Climate Under No Threat, Sceptics

IMPORTANT UPDATE at end

Well at least that's how the cognoscenti funded by the Heart Land Institute in the US would have as believe. Notable among them is Australias own Bob Carter. The Fairfax press reports...

Scientist accepts 'cash for climate'
Ben Cubby
February 16, 2012

A PROMINENT Australian scientist has rejected as offensive any suggestion he is doing the bidding of a US climate sceptic think tank that is paying him a monthly fee.

Confidential documents leaked from inside The Heartland Institute, a wealthy think tank based in Chicago and Washington, detail strategy and funding for an array of activities designed to spread doubt about climate change science, paid for by companies that have a financial interest in continuing to release greenhouse gases without government interference.

Among the recipients of funding is Professor Bob Carter of James Cook University, a geologist and marine researcher...

The documents show Professor Carter receives a ''monthly payment'' of $US1667 ($A1550), as part of a program to pay ''high-profile individuals who regularly and publicly counter the alarmist message''.

Professor Carter did not deny being paid by The Heartland Institute, but would not confirm the amount, or why it was paying him.

''Institutions or organisations simply pay for services rendered. In the same way that an architect is paid for their work, so are scientists. What they may make any payment to me for, I'm not discussing with anybody outside of my family.''

More than $US20 million had been spent funding and co-ordinating activities of climate sceptics and bloggers since 2007, the documents suggest.

Other cash recipients include Anthony Watts, a US climate sceptic blogger, who is to receive $US90,000 this year. Programs for funding include school curriculum modules that teach science from a climate sceptic perspective.

The documents discuss strategy to ''keep opposing voices out'' of the media and co-ordinate efforts with other ''groups capable of rapidly mobilising responses to new scientific findings, news stories, or unfavourable blog posts''.

Also at the Sydney Morning Herald and Crikey.

The documents were originally published on DeSmogBlog which has followed up with a post detailing a report by John Mashey titled Fake science, fake experts, funny finances, free of tax. Specifically,

...this new report is painstakingly detailed and carefully referenced throughout. It both corroborates and is corroborated by the leaked Heartland documents, which reinforce Mashey's conclusion that Heartland is a for-profit public relations and lobbying firm that is operating with non-profit status by misrepresenting the nature of its activities in its own tax filings.

In totally unrelated news The Canberra Times reports that SA Senator Corey Bernadi wants the CSIRO to redact some of the information it is handing out to kiddies in its climate change kit.

Climate change kit for kids 'apocalyptic'
Rosslyn Beeby, 15 Feb, 2012

The CSIRO will review its new climate change education program for schools following claims made in Senate estimates today that the material is biased and frightens children by offering ‘‘an apocalyptic scenario.’’

South Australian Liberal Senator Cory Bernardi said the CSIRO’s Carbon Kids education kit was ‘‘designed to scare kids’’ about future impacts of climate change.

It painted a frightening picture for children of a world where rising temperatures had created jobs losses and food scarcity, he said. The kit had ‘‘cherry-picked facts’’, offered no discussions of alternative views, and ignored positive steps such as future development of green jobs.

The Good Senator attended the Heart Land Institute sponsored “4th International Conference on Climate Change”. This from Crikey is an interesting read.
News.com also has this story. I liked the question in the poll accompanying the story.

Hot under the collar
Should schools teach the controversy?

What controversy?

Ian Plimer has had his totally unquestionable ethical scientific stance rewarded.

Rinehart appoints daughter, climate sceptic to key board
The Australian
February 16, 2012 12:00AM

AUSTRALIA'S richest person, Gina Rinehart, has continued to reshape the management of her business empire, appointing climate-change sceptic Ian Plimer and favoured daughter Ginia as directors of a company linked to a mine that generates annual revenues of $2 billion.

And even if the climate under no threat sceptics are wrong then there is always clean coal and CCS.

