Anthropogenic Global Warming Rats jumping ship.

Losing their religion as evidence cools off

BY: MAURICE L. NEWMAN
The Australian
November 05, 2012 12:00AM 

ONCE upon a time when Christendom was at its peak, missionaries would be dispatched to the four corners of the globe in search of converts. They believed their mission would expand the influence of Rome and save heathens from eternal damnation.

It was a compelling message. Convert and enjoy everlasting life in the hereafter. The advantage the missionaries had was that the religion they taught had no hypotheses that could be tested. Death - "the undiscovered country from whose bourn no traveller returns" - meant that the afterlife could be neither proved nor disproved. Faith was the only thing needed.

Climate science is a bit like that - push the rewards and the catastrophes far enough into the future, and have faith that the prophecies will come true. However, unlike heaven, which we may reach at any time, climate prophecies need to be distant enough to make them hard to challenge yet sufficiently close to generate urgent action.

So when in 1969 Paul Ehrlich claimed because of global cooling it was an even-money bet whether England would survive until the year 2000, he could not immediately be proven wrong. After all, this was a cooling period.

Unfortunately for him, England is still inhabited and his predictions are still remembered. Ehrlich is now a warmist. Like a good stock analyst, when the company doesn't perform as you thought, better to change the recommendation from a sell to a buy, than admit you were wrong.

When Mother Nature decided in 1980 to change gears from cooler to warmer, a new global warming religion was born, replete with its own church (the UN), a papacy, (the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), and a global warming priesthood masquerading as climate scientists. Selfish humans in rich, polluting countries were blamed for the warming and had to pay for past trespasses by providing material compensation to poor nations as penance. Cutting greenhouse gas emissions became the new holy grail. With a warm wind at their backs, these fundamentalists collected hundreds of billions of dollars from naive governments that adopted their faith on behalf of billions of people. No crusader was ever so effective.

The message was stark. If the non-believers didn't convert immediately, our children and grandchildren would face a hell on earth. The priesthood excommunicated and humiliated sceptics and deniers. Alternative views were not tolerated and, where possible, were suppressed. Did someone mention the dark ages?

Because the new arrangements would distort capital allocations, disciples wrote economic texts showing how inefficient, productivity-sapping and costly green industries would actually boost economic activity and employment.

Unfortunately, the cost of saving the planet would fall disproportionately on the poor. This wealth transfer to the rich was unavoidable and, if the poor or the infirm died of cold or heat because they could not afford airconditioning, they would simply be martyrs to the cause. In any case, who could they appeal to? All political parties had signed up to the new religion.

But, self-deluded by the warming period and their confirmatory bias, the priesthood was overtaken by hubris and made increasingly extravagant claims. We were advised that Armageddon was now even closer at hand.

Regrettably for the global warming religion, its predictions have started to appear shaky, and the converts, many of whom have lost their jobs and much of their wealth, are losing faith. Worse, heretic scientists have been giving the lie to many of the prophecies described in the IPCC bible. They could not be silenced.

Of course, the IPCC texts can be interpreted in different ways and sceptics have obviously chosen the wrong interpretation.

When atmospheric temperatures on which we had relied failed to comply with the prophecies, the waverers were instructed to look at ocean temperatures and rising sea levels.

So far, so good. However, the British arm of the climate establishment silently released an encyclical that revealed no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures from the beginning of 1997 until August this year.

This communique was unearthed by the heretic newspaper, the Daily Mail, which pointed out that this period was of about the same duration as when temperatures rose between 1980 to 1996.

Of course, the religious high priests were quick to play down the significance of this pause. Phil Jones of the Climategate denomination claimed it was to be expected and, he insisted, 15 or 16 years is not a significant period.

Yet in 2009 he said that a "no upward trend has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried". But that was then and this is now and he is not about to lose his religion simply because the evidence doesn't support the text.

And, of course, there are always extenuating circumstances. El Nino and La Nina are there when you need them, to be forgotten when temperatures are warming or remembered if they are cooling. And, we've had a record Arctic melt. But better not mention the storm that NASA concedes broke the ice up and drove it south, or the record Antarctic ice gain.

Rather we must listen to Australia's Climate Change Commission novitiates who, against the evidence, have delivered a parable linking Superstorm Sandy to global warming.

At least the media disciples are keeping the faith by emphasising what supports the gospel and, where possible, omitting that which doesn't. New, corroborative revelations enjoy widespread publicity. If the same findings are later retracted for lack of scientific rigour, they are simply allowed to disappear without comment.

Yet despite all, believers in man-made global warming are declining. It will require an extraordinary crusade presaging even direr climate consequences for defying the warmist faith, before defectors even contemplate rejoining the religion. If that fails it may be time to burn sceptics at the stake. But then that would increase CO2 emissions. A dilemma, to be sure.

Maurice L. Newman is a former chairman of the ABC.

