Saturday 30 January 2010

Queensland: Beauitiful one day, Cyclone threats the next

A view from the Cairns Esplanade this morning. Book your holiday tickets early.

Photo: Andrew Coldrocks Neaves


Professor Thomas Sommerville said...

I would be interested to hear from not all but at least some of the Cains Blogers who are advocate of the myth of Global Warming, sorry its now being rebranding and titled Climate Change about the near perfect Weather pattern we are experiencing this Monsoon season in Northern Australia.

In December, we experienced a relatively weak cyclonic system that crossed the Western Australia coastline and brought with it drought breaking rains to Western Australia, Northern Territory, Central and South East Queensland and NSW.

As I compose this, we are experiencing a most idyllic Monsoon season iminagiable. It started with a low in the Gulf of Carpentaria crossed the central pennisular bearing steady drenching rains in its path.

It interacted with a low near Willis Island and then continued on its path generating rains as far south as Rockhampton.

Meanwhile, the low off Willis Island developed into weak Cyclone Olga and after 2 weeks its still reaping benefits.

This Climate change fiasco is all but a joke, pedallled by an unholy alliance between Capitalism and the Green movenment as a means of introducing a new tax system that garners money away from the middle/lower socio economic strata and redistributing it to the Corporate sector.

Rudd/ Turnbull were their Australian advocates. The Liberals got rid of Turnbull. The Australian electorate will get rid of Rudd. It is only a matter of time!

By all means let us reduce/elimate CO2 buts let us do it by mandating against it not this crazy system of a Carbon Trading Scheme which is the buying and selling of Carbon.

Joe Battler said...

Jeez, you're writing is as illiterate as your thinking is muddled. Actually, you're not thinking at all. The space between your ears is obviously entirely vacant.

Micky Dip said...

I googled Professor Thomas Sommerville but couldn't find him. See, proof he doesn't exist.

earlville earl said...

he's really lord monckton/ray duncan!

Poet Laureate Bill Shakespeare said...

But prof, what about the Mann's hockey stick shit and leaked email crap that you and other Boltoid fanboys crap on incessantly about? And can you do the Marty Feldman funny eyes trick to look like Mad Monckton?

Roger Furlong said...

Well said Professor.

All you Global Warming zealots, you prophets of doom and gloom, you are loosing your pedestal with every passing day. Rudd has shot himself in the foot!

The common folkes out there, are awaking to you frenzie and you do not like it. Fancy laying in the same bed as the Capitalists. You would sell your soul to the devil with the red rose in the selfish quest to feed your ego.

Why don't you collectively admit defeat, that you have lost your mantle, that over 75% of the population have seem through your sham and begin to address the consequences of an imminent mini Iceage.

Oliver Redlynch said...

You really don't get it do you. Climate change/global warming/sea rise is happening - there is far too much independant evidence out there to now deny it, ask the pacific islanders whose homes are being washed away, ask the farmers whose land is turning to dust. The sea level is rising - fact. I don't give a monkey's now whether its man made or natural, it frankly doesn't matter. To mitigate the effects of climate change (build sea walls, relocate people, feed the starving etc. etc.) is going to cost BILLIONS. Just where is that money going to come from? Or is it the "I'm alright jack, it doesn't matter coz they're only black anyway" or are we better than that? Maybe its better if we do all drown.

Fred Barnes said...

Typical defence from a rudderless lot; attack the author with ridicule and satire while the real issues remain unanswered. If you lot want to retain an essence of creditability then address the points raised by the Professor and not red herrings.

Denis Walls said...

Dear Thomas,

I feel as though I am Bill Murray in Groundhog Day but I was asked by a blogger to make a comment on this subject yet again so here goes.

Firstly, weather is not climate and you spend most of your post discussing the latest weather. The last decade has been the warmest recorded in 160 years. The data confirming this, incidentally, comes from the British Met Office ( which forms part of the scientific information used in the assessment reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Separately, the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) has revealed (December information) that 2009 looks set to become another top-ten warm year according to latest figures, with a provisional warming of 0.44 °C above the long-term average of 14.0 °C.

Secondly, after saying that global warming is a myth you state in your last sentence:

"By all means let us reduce/elimate CO2 buts let us do it by mandating against it not this crazy system of a Carbon Trading Scheme which is the buying and selling of Carbon."

So, you seem to admit that CO2 emissions are a problem that requires action. How would one mandate against carbon except via a system which punishes polluters financially?

I agree with you about the inefficacy of an ETS with ridiculously low targets. The entire environmental movement does too. Even the ACF have pulled out of support for an ETS with paltry 5% targets.

Here’s how NASA chief scientist James Hanson sees dealing with the carbon problem. He prefers the term ‘fee and dividend’ to indicate that there are rewards as well as penalties in this scheme which is gaining increasing traction across a range of global opinion.

“We need a rising price on carbon applied at the source (the mine, wellhead, or port of entry). The fee will affect all activities that use fossil fuels, directly or indirectly. The entire fee collected from fossil fuel companies should be distributed to the public. In this fee-and-dividend approach people maintaining a carbon footprint smaller than average will receive more in the dividend than they pay via increased energy costs. The monthly dividend will stimulate the economy and provide people with the means to increase their carbon efficiency.

“Cap-and-trade is the antithesis of this simple system. Cap-and-trade is a hidden tax, increasing energy costs, but with no public dividend. Cap-and-trade is advantageous only to energy companies with strong lobbyists and government officials who dole out proceeds from pollution certificates to favoured industries. Fee-and-dividend, in contrast, is a non-tax – on average it is revenue-neutral. The public will probably accept a rise in the carbon fee rate, because their monthly dividend will increase correspondingly. As fee-and-dividend causes fossil fuel energy prices to rise, a series of points will be reached at which various carbon-free energies and carbon-saving technologies are cheaper than fossil fuels plus the fee. As time goes on, fossil fuel use will collapse, coal will be left in the ground, and we will have arrived at a clean energy future. A rising carbon fee is essential for a climate solution.”

Thus Hanson is very suspicious of a cap and trade system on which the ETS is based. But, he looks for coherent solutions knowing that the problem needs fixing. Fee and dividend is a pathway I would like to see followed too but one has to believe there is a problem to want to advocate for such a system or any other. Judging by the last sentence of your post, Thomas, despite your earlier remarks, you seem to believe that the problem of CO2 pollution does need addressing.

Cheers, Denis

Joe Battler said...

Well done Denis for coming up with such a well crafted and intelligent response to the head in the sand climate change ostriches. You've obviously got more patience than me in dealing so politely with people who are stuck in denial despite the overwhelming evidence of global warming.

Ned the Red said...

Roger, I try to 'loose' my pedestal as often as I can and sometimes it works me into a 'frenzie' too, just like other 'folkes'. What a pity you didn't take more time to listen to those 'socialist' teachers at school and learned to be a little more literate. Then you could put forward a decent, intelligent argument to explain your rather odd ideological beliefs and provide some concrete evidence, neither of which can be gleaned at all from your weird little rant.