“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue.
Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
we will be doing the right thing in terms of
economic and environmental policy.”
– Timothy Wirth,
President of the UN Foundation
The success of Australia’s Carbon Tax has meant that global temperatures have not risen over the past 15 years despite Australia’s evil CO² emissions continuing to rise over the same period 1998-2011.
Note China’s CO² emissions have increased by 300% over the same period 1998-2011. However, their talk of an emissions trading pilot scheme has also played a crucial role in halting the rise of atmospheric temps over the past 15 years.
RSS data shows how BIG Government, EPA regulations, green schemes, green tape and trillions of dollars of your money are working together to save the planet from catastrophic global warming. Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs
Despite soaring evil-CO² emissions, there has been no warming trend in Australian summers since satellite (UAH) records began.
Even though global temperatures have not risen over the past 15 years and there has been no warming trend in Australian summers since (UAH) satellite records began, we must not be complacent. We must continue to listen to emperor Rudd’s Government and Deputy Anthony Albanese, who warn us that by 2050 evil CO² related Global Warming (aka Climate Change) heat-related deaths will quadruple.
By 2050 ‘No child or pensioner will die of a heat-related illness’ and we will thank emperor Rudd’s Labor government for linking Australia’s carbon tax and energy prices to the European emissions trading scheme (ETS) – cutting the world’s temp even further and eliminating Australia’s “Angry Summers” forever.
Our grandkids future is more important than being able to afford electricity bills today. Our ‘great’ grandkids future is more important than pensioners being able to afford to use Air Conditioning during “The Angry Summer” or heating in winter.
We must not be concerned green central planning is killing Australia’s international competitiveness, destroying local manufacturing jobs, curtailing investment and sending jobs and industry off-shore to access cheaper, reliable and more efficient energy sources in China, India and elsewhere…
BACK to reality!
Albanese’s heat-related death forecast is classic fear-mongering and global warming alarmist propaganda BS.
Statistics and historical evidence show cold related deaths far outweigh those caused by heat by more than double. However if your government makes electricity unaffordable through draconian climate policy; Carbon Taxers, ETS air trading and heavily subsidised green schemes, you might expect heat related deaths to increase as societies most vulnerable are unable to afford air-conditioning. Heat related deaths would certainly rise if AC is regulated or banned altogether as recommended by UN bureaucrats and those members of the comfortable western climate change elite brigade.
The Facts on HEAT versus COLD related deaths:
There’s a new essay from Indur Goklany in response to a recent Reuters news article.
Yesterday Reuters reported on a study which claimed that heat is the deadliest form of natural hazard for the United States. However, this result is based on questionable data. The study used results for mortality from extreme heat and cold that can be traced to the National Climatic Data Center. But these data are substantially different from mortality data from the Center for Disease Control (CDC) based on the Compressed Mortality File for the United States. The latter uses death certificate records, which provide the cause of each recorded death (based on medical opinion). It is reasonable to believe that regarding the cause of death, particularly for extreme cold and heat, medical opinion as captured in death certificate records is more reliable than determinations made by the meteorologists in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s NCDC (even if they have Ph.Ds.).
The essay draws on data from the CDC database of mortality in the USA. See this table:
Combining data from the CDC database for extreme cold and extreme heat, and various arms of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for floods, lightning, hurricanes, and tornadoes, Goklany has shown that extreme cold, rather than heat, is the deadliest form of extreme weather event. In fact, from 1979-2002, extreme cold was responsible for 53 percent of deaths due to all these categories of extreme weather, while extreme heat contributes slightly more than half that (28%). For more, see The Deadliest U.S. Natural Hazard: Extreme Cold.
Of course we all know that the human race has historically done better during warm periods. While we’ve seen a sloght warming in the last century, we’ve also seen a worldwide improvement in the human condition.Warm – what’s not to like?
In an article entitled, “The impact of global warming on health and mortality,” published in the Southern Medical Journal in 2004, W.R. Keatinge and G.C. Donaldson of Queen Mary’s School of Medicine and Dentistry at the University of London note:
“Cold-related deaths are far more numerous than heat-related deaths in the United States, Europe, and almost all countries outside the tropics, and almost all of them are due to common illnesses that are increased by cold.”
“From 1979 to 1997, extreme cold killed roughly twice as many Americans as heat waves, according to Indur Goklany of the U.S. Department of the Interior,” Singer and Avery write. “Cold spells, in other words, are twice as dangerous to our health as hot weather.”
THE CHANGING OF THE GOAL POSTS:
During the 1970’s the Global Cooling scare was to bring drought and starvation:
MAJOR world climate changes were under way that would cause economic and political upheavals “almost beyond comprehension”, an internal report of the Central Intelligence Agency has warned the US Government.
“The new climatic era brings a promise of famine and starvation to many areas of the world”, the report warns.
