How rich Rockefellers battle the people’s pipeline
Americans concerned about gasoline prices were encouraged by the Pew Research Center’s new poll, whose headline blared, “Keystone XL Pipeline draws broad support.” A score box showed 63 percent supporting and only 23 percent opposing the pipeline that would transport oil from Canada’s vast Alberta oil sands deposits through the Plains states to Texas refineries.
“Every one-cent increase at the pump steals about $1 billion from the larger economy that consumers would have otherwise saved or spent on something else,” the Wall Street Journal has pointed out. High gasoline prices thus translate into lost jobs, lost tax revenues and lower living standards. Americans are beginning to understand that, as the Obama “recovery” gives them real-world economic lessons.
Unfortunately, the Pew report quickly deflated optimism over this support, when it tersely identified who the minority is: “liberals” — stanchions of Big Green’s circus tent. We have seen time and again that the liberal 23 percent can be a “majority” to President Obama, who wields executive orders to bypass the people.
As his administration approaches a decision, lame-duck politics says he could go either way — even with his own State Department’s second favorable environmental impact report on the KXL’s construction permit. Even with Alberta Premier Alison Redford saying that an Obama rejection would damage U.S.-Canada relations. “Canada relies on the U.S. for 97 percent of its energy exports,” Redford said, and “sees the new pipeline as critical to its economic well-being.” And even with ten governors and 22 lieutenant governors sending letters to the President, urging pipeline approval.
What is Obama likely to do? Some 82 percent of Republicans favor the pipeline, so revenge is not an unthinkable motive for a possible rejection. However, 70 percent of independents and 54 percent of Democrats also favor the KXL. Fogging the crystal ball is the ideological split among Democrats: 60 percent of the party’s conservatives and moderates support building the pipeline, compared to just 42 percent of liberal Democrats. That considerably flattens Obama’s upward slope toward a potential rejection, but doesn’t level it.
Obama’s decision may hinge on pleasing his base of global-warming advocates. This whole Keystone XL controversy was carefully conceived and organized as a “globally significant response” to global warming. Shutting down Alberta’s oil sands — by blocking both the US-bound Keystone XL pipeline and any other Alberta oil conduit, particularly a proposed link to Vancouver, British Columbia harbors and oil tankers bound for Asia — would supposedly reduce global warming. That’s propaganda, not reality.
As Environment Canada has observed, oil sands production contributes a mere 0.14 percent of global greenhouse gases, notes, and would add an undetectable 0.00001 degrees C per year to global warming, even if carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases really do drive climate change.
The anti-oil sands campaign — activists call them “tar sands” to evoke ugly images — was devised by the New York City-based Rockefeller Brothers Fund, using earmarked grants to recruit “a network of leading US and Canadian NGOs” and establish a “coordinated campaign structure” to act as its public face, according to a leaked PowerPoint presentation.
The first slide says, “The Tar Sands Campaign, Michael Northrop, Program Officer, Rockefeller Brothers Fund, July 2008.” Seven slides drive home the message that Rockefeller wants its paid campaigners to emphasize: Oil sands and Keystone represent “a globally significant threat” — with “Global Warming,” and “Oil Addiction” as the two “thought leader slogans” in the parade of old shibboleths that trigger brain freeze in Big Green followers. The rest was a coldly calculated, very practical plan to destroy Canada’s single most important export, with Rockefeller giving $7 million per year to activist groups to do the job.
Thinking people understand that being “addicted to oil” is like being addicted to breathing, better living standards, improved health and life itself. Just try getting along without it in a world where fossil fuels (oil, gas and coal) contributed 82 percent of US energy use in 2012. The “green alternative” (wind and solar) provided a mere 3.3 percent of our overall needs in 2012; the rest was nuclear, hydroelectric and biomass (mostly wood). Relying on the “green alternative” is like trying to inhale only 3.3 percent as much as you usually do. There’s an energy gap there we need to account for.
Canadian researcher Vivian Krause exposed the Rockefeller funding for campaigns against Canadian energy exports in her October 2010 Financial Post story, “US foundations against the oil sands.” Five US foundations, including the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, funneled vast sums of money through the Tides Foundation’s Canadian organization, Tides Canada. The Tides family of operations is a notorious California-based funder of left-wing activists.