Clean coal 'unviable for two decades'
Michael Atkin, ABC News Online February 15

There will be no business case for developing clean-coal power plants in Australia or overseas in the next 20 years, according to a key Federal Government adviser.

National Low Emissions Coal Council chairman Dick Wells says even the introduction of a carbon price in July will not entice the coal industry to invest the billions required for clean-coal plants because it makes no financial sense and punishes shareholders.

He says carbon capture and storage (CCS) will not play a major role in combating dangerous climate change unless the Gillard Government dramatically increases industry assistance.

"If you want to wait for the carbon price to rise to levels where these will be commercially viable we're probably into the 2030s," Mr Wells said.

The Gillard Government has a $1.68 billion CCS Flagships program to get major projects off the ground and the coal industry's Coal 21 fund has committed $289 million to projects so far.

But the potential of CCS remains largely unfulfilled.

"We're a long way off it (the 2050 targets)," Mr Wells said.

The National Low Emissions Coal Council estimates $10 billion to $17 billion is required to have one industrial-scale, clean-coal power station and a portfolio of smaller projects operating commercially by 2020.

The CCS Flagships program originally had deeper pockets, with $2 billion pledged. However, its funding was reduced to $1.68 billion last year.

Just $57.26 million has been spent so far but Mr Wells defends the need to move slowly.

"I don't think there is any embarrassment about not spending the money too fast," he said.

No. Probably just as well, because the super tax that so enraged the mining industry last year may not return much to the real owners of the resource anyway.

Mining's small change
Peter Carey and Neil Fargher
February 16

Flaws in the mineral tax mean Australia may profit little from its resource wealth.

COULD Australia end up with little to show for its mining boom - as an echo of what happened to Nauru once its considerable phosphate wealth was exhausted?

Close examination of the proposed minerals resource rent tax reveals serious flaws that could leave the federal government well short of the forecast revenue. It is conceivable that some large and highly profitable mining companies could reorganise their affairs to pay little or none of the tax.

The first and most obvious shortcoming of the MRRT, in terms of its revenue potential, is that it applies only to coal and iron ore. All other minerals are exempt.

The main problem is that the tax is based not on an objective measure such as tonnes of material mined, but on ''super profit'' (mining profit less allowances). Profit at the best of times is a highly flexible concept that can allow accountants to apply creative techniques to minimise a company's tax obligations. With the MRRT, the incentives and opportunities for creative avoidance appear even greater than those applying to company tax.

The minerals tax is not based on audited company profits from statutory accounts, but on a narrow portion of profits from particular mining activities. It requires the taxpayers (that is, the mining companies) to determine the amount of proceeds and costs that relate to these activities.

This reliance on the miners themselves to determine the appropriate proceeds and costs creates a significant incentive to estimate profit from taxable activities in the most tax-efficient manner.

UPDATE to main story.

Scientist Peter Gleick has publicly stated that he obtained the documents from The Heartland Institute by impersonating a board member (presumably over the phone). He regrets taking this unethical step but states he was driven by frustration over the constant barrage of disinformation from such outfits as The Heartland Institute. Since the documents released were instantly denied (it's a reflex action) it probably became necessary to take this action if only to prove that the documents did in fact originate from The Heartland Institutes own email server. While this damages Peter Gleicks credibility, his simple deception is a different class of unethical breach from the hacking theft perpetrated at CRU. Climate denialists baying over ethical breaches need chew on that before publicly exposing themselves as hypocrites. Not that it will stop them as a brief survey of blogs and newspapers (also just blogs) will reveal.

The Origin of the Heartland Documents
Peter H. Gleick 20/2/12

...in a serious lapse of my own and professional judgment and ethics, I solicited and received additional materials directly from the Heartland Institute under someone else's name.

I can explicitly confirm, as can the Heartland Institute, that the documents they emailed to me are identical to the documents that have been made public.