Its basic premise is that the world’s climate is cooling and will revert to conditions prevalent between 1600 and 1850 — when the earth’s population was less than 1,000 million and its rural, pre-industrial era civilisations were largely capable of feeding themselves.
A return to cooler temperatures in today’s fragile, . interdependent global economic structure would mean that India, China and the Soviet Union’ — among other northern hemisphere nations — will be hard pressed to feed their populations.
The report notes that’ “the change of climate is cooling some significant agricultural areas and causing drought in others. If, for example, there, is a northern hemisphere drop of one degree centigrade, it would mean that India will have a major drought every four years and can only support three-fourths of her present population”.
“The world reserve would have to supply 30 to 50 million metric tons of grain each year to prevent the death of 150 million Indians”, the re port said.
“China, with a major famine every five years, would require a supply of 50 million metric tons of grain. The Soviet Union would lose Kazakhstan for grain production, thereby showing a yearly loss of 48 million metric tons of grain.
“Canada, a .major exporter, would lose over 50 per cent of its production capability and 75 per cent of its exporting capabilities. Northern Europe will “lose 25 to 30 per cent of its present production capability while the Common Market countries would zero their exports”.
The report, which was concerned with possible political and economic threats the United States could expect from such drastic events, said the starvation and famine would lead to social unrest and global migration of populations.
Reader Bill confirms the Government’s alarmist projections:
Want to read something really interesting? Compared Figure 4-1 in the State of Australian Cities report with the original source which is a 2011 Pricewaterhouse Coopers report. The caption for Figure 4-1 claims it shows projected annual heat related deaths but it doesn’t, it shows “extreme heat events” which are “rare”. In other words it shows projected deaths from rare severe heat waves. Australia has only had ONE in the last 70 years and that was in 2009.
The PWC report says that annual heat related deaths will increase to between 170 and 200 annually with much of the increase due to population increase and an ageing population. So the stories claiming that heat related deaths will “quadruple” to “2000 annually” are off by a factor of 10!
Here’s the link to the 2011 PWC report. See Figure 1 and Figure 3.
“We need to get some broad based support,
to capture the public’s imagination…
So we have to offer up scary scenarios,
make simplified, dramatic statements
and make little mention of any doubts…
Each of us has to decide what the right balance
is between being effective and being honest.”
– Prof. Stephen Schneider
Stanford Professor of Climatology,
lead author of many IPCC reports
Mark Butler and Andrew Bolt debate the emissions trading scheme
JULY 18, 2013 12:00AM
Labor pledges ETS start in 2014
Kevin Rudd says shifting to an emissions trading scheme in 2014 will save households about $380 a year.
MINISTER for Climate Change, Environment, Heritage and Water, Mark Butler and columnist Andrew Bolt debate the emissions trading scheme.
FOR THE SCHEME – MARK BUTLER
CAST your mind back to 2007. Australia had just thrashed the Poms in the Ashes 5-0, Mark Williams and Neil Craig were coaching Port and Adelaide and Kevin Rudd was elected Prime Minister and acted immediately to ratify the Kyoto Protocol – it was one his first acts in government.
There was an air of optimism about addressing global warming and a sense that the country had united behind a common purpose.
Young people were leading the charge and half the country had been inspired by An Inconvenient Truth – Al Gore’s blockbuster documentary.
Minister for Climate Change Mark Butler with Prime Minister Kevin Rudd outlining the shift to an emissions trading scheme in 2014.
All political parties, led by Kevin Rudd, but including John Howard’s Liberals and Bob Brown’s Greens, had backed the move to an emissions trading scheme (ETS) to cut carbon pollution.
Well, next year, Australia will get the ETS voted for in 2007. The carbon tax will be shelved a year earlier than previously planned and we will transition to a “floating price” ETS.
The scheme works by placing a “cap” on the total amount of carbon pollution released across our economy and requiring around 370 large businesses to purchase “carbon permits” equal to the pollution they create.
But what it really means is that we can address global warming in the cheapest possible way for our economy because we’ll have access to cheaper ways of offsetting our pollution via the international market.
This is a cost of living measure from a Government committed to taking action on climate change. The move from a carbon tax to an ETS will save the average Adelaide household around $380 next year.
And the biggest impact will be on electricity and gas bills. The change is expected to save the average household around $3 a week, or over $150 in the year, on its electricity bills and around $1.10 per week, or $57 over the year, on its gas bills, providing much needed cost-of-living relief to many households.
[Insert Butler Alarmism Here:]
The change also guarantees we hit our target to cut carbon pollution by 2020, which is important because global warming is happening now and the climate is already changing.
Thirteen of the hottest years on record have occurred in the last 15 years. And in South Australia, seven of the 10 hottest years have occurred since 2000.
We had such incredibly hot temperatures in January, the Bureau of Meteorology had to add a colour – purple – to their weather charts to show the unprecedented temperatures of above 50 degrees. They called it the angry summer and for good reason – it was the hottest we’ve seen.