Krause wrote, “A large part of Tides Canada’s funding comes from the Gordon & Betty Moore Foundation, the William & Flora Hewlett Foundation, the David & Lucile Packard Foundation, the Pew Charitable Trusts and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund. These are The Big Five. They give away about US$1.2-billion every year.” In a chilling reminder, she concluded, “If these foundations decide to undermine a foreign industry, they probably can.”
Later that fall, Krause testified before a Canadian House of Commons committee, prompting an audit of the Canadian arm of the Tides Foundation by the Canada Revenue Agency (Canada’s equivalent to the IRS). By Krause’s calculations, Tides, a co-funder of the Rockefeller oil sands campaign, has distributed $19 million to anti-Keystone groups since 2008.
Krause explains that the campaign strategy is intended to foster renewable energy by shifting investment capital away from so-called “dirty oil” and toward so-called “clean energy.” To this end, she said, “they ‘educate’ media, consumers and voters. They stigmatize fossil fuels as bad, thereby facilitating the positioning of renewables as good. It’s basic product positioning and ‘depositioning’ the competitor.”
Not surprisingly, the “education” is slanted. “We get only bad news about fossil fuels and good news about solar and wind,” Krause observes. “We don’t get the whole story.” What gets left out are the advantages of fossil fuels — and the limitations and harmful effects of renewables, like the tiny amount of energy they provide, and the terrible impacts they have on birds, bats and wildlife habitats. “Furthermore, some of the information that is perpetuated is out-dated, and some is plainly false.”
I asked Krause why the Rockefeller presence behind the anti-XL propaganda campaign was virtually invisible. She told me that it has been done quietly but not secretly. “The grants have been disclosed in online databases for years,” she said. “But nobody bothered to add them up and connect the dots.” Krause connected the dots to the networks of foundations that work together on targeted projects.
She directed me to a revealing but obscure source, “Design to Win: Philanthropy’s Role in the Fight Against Global Warming,” which was sponsored by six of “the usual suspects” I have learned to expect to find behind any global warming campaign: the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, Energy Foundation, Joyce Foundation, Oak Foundation, and William and Flora Hewlett Foundation.
Another source was, “A Strategy Planning Tool for Western Conservation,” prepared for the Hewlett Foundation by the Redstone Strategy Group, a brain pool of Ivy League hotshots not to be trifled with. Their strategy is to create eight massive national parks, each the size of Switzerland, as a way to stop the development of fossil fuels. Just fence industry out with parks — or Antiquities Act designations.
Anyone who thinks their local grassroots green group just pops up spontaneously in occasional protests needs to read either of these documents. They will find that the “roots” under the environmentalist “grass” are fertilized with bales of hundred-dollar bills. Rockefeller’s actions are quite open, if quiet. Krause said, “The strategy is articulated in discussion papers, but who reads them?”
Nobody except Vivian Krause, evidently. Her Twitter account, @FairQuestions, says, “I follow the money & the science behind enviro campaigns.” Her research and writing are impressive. Her blog profile states, “I work from my dining room table, using Google, on my own nickel. Not part of any political party, any industry, or any campaign.” Her work deserves more attention in the United States.
Krause’s discovery and exposé of the Rockefeller millions behind the anti-Keystone XL campaign could become a factor in Obama’s pipeline construction decision. It has already created Canadian suspicion of environmental groups dancing on the strings of US foundation money.
It’s not the money itself Canadians fear. It’s the way bales of US foundation cash can buy pressure by proxy, to impose undue foreign influence over Canada’s national energy policy and sovereignty.
One must hope Mr. Obama does not wish to be suspected of dancing on the same Rockefeller policy puppet strings as the Big Green bigwigs who were recently arrested protesting at his front door.
Are you sure this is going to work? Scotland's first 'solar meadow' opens under grey skies and rain
They were built to slash a college's carbon emissions and save them tens of thousands of pounds in energy bills.
But some people must have been left wondering if the new 'solar meadow' will live up to its billing as it opened today under grey and rainy skies.
The site at the Midlothian campus of Edinburgh College in Dalkeith is Scotland's first solar meadow and one of the most northerly locations for the green technology in Europe.
The five-acre site cost œ1.2million to build and was designed by SSE Energy Solutions.
It promises to decrease the college's carbon emissions by 300,000kg a year and meet all the campus' electricity demands.
But dignitaries who turned out for the grand opening had to walk through the rain with not a beam of sunlight in sight.
