By Robert Lyman

In this PowerPoint presentation, I have tried to answer a question about climate policy that is too rarely asked in Canada. How much does it cost? Only those with a profound ignorance of economics, or a contempt for it, would say that the answer to this question is unimportant. The central economic fact of life is that there are always more things that we want and need than we can afford; when we fail to understand what our choices cost, we indirectly deprive ourselves of things that may be far more important to our overall wellbeing.

Read the article at: https://blog.friendsofscience.org/2020/03/20/prosperity-foregone-a-summary/

The article includes the following video and links to the downloadable presentation:

Two great sequestration periods occurred since the mid-Paleozoic and both appear to coincide with evolution of plants. The first woody plants and trees arose in the Middle Devonian and fueled the large coal swamps of the Carboniferous Period. Later explosion of the flowering plants (angiosperms) occurred in the Cretaceous. All the while additional C was being locked up in limestones. Also in high TOC (Total Organic Carbon) muds that were converted to the shale/mudrocks that we are now liberating with fracking.

Gregory R. Wrightstone
Executive Director
CO2 Coalition
https://co2coalition.org/

Personally I look at the stupid notion of Blackout Night, in honour of the planet.

We left our caves, our sod houses of the past to enjoy modern homes. I enjoy the thought that if I’m sick and require an operation the hospital has electricity 24 hours per day, seven days per week so that the surgeon and his team can fix me or my loved ones. I enjoy the thought that at 7pm at night I can turn on a television and watch it, in the comfort of my single family dwelling home. I enjoy the thought that if I want a beverage I can go to my frost free fridge and grab a beer. I enjoy the thought that my employer has electricity and indoor plumbing so that I can defecate in the safety of my closed off cubicle.

These modern fools of Mother Earth and modern Environmentalism want to return to the yesteryears of cave dwelling pre-human existence. All I’ve ever read about pre-modern living, and that’s not all too long ago, just 100 years ago. Most men died before the age of 50 years. Children died by the thousands because of infections, and poor health quality. You were considered old when you were over 40!

Turning out the Lights glorifies stupidity, and glamorizes the progressive liberal mentality about the so called “global village”. You know what, its one village I don’t want to belong too. I’ll take living in a single dwelling home, with electricity, and my beer fridge powered by coal fired plants with modern precipitators and scrubbers installed in the gas path cleaning up the grime.

Today’s environmentalist aren’t cleaning up the stacks – they’re socialists who can’t get elected at the ballot box but are hell bent to destroy our western society so that we fit into their social activist world of stupidity and failure.

Less1leg
Niagara, Canada

Published originally at:
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/site/comments/blackout-night/

“As things now stand, the advocates representing the establishment climate science story broadcast (usually with color diagrams) the predictions of climate models as if they were the results of experiments – actual evidence. Alongside these multi-colored multi-century model-simulated time series come stories, anecdotes, and photos – such as the iconic stranded polar bear – dramatically illustrating climate change today. On this rhetorical strategy, the models are to be taken on faith, and the stories and photos as evidence of the models’ truth. Policy carrying potential costs in the trillions of dollars ought not to be based on stories and photos confirming faith in models, but rather on precise and replicable testing of the models’ predictions against solid observational data.”

Jason Scott Johnson of the University of Pennsylvania Law School for the Institute for Law and Economics, a Joint Research Center of the Law School with the Wharton School of Economics. Report: http://www.probeinternational.org/UPennCross.pdf [PDF, 399KB]

“We can do without coal, and we can do without coal seam gas…”

Bob Brown, Leader of the Greens, Australia, on ABC 29 June 2010, audio
link on http://www.abc.net.au/rural/news/content/201006/s2939707.htm

“We think that, by 2020, the cost of electricity will be threefold what it is today, given the current policy of large amounts of renewables being forced into the system, un-costed charges for those renewables given the current policy settings and a substantial increase in transmission and distribution costs.”

Grant King, CEO Origin Energy

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/energy-prices-to-triple-says-origin-chief/story-e6frg8zx-1225853385647

The Carbon Sense Coalition today called for an end to deceptive advertising regarding Global Warming Policies.

The Chairman of “Carbon Sense”, Mr Viv Forbes, said that those calling for a “Price on Carbon” should speak the truth and call it a “Tax on the Production of Carbon Dioxide”.

“Similarly the CPRS (Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme) had nothing to do with pollution but everything to do with imposing taxes and rationing on economic activity.”

Forbes explained:

“The new green mantra chants: “We need a price on carbon”.

“Carbon is the most useful substance on earth and there is already a price on every product containing carbon – coal and oil, bread and butter, beef and bacon, oil and ethanol, beer and whisky, coffee and tea, cotton and wool, diesel and fire wood, methane and carbon dioxide, petrol and rubber – all are carbon products with an established market price.

“Those who chatter about “a price on carbon” are hiding their real aim which is to reduce human activity by taxing the release of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. The Office of Fair Trading should be investigating this deceptive election advertising.