Whistleblower Authenticates Heartland Documents
DeSmogBlog

Climate scientist Peter Gleick has acknowledged that he was the person who convinced the Heartland Institute to hand over the contents of its January Board package, authenticating the documents beyond a doubt and further exposing the disinformation campaign Heartland has pursued in the last week, trying to discredit the information.

Without condoning or promoting an act of dishonesty, it's fair to say that Gleick took a significant personal risk - and by standing and taking responsibility for his actions, he has shown himself willing to pay the price.


Climate scientist Peter Gleick admits he leaked Heartland Institute documents
The Guardian, 21/2/12 (<- yesterdays word was palindrome)

Peter Gleick, a water and climate analyst, says he was blinded by his frustrations with ongoing attacks on climate science.

A leading defender of climate change admitted tricking the libertarian Heartland Institute into turning over confidential documents detailing its plans to discredit the teaching of science to school children in last week's sensational expose.

The admission – nearly a week after Heartland's financial plans and donors' list was put online – looked set to further inflame the climate wars, in which a network of fossil fuel interests, rightwing think tanks and politicians have been working to block action on climate change.

Climate change in the NZ election - Elephants swallowed by a snake and flogging a dead horse

A snake swallows the elephant in the room and then flogs a dead horse - The politics of climate change in the 2011 New Zealand Election campaign

Robin Johnson's Economics Web Page posts some thoughts on the politics of climate change in the campaign for the New Zealand general election.
So whats happening with climate change in the campaign for the New Zealand general election on 26 November 2011?

I was originally thinking about writing a wonkish post comparing climate change policies between NZ's political parties. e.g. see Interest.co.nz. You know the sort of thing

Which parties have policies that reflect the seriousness of the impacts the science predicts? Who has got the science wrong? Which politicians are all talk and no action? What are the minute details of the each party's NZ ETS policies. Such as delays to sector entry dates, partial price obligations and varying free unit allocation regimes... MEGO, anyone? (My Eyes Glaze Over....)

Then I thought, No! I am looking through the wrong end of the telescope.

You know what really strikes me about climate change in the election?

It's the absence.

It is as if climate change is nearly completely absent from the campaign. When climate change does pop up, it's portrayed in simplistic soundbites.

NZ Climate Change Minister Nick Smith says anthropogenic climate change is real and complex and 'wicked'. But promises more moderating, balancing and delaying of the NZ ETS. The NZ Labour party says anthropogenic climate change is real and we will fiddle with some NZ ETS details for agriculture slightly earlier than National as farmers don't vote for us anyway. The NZ Greens say anthropogenic climate change is real and we have a detailed wonk-friendly exposition on our website, but for this election we are running with "jobs, kids, rivers". oh no..... MEGO....

What's happened is that climate change, the 'elephant in the room', has been swallowed up whole by the 'snake in the room' -- politics. Along with all other serious political issues.

This snake is the real theme of the election. Commentator Russell Brown calls it the politics of absence. Brown says "cultivated political absence...shapes the almost unprecedented popularity of John Key". Prime Minister John Key's political success is because of this successful strategy of "de-politicising" himself. Key's politics-free radio chat show was the perfect example.

The NZ media have largely just played along with the politics of absence. The election is discussed as a poll-driven horse race. Or a rugby game "of two halves" with "kicking for touch". Who looked confident? Who had the best sound bites? Who mispronounced his/her New Zild the least or most. Restructure or "reeshrukcha"?

The NZ media have trivialised and objectified political debate. I give this example. The most discussed electoral contest in 2011 appears to be Auckland Central which the Herald calls "the battle of the babes" as the candidates, Jacinda Ardern and Nikki Kaye, are both relatively young women, whose shared Herald columns are called "Broadsides". Do I need to say more?

After the snake has swallowed the elephant in the room, the snake becomes the dead horse that needs some more flogging.

Climate change has been politically institutionalised. Its now "flogging a dead horse". Everyone has a policy (a horse). Everyone talks their policy. No one does anything.