Dressed in bright hi-viz jackets, the group including local MSP Colin Beattie, staff, students and business leaders, were pictured holding umbrellas aloft as they inspected the site.
Backers of the project also hope it will become a local attraction.
Wildflowers and various grasses are to be planted in the meadow to increase the site's biodiversity.
Professor Steve Tinsley, vice-principal of Edinburgh College, who is leading the project, said: 'We believe the solar meadow also looks great and will become a significant attraction for local people as well as visitors to the capital.
'It is also fantastic that the project has enabled the college to engage with schools and local community groups to develop their own renewable energy projects. 'It really is giving something back to the local community in more ways than one.'
The solar meadow, which can still generate energy under in overcast conditions, will also be used as a teaching facility for students.
'[The solar meadow] will help not only to provide the next generation of engineers with essential skills, but also allow the college to become less reliant on fossil fuel energy,' said Prof Tinsley.
The meadow will also be used as a research centre where the interaction between biodiversity and solar technology is analysed, including the effect of environmental conditions on the output from the solar panels such as weather and pollen.
Richard Chandler, SSE's head of green deal and energy solutions, said: 'The solar meadow will not only generate around 560,000 kWhrs every year, enough energy to power 170 homes, but is also a fine example of how industry and education can work well together.
'This project will bring benefits to the college, its students and the wider community as well as further strengthening Scotland's renewable energy resources.'
Global COOLING Era to Bring Food Shortages and Social Upheaval Says New Climate Report
The inaugural edition of the recently published Global Climate Status Report (GCSR)¸ by the Space and Science Research Corporation (SSRC), headquartered in Orlando, Florida, discloses startling new information about global food shortages and widespread social upheaval that is just around the corner; all the cause of the new global cooling era. This single source document from the SSRC details an apolitical, fact-based version of the Earth's climate status as measured by twenty four climate parameters. The summary conclusion of the report shows that the planet is heading into four decades of potentially dangerous, cold weather.
Mr. John L. Casey, SSRC founder, Editor of the GCSR, and author of the internationally acclaimed climate book, "Cold Sun" was recently named "America's best climate prediction expert" by Watchdogwire.com.
He elaborates on the stunning conclusions of the GCSR by saying, "The news isn't good, especially for those who still believe in manmade global warming and that mankind's CO2 emissions have a major role in climate change. They will be totally unprepared for this new cold era. Though we had issued a press release in February to announce the climate report, the specific findings from the full report and their implications for everyone on the planet are still largely unreported by the media and unknown to our leaders. It is certainly still surprising that what is likely one of the most important news stories for the next fifty years is completely ignored by the mainstream media, including most science periodicals.
For these reasons, I want to be very clear about what this report is saying. Here in the United States, we face the real prospect of major crop damage and food shortages as we get closer to the bottom of the next cold era estimated to be 2031. We should fully expect to see substantial crop losses during the 2020's along with accompanying food riots, and social unrest, especially in every major US city. That means we may have seven years, and likely less, to set aside the food we will need or make adjustments to our national food production and consumption practices in order to get through the global cooling onslaught with minimal damage.
This situation will be made much worse because the current administration of President Obama has its head in the sand on this global threat and unbelievably is still telling the world that the Earth is warming because of man's industrial greenhouse gas emissions. Nothing could be further from the truth according to the overwhelming evidence that climatologists and solar physicists around the world have compiled and is discussed in our global climate report for all to read."
Scientists find heat-tolerant coral reefs that may resist climate change
Amid all the flim-flam below there is only one solid fact: Corals can survive higher temperatures -- as has often been shown elsewhere
Experts say that more than half of the world's coral reefs could disappear in the next 50 years, in large part because of higher ocean temperatures caused by climate change. But now Stanford University scientists have found evidence that some coral reefs are adapting and may actually survive global warming.
"Corals are certainly threatened by environmental change, but this research has really sparked the notion that corals may be tougher than we thought," said Stephen Palumbi, a professor of biology and a senior fellow at Stanford's Woods Institute for the Environment.
Palumbi and his Stanford colleagues began studying the resiliency of coral reefs in the Pacific Ocean in 2006 with the support of a Woods Institute Environmental Venture Project grant. The project has expanded and is now being funded by Conservation International and the Bio-X program at Stanford.