And if global warming continues unchecked, it will have significant adverse impacts on our environment, our economy and our society.
Global warming should not be a political issue. Sixty-five per cent of Australians say they are experiencing the effect of climate change right now. Without climate change mitigation, by 2050, around the time my children are my age, we will live in a different landscape.
I want my children and their children to be able to enjoy the Murray in all its glory, from the food bowl of the Riverland to the beauty of the Lower Lakes.
I want South Australians to be confident that we have done all we can to avoid the extreme weather events such as heat waves that are caused by climate change, letting people live long, healthy lives.
Whether it’s declining food productivity, increasing health costs, declines in the tourism industry, increased insurance and infrastructure costs, along with many other issues, all of this impacts our community and our economy.
Global warming is an issue that should unite our country, not divide us.
[Insert rational, common sense fact Here:]
AGAINST THE SCHEME – ANDREW BOLT
PEOPLE cheer Kevin Rudd because they cannot believe a Prime Minister would trick them so brazenly.
But never has Mr Rudd – a genius at seeming, a disaster at doing – been as brazen as he was this week.
No, he did not “terminate” Labor’s carbon tax.
No, his planned emissions trading scheme cannot start next year – or not without spending billions he does not have to buy off the hostile Greens.
No, it won’t save families $380 each year.
No, your electricity bills might in fact soar, not fall.
In fact, Mr Rudd will be the second Labor Prime Minister to go to an election promising “there will be no carbon tax under a government I lead”.
If re-elected he will be the second Labor Prime Minister to claim “changed circumstances” made him break his solemn word.
On Tuesday, Mr Rudd made the following false claims, or almost certainly undeliverable promises in announcing he’d move to an emissions trading scheme one year earlier than Labor planned:
“The Government has decided to terminate the carbon tax … From July 1 next year Australia will move to an emissions trading scheme …
“The modelling from Treasury shows that in the financial year 2014-15 an average family will receive a cost of living relief to the value of $380 per year …
“We expect the change that we are bringing in will see the price on carbon fall from an expected $25.40 a tonne by next July to around $6 a tonne.”
Not one of those claims can be trusted. Some are outright fabrications. Here are the facts.
First, it is very unlikely Mr Rudd could get his plan through Parliament in time, because the Senate, in which Labor can be out-voted by the Coalition with the Greens, stays until June 30 next year.
The Coalition is against this switch to an emissions trading system, in which the European Commission effectively sets our carbon price by manipulating its market in permits to emit carbon dioxide.
Europe’s price is now an unusually low $6, but European politicians plan to ramp it up.
The Greens are opposed for different reasons. For one, they don’t want the carbon price to fall by as much as Labor promises.
“The Greens do not support making it cheaper for the big polluters to pollute,” Greens leader Christine Milne said.
IF the Coalition sticks to its guns, Mr Rudd’s plan is dead – unless it can bribe the Greens with billions of dollars of more dud green schemes just like the ones Mr Rudd says he needs to cut.
Second, Mr Rudd is dead wrong in claiming his change would save families $380 “per year”, as he stated five times on Tuesday. In fact, he is merely bringing forward by one year Labor’s planned switch to emissions trading, so any savings are also for just one year, as Treasurer Chris Bowen tried to point out to him: “It is a one-year figure based on the Treasury’s view of the carbon price.”
Third, Mr Rudd’s claim of $380 in savings for each family is a wild exaggeration at best.
That figure assumes that our carbon price will next year drop to the $6 set by Europe’s trading system today.
But the European Commission this month voted to increase that $6 price, with analysts at Point Carbon expecting it to perhaps double in the near future. Add the likely depreciation of the Australian dollar, and half Mr Rudd’s $380 in claimed savings could be wiped out.
In fact, in a few years we might not be saving but instead spending a lot, lot more.
Deputy Prime Minister Anthony Albanese on 2GB this week not only conceded the obvious – that the price set by Europe could well rise – but refused to rule out it rising to a level much higher than our carbon tax today.
Indeed, the Government’s own Budget, released just two months ago, worked on a “modelled price of $38 at 2019-20” – which the Government needs to pay for its hugely expensive disability scheme and Gonski education changes.
People with short memories may find it unbelievable that a Prime Minister could tell them such untruths with such moral conviction.
But Mr Rudd has long traded on seeming something he is not. He is a genius at seeming to fix what he’s actually broken, like border laws.
And here he is again, pretending to fix a tax that pretended to stop a global warming Mr Rudd pretends is dangerous, even though it’s now paused for more than 15 years.
Pretending, too, that he’ll save you money when he’s costing you a fortune.
The King of Seeming in an Age of Seeming. Not worse than Julia Gillard, but a greater indictment of Australia and our times.
Courtesy: The Daily Telegraph