These policies all have a narrative that explains the problem (the horse is under-performing) and a 'narrative' solution (keep flogging the horse).

It is here that the metaphor of "flogging the dead horse" fits so well. Firstly, the probability of the two main political parties really acting to reduce our emissions of greenhouse gases is the same as the probability of the flogged horse springing back to life.

The second reason is that the best dead horses can be repeatedly flogged.

Take NZ's main planning law, the Resource Management Act (RMA). It's the ultimate flogged dead horse of NZ politics. In its 20 years of life, it has been in an almost eternal state of being vilified from all sides: for environmental failures and for economic inefficiency.

Both National and Labour have both been subjecting it to interminable reviews and amendments. The basics remain the same. Plans are written with lofty goals. Plans don't reflect consent practice. But then consent decisions rarely reflect plan goals. Consents are needed for some activities not others. Some consents need more evidence and take longer than others.

The NZ ETS is the new dead horse in the flogging stable. Its perfect. Like RMA issues, the NZ ETS is fiendishly complex. To most people, the NZ ETS is a MEGO topic. My Eyes Glaze Over. A recital of any of the detail of the NZ ETS is usually enough to induce that response. Thus deflecting most criticisms.

Being complex, if not incomprehensible by design, the NZ ETS can be fitted, usually negatively, into any political viewpoint. Farmers can still oppose it with vitriol despite their generous treatment. It is just as good a political punching bag as the RMA.

The National Party's 2009 amendments institutionalise that most Kiwi of practices -- a five yearly review by committee. To me this is the statutory recognition of the near-permanent state of "fixing" the RMA is subject to. Labour have said they will continue the 5-yearly reviews if they become Government. Thus they have bought into Nick Smith's approach of eternal moderating of the NZ ETS. Labour get a payoff of needing less specific policies.

So debates on the NZ ETS, like this one, between Nick Smith's soundbites and Greens Co-leader Russel Norman's observations on perverse price incentives, on TV One's Q and A programme, don't really matter politically. The debate itself is just more MEGO. The snake swallows the elephant.

Interestingly, TV One had former Greens col-leader Jeanette Fitzsimons as their 'pundit' for the Smith/Norman debate. She cut right through the snake punditry by analysing the NZ ETS on the meta level. Fitzsimons said the NZ ETS was now so weak and distorted that it no longer mattered what tinkering Smith did to it. "It's like driving a car fast towards a cliff and arguing whether to go in fourth gear or fifth".

Which is of course another way of saying the horse is dead and no amount of flogging will make it trot again.

Oz Carbon Tax Passes Senate

The Australian "Carbon Tax" has been passed in the Senate and will become law. It remains to be seen if Tony Abbott, should he get elected, follows through with his hubristic and dogmatic threats of repealing the law.

The Greens are understandably pleased.

Mining interests and The Australian have predicted this will trigger the imminent demise of the entire Australian economy, even though the more likely threat is due to financial problems in Europe. Piers Akerman (hat tip Deltoid) dredges up the old Dark Ages analogy to describe the horror that is about to befall us all at the hands of  the "Green Cultists" who, for some unexplained reason want to rain doom on us all.

I guess we all have our own favourite falling sky to fret over... 

Finally, carbon tax becomes law

The Age, Nov 8.

The Labor government has finally got its carbon price plan through the Senate — on a vote of 36 to 32.

The carbon price begins with a tax, starting next July and will move later to a trading scheme. The issue has dogged Labor, contributing to Kevin Rudd’s fall from the leadership, after he backed off on his emission trading scheme, delaying it when he could not get it through the Senate.


‘‘The Gillard government has today secured a clean energy future for all Australians,’’ Ms Gillard said.


The carbon victory comes as Labor was heartened by an improvement in today’s Newspoll, with the ALP primary vote rising from 29 per cent to 32 per cent.

Supporters of the carbon scheme celebrated out of the Parliament, undeterred by torrential rain. 