Even IF you can afford Electricity in Australia Labor Green Loons Financiers are going to make sure you only get it when they say you can have it no matter the price.

Blackouts expected as NSW power workers plan to strike

Barclay Crawford
The Sunday Telegraph
October 07, 201212:00AM

MORE than 500,000 homes across NSW risk being left in the dark this month with rolling blackouts expected across the state as power workers walk off the job.

One in six homes could be hit by blackouts during the evening peak following a decision by Fair Work Australia to allow workers to take industrial action at the state's biggest power supplier, Macquarie Generation.

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union and eight other unions have been cleared to strike at the Liddell and Bayswater power stations in the Hunter Valley in defiance of state government action to strip them of lucrative conditions negotiated with the former NSW Labor government. 

The two plants, controlled by Macquarie Generation, produce 40 per cent of the state's energy needs. 

While the approved strike is only for 48 hours, the plants would effectively be shut for two weeks because of the time it takes to close them down and then restart them.

The blackout threat has been exacerbated by an explosion at Eraring Energy's Lake Macquarie power plant, which has forced it to shut down until November.

The plant is responsible for about 11 per cent of the state's electricity needs.

The Eraring closure and the proposed strike action come at the worst possible time for NSW, with a hot October predicted to send power demand soaring.

A source said 124 operators at Macquarie Generation earn $250,000 a year once overtime and superannuation are taken into account, with at least one operator on more than $300,000. 

Other perks include $2.2 million spent funding a half-hour shower allowance, despite the fact most operators don't raise a sweat on the job, and a lucrative superannuation scheme. But a senior union source said the government was looking to "pick a fight" with them.

The O'Farrell Government believes the power perks are unsustainable and only add to the cost of NSW power bills.

Despite their excessive conditions, workers are also pushing for a five per cent pay rise.

"The work practices in the government's energy business are unsustainable and are only adding to the power costs of consumers," a spokesman for Energy Minister Chris Hartcher said.

"Workers at these plants come under Prime Minister Julia Gillard's Fair Work regime, which has to be conscious when it approves industrial action that these work practices are placing an additional burden on electricity consumers." Peter McPherson, a Unions NSW industrial officer for the state's northern region, said negotiations were continuing and they were "looking to avoid an industrial action".

The Bolt Report Pt's 1,2and 3 August 26 12

"Stay out of Australia" BHP: Tony Abbott proven correct over BHP Mining pull out due to Labor Green Loon's TAXES

Australian Politics :Is the Prime Minister a crook? Part VII

7.30 Report, Affirmative Action appointee Leigh Sales,speaks with Opposition Leader Tony Abbott on Her / THEIR ABC.

Ray Hadley Ben Fordham Mike Smith : Julia Gillard AWU Scandal deepens

Madame Gillard "I was young and naive" but she says she didn't get the money and Unions and Comrades in your kids Classroom - Why Communism Loves Children.

Slush fund claims raise fresh leadership tension for Prime Minister Julia Gillard

Australian Sen. Barnaby Joyce speaks with Radio 2gb's Chris Smith.

Straight Talking Straight Shooting
Sen.Barnaby Joyce.

Carbon tax 'will destroy' major centres such as Port Pirie and Whyalla

Year Zero started on JuLIAR the first 2012, the first day of Australians journey into Serfdom.

A member of the Australian Labor party's apologetics, financial and fund raising division, the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) Mr Wayne Hanson of  the Australian Workers Union (AWU) is at odds with his party's leader, Madame JuLIAR Gillard and her fellow Union GetUp financed Parliamentary comrades on the ramifications of the "TAX on everything".

 The JuLIAR 1 2012 introduced Carbon Dioxide Tax has the support of a massive 32% of Australians.

Former Madame Gillard paramour and now Australian Trade Minister Craig Emerson, enthusiastically mocked and ridiculed the 68% of Australians opposed to the "TAX on everything" and anyone who believed that his Union GetUp funded Minority Socialist Labor Green Loon Co Party's "TAX on everything" would cost jobs and shut down industries and services and activities targeted by his minority "Co Party" government.

The Minority "Co Party's" "Tax on everything" is designed to shut down industries not approved of by his comrades in the environmental movement and the United Nations, who, instilled with the help of Green and  "independent" candidates, the present Australian federal government into office in 2010. 

Carbon tax 'will destroy' major centres such as Port Pirie and Whyalla 

"Goodbye. They will be off the map,"

"THE state's two key industrial cities will be "wiped off the map" by a carbon tax, a major union warns.The tax would strip thousands of jobs from Whyalla and Port Pirie, the Australian Workers Union state secretary Wayne Hanson said."

The internal revolt from Labor's industrial heartland threatens not just the reform but the Government's survival.
Mr Hanson yesterday stepped up his union's opposition to the tax, claiming the future of both cities would be in serious doubt because both had economies based on the high-emission production of steel, iron ore and zinc.
"Goodbye. They will be off the map," he said. 