“If this tax attempted to cover all releases of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere it would indeed be “A Monster New Tax”.

“Every man and beast, every car and train, every ship and plane, every cement plant and blast furnace, every power station using coal, oil or gas, every wood stove and gas barbeque, every swamp and termite nest – all emit carbon dioxide and thus recycle carbon. Carbon feeds, powers and clothes our world. Any attempt to stop that is suicidal.

“Every producer of carbon products is already taxed – income tax and payroll tax, royalties and resource rent tax, excise and levies, permits and quotas.

“Another carbon tax would just add to the costs of everything, increase poverty, bloat the bureaucracy and send more jobs to China. The only people promoting more taxes on carbon are the anti-growth crowd and the vested interests in the alternate energy promoters.

“We didn’t want the deceitfully labelled Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, and we don’t want a new tax labelled “A Price on Carbon”.

Viv Forbes
Chairman, The Carbon Sense Coalition

For a brief report by Ray Evans on the unholy alliance of “Baptists and Bootleggers” supporting more taxes on carbon see: http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2010/07/the-price-of-carbon

PDF version of this article: http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/carbon-price-means-tax.pdf [PDF, 62 KB]

“The individual sea level records obtained from the SEAFRAME study on 12 Pacific Islands have all been assessed by the anonymous authors of the official reports as indicating positive trends in sea level over all 12 Pacific Islands involved since the study began in 1993. This assessment studies individual records and finds that all of them show no change of sea level in almost all of the records following the 1998 cyclones. It is considered that cyclones and tsunamis not only induce false readings which should be ignored when calculating a trend, but they also disrupt the leveling of the equipment so that previous years’ figures should also not form part of a trend.”

See the full article South Pacific Sea Level: A Reassessment by Vincent R Gray:
http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/sea-levels-gray.pdf [PDF, 1.1 MB]

In addition, Cliff Ollier reports:

“Graphs of sea level for twelve locations in the southwest Pacific show stable sea level for about ten years over the region. The data are compared with results from elsewhere, all of which suggest that any rise of global sea level is negligible. The Darwin theory of coral formation, and subsidence ideas for guyots would suggest that we should see more land subsidence, and apparent sea level rise, than is actually occurring. Sea level studies have not been carried out for very long, but they can indicate major tectonic components such as isostatic rebound in Scandinavia. Attempts to manipulate the data by modelling to show alarming rates of sea level rise (associated with alleged global warming) are not supported by primary regional or global data. Even those places frequently said to be in grave danger of drowning, such as the Maldives, Tuvalu and Holland, appear to be safe.”

See the full article Sea Level in the Southwest Pacific is Stable by Cliff Ollier:
http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/sea-levels-ollier.pdf [PDF, 881 KB]

Here is a the very latest sea Level data from “The South Pacific Sea Level and Climate Monitoring Project” produced by the Australian Government Bureau of Meteorology with technical support from the National Tidal centre and funded by the Australian Agency for International Development. There is no evidence of any dramatic increases in sea levels.

(From http://www.bom.gov.au/oceanography/projects/spslcmp/reports.shtml Nov, 2009)

Mark Lawson

The Federal Government may have dumped (technically deferred) one nutty green scheme (emissions trading) but an equally nutty scheme remains in place – requiring electricity distributors to buy green electricity.

This scheme is nutty because no one has shown that green electricity supplied to an operating power network actually reduces emissions. The government, various green lobby groups and the mass of voters have simply assumed that it does. There are doubts about efficiency losses due to the whole network having to be retailored to accommodate renewables. And more doubts over just how much additional backup generator capacity will be required for intermittent power sources. These doubts are either ignored or dismissed as “myths”.

…

The Australian government has dived head-first into renewables with both eyes shut, and with the general approval of the voters, who mostly have no idea of what they have approved or how much it will cost. The government should drop the whole renewable energy scheme as too complicated and expensive and unlikely to save much carbon.

The full article: blowing-away-money.pdf [PDF: KB]

Mark Lawson is a senior journalist with The Australian Financial Review. He has written: “A Guide to Climate Change Lunacy – bad forecasting, terrible solutions”.
Connor Court – $29.95. http://www.connorcourt.com/ or book stores.

By John Bignell

Source: http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/religion.htm

It was Michael Crichton who first prominently identified environmentalism as a religion. That was in a speech in 2003, but the world has moved on apace since then and adherents of the creed now have a firm grip on the world at large.

Global Warming has become the core belief in a new eco-theology. The term is used as shorthand for anthropogenic (or man made) global warming. It is closely related to other modern belief systems, such as political correctness, chemophobia and various other forms of scaremongering, but it represents the vanguard in the assault on scientific man.

The activists now prefer to call it “climate change”. This gives them two advantages:

1. It allows them to seize as “evidence” the inevitable occurrences of unusually cold weather as well as warm ones.
2. The climate is always changing, so they must be right.

Full report as PDF: http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/global-warming-religion.pdf [59 KB]