Carbon facts: how the package will roll out

The Age, Nov 8.

How the clean-energy package will roll out:

Carbon emissions tax for the 500 biggest polluters starts on July 1, 2012.

Tax moves to an emissions trading scheme in 2015.

Tax begins at a fixed price of $23 a tonne and rise by 2.5 per cent a year until 2015.

Tax will not apply to agricultural emissions or light on-road vehicles.

Electricity generation, stationary energy, some business transport, waste, industrial processes and fugitive emissions will be covered by the initial tax.

Average households will see a $9.90 weekly cost rise.

Average households will receive assistance of $10.10 weekly.

Free carbon permits will be the given to the most emissions-intensive and trade-exposed industries.

The government wants to cut pollution by 80 per cent by 2050.

There are many tired phrases used by grumpy old men, and Piers hackneyed use of "The Dark Ages" should prompt the question, exactly how dark where they? Well, not much really. 

Top 10 Reasons The Dark Ages Were Not Dark 

Wikipedia suggests that this period of Western Culture was just a bit obscure to the scholars of the Renaissance - many of whom glorified Rome. So if you love empires, wars and conquests then I guess the relative peace in Western Europe during this time (at least until the Crusades) means yes it was "dark". The Byzantine and Islamic cultures on the other hand had a mostly rip roaring "dark ages" of a time.

UPDATE

 Markets Live: Stocks lose $37b on Italy fears

Those clever evil Greens... at must be their doing.

The unbearable crisis of being comfortably well off

Micheal Pascoe (below) covers a report from The Economist about Australia - specifically how despite the past ~20 years of good economic performance - the Australian political class has become a degenerate pack of populist petty crisis merchants. While there are problems (potentially crises) that do need addressing, supreme populists like Tony Abbott prefer to focus on their own self imagined crises for which they are ready to regurgitate there own predigested ideologically laced solution. Bending over for the big end of town is also a popular hobby.

This reminds me of the Adam Cutis film The Power of Nightmares¹. One of the central themes in the film is that the goal of the modern politicrat is not to provide true leadership; articulating and enabling the hopes and dreams of citizens - rather it is to protect us from the dark (imagined?) forces out to destroy "us".

In the Australian context Tony Abbotts dark imagined dangers include such terrible foes as The Greens.

Lucky country out of luck with its leaders
Sydney Morning Herald, May 30th.

The cover story for this week's Economist magazine is a special report on Australia, The Next Golden State. It's a folly of cultural cringe to take too much notice of what some foreigner might think of us, but it also can be instructive to view ourselves through the considered opinion of an outsider's fresh eyes. And it's not hard to take when it's basically a rave review by a prestigious publication.

According to The Economist, about the only major negative, the only threat to realising our even greater potential, is our politics. This from the magazine's editorial:

“Many Australians do not seem to appreciate that they live in an unusually successful country. Accustomed to unbroken economic expansion - many are too young to remember recession - they are inclined to complain about house prices, 5 per cent unemployment or the problems that a high exchange rate causes manufacturing and several other industries. Some Australians talk big but actually think small, and politicians may be the worst offenders.

“Its current political leaders, with notable exceptions, are perhaps the least impressive feature of today's Australia. Just when their country has the chance to become influential in the world, they appear introverted and unable to see the big picture. ..."

The section of the report specifically on politics finds plenty to criticise on both sides, plus some of the usual bipartisan problems about the brevity of our electoral cycle, the rise of poll-driven political henchmen and our inconstancy.

Unlike the days of Menzies and Howard, Abbott's party “seems to have no philosophical principles at all” ...

“In any event, the level of political discourse is not high. That is partly the fault of the media, but also the fault of the politicians, some of whom at least are happy to join battle, mouthing jibes and slogans (Let's move Australia forward, Stand up for Australia, The real Julia, Stop the boats, End the waste), seldom bothering to explain a policy or answer a question without short-term political gain being uppermost in their minds.”

