IPCC

Vote on the new “climate change” poll at the ABC Q & A site

13 Comments

I see the “dismissives” have quickly made their presence felt over the loaded questions – 1929 votes as at 8.45am 27 Apr 2012. Only takes a few minutes – go on – a little chance to strike back at the years of disgusting Govt propaganda on climate.

13 thoughts on “Vote on the new “climate change” poll at the ABC Q & A site”

  2. yep dismissives have overtaken the alarmed

    I don’t watch the ABC any more and even the ‘climate consensus’ shows last night were insufficient to drag me back to it and I’m pleased I didn’t watch after reading reports from WUWT and Jo Nova and Jen Marohasy. It’s curious so close to the commencement of the carbon tax nirvana that Aussie audiences are getting another wash of climate propaganda or am I being too cynical

    I seem to recall reading somewhere that the ABC have decided to reflect the ‘consensus science’ – if my recollection is not faulty could someone point me to a link please

  3. thanks to Tom from Jo Nova’s blog

    John Reid

    Mark Latham seems unable to comprehend why so many successful, well-educated people should ignore the “hard evidence” of human-induced climate change (“Mass denial”, Review, April 20).

    It is quite simple. There is no hard evidence. Just because a scientist makes a statement, it does not follow that such a statement is true or even scientific. Science is a process, not a dogma. It is a process that uses the scientific method whereby hypotheses are tested by attempting to falsify them. The scientific method is circumvented by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which said: “Our evaluation process is not as clear cut as a simple search for ‘falsification’ (TAR Section 8.2.2 page 474).”

    Consequently the so-called “climate science” as put forward by the IPCC is no more a science than is homeopathy or astrology.

    The general sloppiness in the outpourings of the climate change establishment are most evident in the glib, model-based predictions of global climate a century into the future. As a physicist and former numerical modeller, I know that such predictions are ludicrous.

    The flaw in Latham’s world view is his naive faith that science always “gets it right”. That is no more true of science than it is of any other human institution, and the folks out there in the ’burbs are well aware of this.

    All institutions go off the rails from time to time and the way in which environmental scientists are now peddling Green propaganda in return for grant money resembles the Christian church under the Borgia popes. Because of this, the cult of climate change has come to have a stranglehold on the environmental sciences. Maybe its time for a new Martin Luther to come along and fix things up.

    (published in the AFR)

  5. I watched the whole Q and A show. It’s actually not quite as bad as most of the ABC’s outpourings of warmist guff. But to call it fair or balanced, as the producers pretend, would be ridiculous. The narrator’s opening words are:

    The earth’s climate is constantly changing, driven by a multitude of natural forces. But now, a new force is disrupting the climate system. Humans are driving dangerous global warming – or at least, that’s what the world’s scientists are telling us.

    And so it goes. There are numerous giveaways as to the producers’ warmist bias. The crazy climate policy mess in the UK – targets set and then abandoned, nationwide fights over wind farms, colossal spending producing unmeasurably small emissions reductions – is greeted with grandiose shots of the Palace of Westminster, a band playing “Rule Britannia” and the upbeat message:

    Across the pond in the UK, the British public are just as divided as we are on the causes of climate change – but it hasn’t stopped them from moving forward.

    Several incidents also show the impressive psychological barriers that the warmist, Anna Rose, has erected against the possibility of reconsidering her position. Introduced to Mark Morano she tells him to his face that he has been responsible for death threats, and that she will listen but not argue with him. She gets a spray in return and then refuses to say anything. Introduced to Richard Lindzen, she accuses him of supporting the tobacco industry. Yet at the end of the programme she is given the opportunity to wonder whether she has made a mistake in “giving oxygen” to sceptics by even participating in the show, and to justify herself with:

    It’s not like, if we don’t engage, these people won’t be getting airplay anyway.

    Yet how much airplay have climate sceptics ever received on the ABC, compared to the avalanche of warmist propaganda on its news, current affairs, science, environment and wildlife shows? And even this show now, an admitted exception to the ABC’s usual output, was clearly slanted to the warmist side of the argument, despite protestations to the contrary.

  6. I followed the original survey and I think it was around 48% ‘dismissive’ the last time I looked – down from around 54% – with around 20,000+ votes. Then that disappeared and a new one was started. As of now (7:15am, 29/4) dismissive is 49% after 3,500 votes cast.
    At the beginning of the new survey, ‘alarmed’ was way ahead.

  8. During this debate, Matthew England said:-

    ‘ Jim Hansen had projections in the 1970s that have played out ….’.