So what is Australian PM Madame JuLIAR Gillard's former paramour the Hon.Craig Emerson's response to the concerns of 68% of Australians over his party's "Tax on everything" ?
On Sunday JuLIAR  the first 2012  he measured the height of the sky with a tape measure and assured his adoring fellow Comrades and believers that it had not fallen and then on Monday JuLIAR the second he answered questions outside Parliament House and then, well he.......best you see for yourself.

CONTENT WARNING: Not suitable for Pregnant Women,the frail and aged,small children,livestock or small dogs. 

As one listener to radio 2gbcom said in an email today, ".....I would like to see the bludger dance like that in front of an Australian pensioner who cannot afford to have the electricity connected any longer, see how far the bludger (Emerson) would get "


The original Sky Hooks song that The Hon. Craig Emerson used to mock 68% of Australians who are unbelievers  / deniers or simply put are not the Pig Ignorant Fools the the Australian Labor Party thinks they are.

                   

And in case you are not an Australian citizen reading the above may be a bit confusing so one of Australia's hand full of centre / conservative writers, the brilliant Tim Blair will explain it all below.

Elementary facts about tax founded in a fib

• Tim Blair 
• The Daily Telegraph 
• June 18, 2012 12:00AM

MANY Australians remain confused about the carbon tax's purpose and impact. This simple guide should answer all of your questions and leave everybody in a state of enlightened carbon clarity.

Q: What is carbon?

A: Carbon is a solid non-metallic chemical element. It has nothing at all to do with the carbon tax, carbon pollution or carbon emissions, all of which refer to carbon dioxide.

Q: What is carbon dioxide?

A: Carbon dioxide is a naturally occurring gas emitted in human breath, among other sources. Plants feed on it. In solid form it is known as dry ice.

Q: When will the carbon tax be introduced?

A: Never, according to Prime Minister Julia Gillard, who in August 2010 told Australians: "There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead." On the other hand, the carbon tax comes into effect on July 1.

Q: Were we ever given a chance to vote for the carbon tax, as we were given a chance to vote for the GST?

A: No. The carbon tax became law in October 2011 during a parliamentary Labor cuddling ceremony, which overrides any electoral considerations.

Q: Really? The carbon tax caused Labor politicians to actually hug each other?

A: Yes. In fact, the carbon tax is the only known force powerful enough to make Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd kiss. It's like giving Bacardi Breezers to north shore teenagers.

Q: What is the point of the carbon tax?

A: According to Gillard: "It's time to deliver the action on climate change we need. To do what is best for Australian families, what is best for future generations, what is best for this country."

Q: If the carbon tax is such a great thing, what did Labor say about it before the last election?

A: Treasurer Wayne Swan: "Certainly what we rejected is this hysterical allegation that we are moving towards a carbon tax. We reject that."

Q: Will the carbon tax make any difference at all to global climate trends?

A: It is scientifically impossible for a reduction in Australia's carbon emissions to make any significant difference to the planet's climate.

Q: How much carbon does Australia produce?

A: Only about 1.4 per cent of the planet's human-created carbon dioxide emissions come from Australia, about equal to Indonesia, and one-eighteenth the contribution of China.

Q: But I keep hearing that Australia has an enormous carbon output.

A: Carbon tax enthusiasts like to express Australia's carbon output in per capita terms, a trick designed to make a very small number appear very large.

Q: If per capita measurement is a method of charting carbon output, which nation is the greatest carbon criminal?

A: According to Britain's Guardian newspaper, it's Gibraltar. Terrifying, planet-ruining Gibraltar.

Q: Who will pay the carbon tax?

A: Directly, entities described by the prime minister as "big polludahs". Indirectly, you.

Q: Is the carbon tax meant to change my buying habits?

A: Yes. As Gillard said in 2011: "There will be price impacts. The whole point of pricing carbon is to say that goods that have got a lot of carbon pollution in them get relatively more expensive."

Q: Let's try that again. Is the carbon tax meant to change my buying habits?

A: No. The government has put in place a wide-ranging compensation scheme that is intended to cover cost of living increases for many Australians, so you can just keep on spending like you always did.

Q: What's the use of it then?

A: Good question.

Q: Who will profit from the carbon tax?

A: Carbon tax bureaucrats, who now have high-paying jobs in a sector of the government that didn't exist a few years ago.

Q: What kind of indirect costs might a carbon tax involve?

A: NSW government analysis claims average Sydney hospitals will face increased expenses of about $120,000 per year. Schools in Sydney could be paying about $9000 each per year.

Q: How will they pay?

A: With your taxes.

Q: Can the carbon tax ever be removed?

A: According to Climate Change Minister Greg Combet, Labor will never support any measures to repeal a tax that they pledged not to introduce. A Coalition government would require control of the Senate in order to remove the carbon tax.

Q: When is the next election?

A: By November 30, 2013.