Carbon pollution

The scare campaign over pricing carbon is hurting more. The point nobody seems to get – and that Abbott discourages anyone getting and Gillard is apparently incapable of selling – is that pricing carbon in Australia really isn't about saving the planet, but is all about saving Australian industry.

If we have not already begun the process when the emerging nations and the US join Europe in taking it seriously, we'll be in very serious danger of being hung out to dry.

Keep shouting that the Government is taking Australia down the drain, that our macro economic policy is a total failure, and some people will be silly enough to believe it. The mindless simplification of budget policy into “surplus good, deficit bad” has been effectively debunked by Ross Gittins but don't expect most of the media to understand it.

The Adam Curtis blog above provides a link to an interesting interview with Errol Morris - discussing such things as the fallacy of the balanced viewpoint;

People criticized my film by saying things like, “Why aren’t you balanced? What aren’t you putting in the other views?” And my response was, “What if the other view is wrong?” That’s the real problem of the balanced view - what's called ‘perceived wisdom.’

and notional moles;

EM: Ron Rosenbaum, a friend of mine, has written a number of articles on James Jesus Angleton and the CIA. [Angleton was the head of counter-intelligence during the height of the Cold War.]

EM: He talked about “notional moles” in the article. And the notional mole – according to Rosenbaum – is that you make the other side believe that you’ve planted a mole in their midst without ever having actually planted a mole. ... You drive them insane.

AC: Because they're looking for something that doesn’t actually exist.

1. Interestingly, the film either has not been shown or had great difficulty in being shown in the US.

What a difference the rain makes...

... a few months of showers, full dams and suddenly, desalination sours.

With apologies to Renee Olstead.

The long Victorian drought encouraged many ideas over the years in the letters pages of The Age, suggesting that if only we built more dams, or a pipeline from the Snowy then all would be well in the Garden State and people could continue to water their roses. Even senior staff members got in on the act suggesting that water from Tasmanian rivers be moved (by gravity) from Tasmania under Bass Straight to Melbourne. Ken Davidson is not alone in apparently thinking that any fresh water that (God forbid) reaches the ocean is a waste - never mind the environment of fisheries in the estuaries. Or the fact that Tasmania was suffering its own water shortage at the same time - so much so that Basslink for a period was not the green electricity supplier to the mainland, but a carbon hungry umbilical for Tasmania. Ken was right about one thing. The desalination deal was probably going to turn out bad for the state of Victoria.

Victorians 'stuck with desal plant'

Farrah Tomazin and Royce Millar

VICTORIANS are "stuck" with Australia's largest desalination plant despite an eventual price tag of $24 billion that is expected to double household water bills over the next five years.

Premier Ted Baillieu yesterday slammed the centrepiece of the former Brumby government's water policy, but baulked at breaking contracts because of cost and the fear of discouraging future investment in Victoria.

''What we now have is a white elephant and a very expensive white elephant and Victorians will be paying for it over the next 30 years,'' Mr Baillieu said. The government released figures indicating Victorians would pay $19.3 billion for the construction of the Wonthaggi plant and its operation over the next 28 years - even if no water is used - and almost $24 billion if the maximum 150 billion litres a year are purchased.

Figures released yesterday ... show that:

■ Victorians will pay about $654 million a year from 2012-13, even if no water is taken from the plant. If the maximum 150 billion litres is taken, the annual cost will be $763 million.

■ In 2012-13 desal water will cost between $5.09 a kilolitre (1000 litres) and $13.68 a kilolitre, depending on the volume purchased. This compares with the current residential rate of about $1.50 a kilolitre.

■ The Aquasure deal commits the government to buy 150 billion litres of water a year as long as Melbourne's dams are less than 65 per cent full.

AquaSure chief executive Chris Herbert said: "We welcome the resolution of this matter and look forward to working with the government in completing and operating the plant in the interests of all Victorians."

I'm sure he did.