"The most exciting thing was discovering live, healthy corals on reefs already as hot as the ocean is likely to get 100 years from now," said Palumbi, director of Stanford's Hopkins Marine Station. "How do they do that?"
Coral reefs form the basis for thriving, healthy ecosystems throughout the tropics. They provide homes and nourishment for thousands of species, including massive schools of fish, which in turn feed millions of people across the globe.
Corals rely on partnerships with tiny, single-celled algae called zooxanthellae. The corals provide the algae a home, and, in turn, the algae provide nourishment, forming a symbiotic relationship. But when rising temperatures stress the algae, they stop producing food, and the corals spit them out. Without their algae symbionts, the reefs die and turn stark white, an event referred to as "coral bleaching."
During particularly warm years, bleaching has accounted for the deaths of large numbers of corals. In the Caribbean in 2005, a heat surge caused more than 50 percent of corals to bleach, and many still have not recovered, according to the Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network, an international collaboration of government officials, policymakers and marine scientists, including Palumbi.
Havens of healthy reefs
In recent years, scientists discovered that some corals resist bleaching by hosting types of algae that can handle the heat, while others swap out the heat-stressed algae for tougher, heat-resistant strains. Palumbi's team set out to investigate how widely dispersed these heat-tolerant coral reefs are across the globe and to learn more about the biological processes that allow them to adapt to higher temperatures.
In 2006, Palumbi and graduate student Tom Oliver, now a postdoctoral researcher at Stanford, traveled to Ofu Island in American Samoa. Ofu, a tropical coral reef marine reserve, has remained healthy despite gradually warming waters.
The island offered the perfect laboratory setting, Oliver said, with numerous corals hosting the most common heat-sensitive and heat-resistant algae symbionts. Ofu also has pools of varying temperatures that allowed the research team to test under what conditions the symbionts formed associations with corals.
In cooler lagoons, Oliver found only a handful of corals that host heat-resistant algae exclusively. But in hotter pools, he observed a direct increase in the proportion of heat-resistant symbionts, suggesting that some corals had swapped out the heat-sensitive algae for more robust types. These results, combined with regional data from other sites in the tropical Pacific, were published in the journal Marine Ecology Progress Series in March 2009.
To see if this pattern exists on a global scale, the researchers turned to Kevin Arrigo, an associate professor of environmental Earth system science at Stanford and an expert on remote satellite sensing of marine microalgae. Arrigo gathered worldwide oceanographic data on a variety of environmental variables, including ocean acidity, the frequency of weather events and sea-surface temperature.
Oliver then compiled dozens of coral reef studies from across the tropics and compared them to Arrigo's environmental data. The results revealed the same pattern: In regions where annual maximum ocean temperatures were above 84 to 88 degrees Fahrenheit (29 to 31 degrees Celsius), corals were avoiding bleaching by hosting higher proportions of the heat-resistant symbionts.
Most corals bleach when temperatures rise 1.8 F (1 C) above the long-term normal highs. But heat-tolerant symbionts might allow a reef to handle temperatures up to 2.6 F (1.5 C) beyond the bleaching threshold. That might be enough to help get them through the end of the century, Oliver said, depending on the severity of global warming.
A 2007 report by the United Nations International Panel on Climate Change concluded that the average surface temperature of the Earth is likely to increase 3.6 to 8.1 F (2 to 4.5 C) by 2100. In this scenario, the symbiont switch alone may not be enough to help corals survive through the end of the century. But with the help of other adaptive mechanisms, including natural selection for heat-tolerant corals, there is still hope, Oliver said.
"These findings show that, given enough time, many corals can match hotter environments by hosting heat-resistant symbionts," he explained. "While hopeful, the work also suggests that modern environments are changing so rapidly that corals may not be able to keep up. It comes down to a calculation of the rates of environmental change versus the rates of adaptation."
Heat-resistant corals also turn out to be more tolerant of increases in ocean acidity, which occurs when the ocean absorbs excess carbon dioxide from the atmosphere--another potential threat to coral reefs. This finding suggests that corals worldwide are adapting to increases in acidity as well as heat, Oliver said, and that across the tropics, corals with the ability to switch symbionts will do so to survive.
The problem of coral bleaching comes down to a collapse of the algae at the cellular level, Oliver explained. But the molecular biology of corals and their zooxanthellae under stress is shockingly understudied, he added.