    This is what Hansen said in 1986:-

    “Within 15 years,” said Goddard Space Flight Honcho James Hansen, “global temperatures will rise to a level which hasn’t existed on earth for 100,000 years”.

    And no-one questioned this?

    Anna Rose said in relation to the CO2 tax:-
    ‘ … it does this firstly by giving polluters a reason to clean up their act, giving them an incentive because they have to pay a small price per tonne of pollution but, secondly, by using that revenue to put into a clean energy, so we have a $10 billion fund, the Clean Energy Finance Corporation….’

    I believe that the money raised was paying for compensation and the $10 billion is in addition to the monies raised – is that correct?

  9. Ian George
    The amount in compensation is roughly 50% of that raised IN THE FIRST YEAR. Thereafter there will be no additional compensation, but the tax will go up each year. After 3 years the process switches to an ETS scheme, which the Gov. hopes will raise even more.

    The money for the Clean Energy Finance Corporation will be built up over 3 years. Basically, it is a pork barrel scheme for the Greens. The money will be spent on “renewable energy schemes”. That means it will all be spent without any result except demands for more money.
    Some money will also go to the United Nations. There is also the cost of the Department of Climate Change. At the moment it only has 1200 employed, but you can be certain that will shoot up. (The EPA in the USA expects it staff to go up 17 times if their CO2 scheme goes through).

    I can’t be more specific because this Government seems to be “making it up as it goes”. Some money goes to “compensate” the “big polluters” i.e. power stations so they don’t shove the price of electricity up all at once. Roughly they will get around one third of their tax bill back. But the “big polluters” list is still being added to, and people like Woolworths, Coles, cheese manufacturers, hospitals and Universities will not get any compensation. These people don’t emit much, but they use lots of electricity.

    The carbon tax could have been very simple; so much per ton of coal, so much per barrel of oil. But that wouldn’t raise enough for the Gov. so they double (and treble) up by charging the power station customers. So the electricity generators raise prices (to pay tax on their emissions), but someone like Woolworths has also to pay for the emissions caused by the electricity they use EVEN though those emissions have already been paid for by the power stations. Also, they will face higher costs because transport costs will go up. Also, many food companies will be paying carbon tax so their prices will have to go up (NOTE not overseas companies; so the Gov. hopes their lower costs will squeeze local manufacturers into not raising their prices).

    So the trip to the supermarket is going to get more expensive. If you have no sympathy for Woolies, think about hospitals and universities which use lots of electricity. Up go their costs (+GST). Local Government will also be hit (apart from electricity their rubbish tips will be taxed) so your Council rates will go up.

    I think that Labor is planning an election soon. I know it looks like electoral suicide, but if they announce a budget surplus and the household “compensation” cheques go out quickly, there will be a slight time gap before the bills start rising. Bear in mind that the “compensation” is only intended to cover the first year rise in electricity bills.

  10. Ian George
    sorry but I can’t find info on what and where carbon tax goes.

    Look for NGER-Greenhouse-and-energy-information-2010-2011-3-PDF to give a list of “polluters”.

    At a flat rate oil would bring in $2.07 billion p.a. and electricity $5.11 billion p.a. (but see note above re Gov. doubling up.

    Out of the tax Labor plans to spend $4.97 on compensation to voters, $3.2 “compensation” for industry and $1.2 for farmers. Also $3.3 a year for the Clean Energy Finance Corporation (CEFC), and $3.2 for the Australian Renewable Energy Agency. ALL FIGURES IN BILLIONS.

    There will also be an independent adviser known as the Climate Change Authority (unknown cost) and the UN (unknown cost).

    The estimated turnover in the first year is $22.567 billion, and as the Gov. claims the Budget will be balanced they obviously must raise that much in the carbon tax.

  11. Thanks, Graeme.
    Your statement saying the Govt seems to be ‘making it up as it goes’ sums up the situation well.
    I think we are signed up to pay some $5-7 billion per year to the UN by 2020 as our contribution to developied and underdeveloped countries to counter CC.

  12. A thousand new votes have been added since I posted the results of the ABC survey three days ago. I’ve been watching the progress. The percentages have held almost constant as the votes have been added; however, at one stage the ‘Dismissive’ were up to 52%. Total Dismissive + Doubtful is 60% to 61%. Alarmed + Concerned is 34% to 35%.
    www.abc.net.au//tv/changeyourmind/inc/vote_central_results.htm
    PostShow
    Dismissive 51%
    Alarmed 22%
    Concerned 13%
    Doubtful 9%
    Cautious 4%
    Disengaged 1%
    4627 votes counted

    You can vote here: www.abc.net.au/tv/changeyourmind/survey/

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.