Submitted by climaterealists on Fri, 08/04/2011 - 14:37
The IPCC broke three of its own rules when it cited the Stern Review 26 times in 12 chapters.
In March 2007, Rajendra Pachauri, the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was interviewed by a reporter from the Bloomberg business news service. The discussion centered on the soon-to-be-released second installment of the IPCC's newly updated climate bible.
Tangentially, Pachauri was asked about the Stern Review, a report written by economists employed by the British government. Pachauri told Bloomberg the IPCC was aware of the 700-page report but that his organization's ability to make use of it was limited because it was not peer-reviewed.
Imagine my surprise therefore, when an audit of IPCC references I organized recently revealed that the IPCC had cited the Stern Review all over the place. Not once or twice. And not in a chapter or two. I'm talking at least 25 times across 12 chapters.
Submitted by climaterealists on Fri, 08/04/2011 - 14:31
Hitler said, “How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think”.
Submitted by climaterealists on Fri, 08/04/2011 - 13:51
Dear Readers,
The climate change / CO2 debate has hotted up greatly.
If you saw the news, you would have noticed how Tony Abbott has not explained how all CO2
has such a miniscule effect on Global temperatures.
Several Liberals (possibly himself included) know the facts so the Liberals should be able to explain how useless any action
Submitted by climaterealists on Fri, 08/04/2011 - 13:28
18 March 2011
Emissions Trading Scheme Review
All members
A review is underway
The government have established a panel to review the emissions trading scheme (ETS), and the panel have released an issues statement with technical questions they would like to receive public submissions.
The deadline for submissions on the Issues Statement is Friday 6 April 2011.
Federated Farmers is currently working on its response to the panel’s issues statement.
Federated Farmers policy position on the ETS
Federated Farmers strongly opposes biological agricultural emissions from food production remaining in the Kyoto Protocol and subsequent international agreements. Federated Farmers further considers the inclusion of biological agricultural emissions in the ETS should be postponed far beyond the entry date of 2015 currently set in the legislation.
Our preference as an organisation remains that there should be no ETS in New Zealand. If New Zealand must have an ETS, then it must not include biological agricultural emissions. If New Zealand must have an ETS and include biological agricultural emissions, then there are a number of requirements the legislation and regulations would need to satisfy before that could occur.
Submitted by climaterealists on Mon, 14/03/2011 - 21:28
couriermail.com.au
Andrew Bolt 10 March 2011
http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermail/andrewbolt/index.php/couriermail/comments/dont_know_the_cost_dont_know_if_it_works/
The two basic questions with any purchase. How much does it cost? Will it do the job?
Jill Duggan is from the European Commission’s Directorate General of Climate Action. She is the EC’s National Expert on Carbon Markets and Climate Change. She was head of Britain’s International Emissions Trading. She is in Australia to tell us how good Europe’s emission trading system is and why we should do something similar.
No one, therefore, should better know the answers to the two most basic questions about this huge scheme. The cost? The effect?.
So on MTR yesterday, I asked them. Duggan’s utter inability to answer is a scandal - an indictment of global warming politics today.= (listen here):
AB: Can I just ask; your target is to cut Europe’s emissions by 20% by 2020?
JD: Yes.
AB: Can you tell me how much - to the nearest billions - is that going to cost Europe do you think?
JD: No, I can’t tell you but I do know that the modelling shows that it’s cheaper to start earlier rather than later, so it’s cheaper to do it now rather than put off action.
AB: Right. You wouldn’t quarrel with Professor Richard Tol - who’s not a climate sceptic - but is professor at the Economic and Social Research Institute in Dublin? He values it at about $250 billion. You wouldn’t quarrel with that?
JD: I probably would actually. I mean, I don’t know. It’s very, very difficult to quantify. You get different changes, don’t you? And one of the things that’s happening in Europe now is that many governments - such as the UK government and the German government - would like the targets to be tougher because they see it as a real stimulus to the economy.
Submitted by climaterealists on Sat, 12/03/2011 - 22:09
World Forest Industries
http://worldforestindustries.com/forest-biofuel/carbon-neutral/
It makes people feel good when they think they are doing something that is carbon neutral. But is anything we do carbon neutral? Carbon neutral is a term that has quickly become very popular. You might call it the latest trendy term of the self appointed “environmentally enlightened”.
Carbon neutral refers to anything that does not increase or decrease the amount of carbon in the atmosphere. This term can refer to both human and non human activity. The burning of fossil fuels are a main target of opposition from people using this term since fossil fuels are considered to be very much not carbon neutral.
Renewable energy sources like biofuel are often credited for being carbon neutral. The burning of biofuel does release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere but since it comes from plants that absorbed the carbon from the atmosphere there is no net increase of carbon in this process. When you cut down a tree in the forest and burn it in your fireplace you do release the carbon from the tree into the atmosphere. But the idea is that the new tree that takes its place in the forest will absorb that CO2 as it grows. Therefore burning wood is considered to be carbon neutral.
Submitted by climaterealists on Sat, 12/03/2011 - 22:05
While the greens waffle about projected outcomes and computer models, here are some real actual outcomes of green politics:-
Submitted by climaterealists on Sat, 12/03/2011 - 21:57
NZ Climate Science Coalition press release 16 February 2011
In their references to the "price of carbon" in their discussions the Prime Ministers of Australia and New Zealand should stop misleading people and they should refer to the substance by its correct name carbon dioxide (CO2), the colourless odourless gas which is but a minor trace gas in the greenhouse effect, but which is vitally important to human and plant life on earth. This today from Terry Dunleavy, secretary of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition.
Submitted by climaterealists on Sat, 12/03/2011 - 21:55
by James Delingpole 9 February 2011
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100075418/what-did-our-grandchildren-do-to-deserve-the-prince-of-wales/
Today, in that bastion of liberty and open markets the European Parliament, the Prince of Wales argued fervently for the inalienable right of our children and grandchildren to enjoy a worse standard of living than their parents.
Not, of course, that he put it quite so explicitly:
”There is, surely, no way round the fact that we have to move away from our conventional economic model of growth, based, as it is, on the production and consumption of high-carbon intensity goods.
”We need to meet the challenge of decoupling economic growth from increased consumption in such a way that both the well-being of Nature’s ecology and our own economic needs do not suffer.”
Submitted by climaterealists on Sat, 12/03/2011 - 21:50
by Joe Fone 5 February 2011
Pages
