Global Warming

[Rorschach]

Let me draw your attention to the end of the sentence....

US-based aluminium giant Alcoa has announced that it will close its Point Henry smelter in Geelong, Victoria, as well as two rolling mills – one in Geelong and one in Yennora, NSW – in a move that will cost Australia’s beleaguered manufacturing industry another 1,000 jobs and deliver a fresh blow to electricity utilities already struggling against falling demand.

You see the idea of making power more expensive is to cut demand, in many cases make it so expensive people can't afford to use it domestically or companies pass on the extra costs to stay viable or close. that is the tactic.

It's all stick and no carrot.

I'm guess mantra your air con theory just bit the dust. Demand is falling not increasing. Price is increasing though. Part of the survival strategy for electricity utilities to cope with falling demand is to ask for price increases.

Yet here we are CO2 still going up and temperature not affected.

Treasurer Joe Hockey says the closure of Alcoa's Geelong aluminium smelter is disappointing but predictable.

"It's disappointing but it was certainly predictable because in 2012 Alcoa did an analysis and said the plant was not financial viable," Mr Hockey told reporters in Sydney.

He said the $40 million given to Alcoa by the previous Labor government was money "down the tubes".

The carbon tax had added to the cost of production and the closure gave further weight to the argument that Labor should support the tax's repeal in parliament, Mr Hockey said.

"It's a massive cost on aluminium smelters, and a 50-year-old smelter with a carbon tax is never going to be cost-effective," he said.

[boxy]

If IQ was here he would be pleased with this action by Abbott.

Progressing to renewable energy is still a sensible target even if the taxation of green house emissions goes away.


Tony Abbott, Australia’s prime minister, has appointed a climate change sceptic to review the nation’s renewable energy target in his latest foray against measures to combat global warming.

Following his move to repeal Labor’s tax on carbon emissions, Mr Abbott has announced a review that is expected to scale back renewable energy production.

The review will be conducted by Dick Warburton, a businessman and self-confessed “sceptic”. Another sceptic, Maurice Newman, has been appointed as the government’s top business advisor; he has stated publicly that the renewable energy target should be scrapped.

Mr Abbott has insisted he will stick to Australia’s commitment to the United Nations to cut emissions by 5 per cent by 2020, though critics say his current policies will make it impossible.

Business groups have been urging the government to reduce or abolish Australia’s current renewable energy target, which aims to produce 20 per cent of power by 2020. Critics say the target is driving up power prices and that current planning may exceed the target because electricity demand has been dropping.

The government said the review would be “extensive” but would not say whether the target could be abolished.

"Renewable energy has a role to play and it is now time to see where this scheme is going," said Ian Macfarlane, the energy minister.

Mr Abbott, who once described climate change as "absolute crap" – a comment he later recanted - is abolishing the carbon tax and instead introducing a plan to pay polluters to reduce emissions. Many analysts believe the so-called “direct action” plan will fail to meet Australia’s emissions targets.

Touring drought-ridden farmland, Mr Abbott dismissed suggestions that climate change was causing the low rainfall.

“If you look at the records of Australian agriculture going back 150 years, there have always been good times and bad times,” he said. “This is not a new thing in Australia.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/enviro ... arget.html

Believe it or not, Abbott is a believer in anthropomorphic climate change...

... go figure

[Rorschach]

I have never seen a leftard accept commonsense yet. Are you sure its worth the posts ?

Then again someone may learn from reading I guess.

that is my hope...

[DaS Energy]

[quote="boxy"]
Believe it or not, Abbott is a believer in anthropomorphic climate change...... go figure

an·thro·po·mor·phic [an-thruh-puh-mawr-fik]

adjective.

1. ascribing human form or attributes to a being or thing not human, especially to a deity.

2. resembling or made to resemble a human form: an anthropomorphic carving.

[Rorschach]

I just figured he meant anthropogenic.

[DaS Energy]

I just figured he meant anthropogenic.

Abbott is coached to say the right words, If Abbott is truly anthropogenic let him come out and say it, all he has done to date is repeat he has a belief in thing not human.

[Rorschach]

I just figured he meant anthropogenic.

Abbott is coached to say the right words, If Abbott is truly anthropogenic let him come out and say it, all he has done to date is repeat he has a belief in thing not human.

Do you even know what you are talking about you fukwit?

[DaS Energy]

I note your lips are getting sore from banging up against Tony's ball bag so much.

[IQS.RLOW]

Greenpeace founder, Dr Tony Moore in an address to the US senate...

There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years. If there were such a proof it would be written down for all to see....

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states: “It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century."…

The IPCC defines “extremely likely” as a “95-100% probability”. But upon further examination it is clear that these numbers are not the result of any mathematical calculation or statistical analysis. They have been “invented” as a construct within the IPCC report to express “expert judgment”, as determined by the IPCC contributors.

These judgments are based, almost entirely, on the results of sophisticated computer models designed to predict the future of global climate. As noted by many observers, including Dr. Freeman Dyson of the Princeton Institute for Advanced Studies, a computer model is not a crystal ball…

The IPCC states that humans are the dominant cause of warming “since the mid-20th century”, which is 1950. From 1910 to 1940 there was an increase in global average temperature of 0.5°C over that 30-year period. Then there was a 30-year “pause” until 1970. This was followed by an increase of 0.57°C during the 30-year period from 1970 to 2000. Since then there has been no increase, perhaps a slight decrease, in average global temperature. This in itself tends to negate the validity of the computer models, as CO2 emissions have continued to accelerate during this time.

The increase in temperature between 1910-1940 was virtually identical to the increase between 1970-2000. Yet the IPCC does not attribute the increase from 1910- 1940 to “human influence.” They are clear in their belief that human emissions impact only the increase “since the mid-20th century”. Why does the IPCC believe that a virtually identical increase in temperature after 1950 is caused mainly by “human influence”, when it has no explanation for the nearly identical increase from 1910- 1940?

[Rorschach]