from believers to skeptics. Among them are:

Richard Lindzen, an M.I.T. Meterologist who was among the first critics. He states that global warming advocates “are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn’t happen even if the models were right.” …….

Hendrik Tennekes, director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, states “there exists no sound theoretical framework for climate predictability studies” used for global warming forecasts.

Claude Allègre, member, U.S. National Academy of Sciences and French Academy of Science, he was among the first to sound the alarm on the dangers of global warming. His view today is that ‘The cause of this climate change is unknown’. Allègre is French President Sarkozy’s advisor on climate change.

S. Fred Singer, physicist at George Mason University and founder of the Science and Environmental Policy Project. He states: ‘The Earth currently is experiencing a warming trend, but there is scientific evidence that human activities have little to do with it. Instead, the warming seems to be part of a 1,500-year cycle (plus or minus 500 years) of moderate temperature swings.’
…….
Dr. Antonino Zichichi, one of the world’s foremost physicists, former president of the European Physical Society, who discovered nuclear antimatter - calls global warming models “incoherent and invalid.”

Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, world-renowned expert on the ancient ice cores used in climate research, says the U.N. “based its global-warming hypothesis on arbitrary assumptions and these assumptions, it is now clear, are false.”

Prof. Tom V. Segalstad, head of the Geological Museum, University of Oslo, says “most leading geologists” know the U.N.’s views “of Earth processes are implausible.”

Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu, founding director of the International Arctic Research Center, says that much “Arctic warming during the last half of the last century is due to natural change.”

Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of the space research laboratory of the Russian Academy of Science’s Pulkovo Observatory and of the International Space Station’s Astrometria project says that “the common view that man’s industrial activity is a deciding factor in global warming has emerged from a misinterpretation of cause and effect relations.”

Dr. Richard Tol, Principal researcher at the Institute for Environmental Studies at Vrije Universiteit, and Adjunct Professor at the Center for Integrated Study of the Human Dimensions of Global Change, at Carnegie Mellon University, calls the most influential global warming report of all time “preposterous… alarmist and incompetent.”

Dr. Sami Solanki, Director of the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Germany, argues that changes in the sun’s state, not human activity, may be the principal cause of global warming: “The sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures.” …….

I hope that my comments will be of some service in calibrating the Opposition’s position on this very important issue.

Yours truly
Hiram Caton, PhD, DLitt

The full text can be found here.

Kevin Rudds new vision of the past.

One of the Graphs from Tim Andrews in Thoughts on Freedom article.

A recent diatribe by Kevvie Rudd in the Sydney Morning Herald, “Pain on the road to recovery,” raises the hoary old arguments he has pushed in the past that the current financial crisis is the result of “a decade of neo-liberal free market fundamentalism that reinforced a culture of corporate greed and excess in the financial sector.”

That’s right, folks, in case you missed it among all that regulation, all of our problems are the result of unrestricted, unrestrained, unregulated, uninhibited, unprincipled, and unmitigated, laissez-faire, free market capitalism.

In what could be best described as Kevin Rudds new vision of the past he comes out with the following:

“The alternatives were to do nothing or, worse, effectively replicate the Premiers' Plan of 1931 when governments cut expenditure, thereby compounding the problems created by a private sector already in retreat. The result, of course, was an economic rout, appalling unemployment and a decade of negligible growth through the 1930s.”

(The Premiers' Plan involved reductions of about 20% in government spending, public works and wages, and balancing the budget.)

Tim Andrews makes a great response to this in “Thoughts on Freedom,” with his article, “Stimulus Economics: The Data Says NO!” pointing out the vastly different results obtained between the US and Australia over the following period:

It is clear that 1931 is the year the policies diverge.

From the beginning of the year, the U.S increases spending by 45%, Australia cuts it by 15%. If the fundamental theory underpinning ‘stimulus’ economics holds, we should see, almost immediately, a change in outcomes. Australia’s GDP should decrease, whilst GDP should increase in the U.S. Similarly, unemployment should go up in Australia, and fall in the U.S.

So. What happened. This time I went to the OECD (behind paywall) to find out US and Australian GDP per capita during the early years of the depression, and plotted them such that 1929 was the base year of this index. And guess what happened?

…………

Australia’s GDP starts to grow. In the U.S it continues plummeting. In fact, almost immediately after Australia resolved to slash the size of government, it’s GDP began to rise.

I can not stress this enough. In the year that US Government spending increased 45%, GDP fell a whopping 17%. I repeat, 17%. In Australia, where government spending fell 15%, GDP increased 5%. In the following year, while the U.S “stimulated” economy fell 2%, Australia’s grew a whopping 7%. While the U.S economy eventually begins to improve, as the business cycle kicks in, it does so at a considerably delayed rate to Australia, where the government did not crowd out the private sector thereby delaying the recovery.

There could be no better example of how the economics behind ‘stimulus’ packages fail.

I thoroughly recommend the full article.