To examine the corals and their symbionts at the molecular level, the researchers are collaborating with John Pringle, a professor of genetics at Stanford. Pringle and his lab have set up tanks where anemones, corals and their algae are exposed to a variety of treatments, including changes in temperature, acidity and light. That research is ongoing.
"What I hope is that we will learn some really deep and interesting things about the cellular and genetic mechanisms that allow this symbiosis to function, and about the mechanisms that come into play when the symbiosis is breaking down under stress," Pringle said. "The longer-range hope is that having that understanding will contribute to efforts in coral conservation."
The ultimate goal is to find protein biomarkers that indicate signs of heat stress and potential heat resistance, Oliver explained. Then coral reef managers could go to a reef, take small coral samples and test for the presence of the biomarkers to see how resilient the reef will be to higher temperatures.
"With this tool, managers could identify existing populations that may be more resistant to climate change and potentially prioritize their protection from everything else that kills coral reefs, like fishing and [agricultural] runoff," Oliver said.
"Although we are doing things to the planet we have never done before, it's hard to imagine that these corals, which have existed for a quarter of a billion years, only have 50 years left," Palumbi said. "And part of our job might be to figure out where the tougher ones live and protect those places."
Main Multiple Proxy Study Confirms "Global Warming" Skeptic Views - Modern Temps Not Unprecedented, Not Global
I commented briefly on this hokum on 22nd, pointing out some obvious problems. I also anticipated that more detailed critiques would be forthcoming and that such critiques would be scathing. And we see below that it is so. -- JR
Anti-science alarmists and pro-global warming ('AGW') scientists are very enamored with multi-proxy temperature reconstructions, which allows "researchers" to statistically blend and torture different forms of data to force a "confession" that modern warming has been "unprecedented" - however, as expert skeptics have discovered, these studies are often found to be empirically and statistically-challenged garbage and end up being a cornucopia of unintended contradictions...the new PAGES2K paleo-torture study is the latest example
The new Kaufman et al. study (aka as the 'PAGES2K' research) is getting its initial web-wide forensic review in multiple articles across the web, including here, here, here, here and here.
The chart on the left depicts those areas of the world that experienced modern warming supposedly greater than any warming over the last 2,000 years; and, the chart on the right represents those areas where modern warming was less than that of certain periods during the past 2,000 years. Both charts have the past 2,000 year atmospheric levels superimposed (the pinkish curve) on them.
It is from the Tisdale analysis that it first becomes apparent that the law of unintended consequences has interestingly come into play - the study's authors have actually built a case (be it likely an unforced error) that supports the views of the majority of catastrophic global warming skeptics/lukewarmers.
From the study itself, and a close review of the above images, we now know the following:
* First, as even the New York Times points out, this study determined that the Arctic was warmer during the 1940s to 1970s than during years of the late 20th century.
* Second, the study determined that periods prior to 1000AD had warmer temperatures in Europe. Confirms view of skeptics, check.
* Third, this study finds Antarctica was warmer, from the 2nd through 13th centuries, than during our modern era.
* Fourth, this study points out that true global warming has not taken place in the modern era, but regional strong warming has. Of the 7 regional areas analyzed, only 3 exhibit a strong warming (more likely only 2, see point #11 below). The other four regions, not so much. Confirms view of skeptics.
* Fifth, the study clearly indicates that major climate change is taking place at all times, in different manners, across the globe. Climate change is not some new modern phenomenon. Confirms view of skeptics.
* Sixth, the study shows atmospheric CO2 levels are not a cause of past major climate change. Throughout most of the last 2,000 years, CO2 levels are stable yet climate change is constantly happening. Confirms view of skeptics
* Seventh, the study documents that unprecedented regional warming takes place regardless of low/high atmospheric CO2 levels. Confirms view of skeptics
* Eighth, this study, in combination with the known recent global temperature trend (subsequent to this study's ending date of 2000AD), clearly makes an indisputable case that recent modern global warming is not as claimed: unprecedented; unequivocal; irrefutable; irreversible; nor dangerously accelerating. Confirms view of skeptics.
* Ninth, this study affirms that periods of "unprecedented" warming do not cause the IPCC's urban legend of "runaway," "tipping point," dangerous global warming. Of course, the hottest period ever recorded (Minoan era) in the ice cores over the last 4,000 years already proved that the mythical "tipping point" is just that. Confirms view of skeptics, check.
* Tenth, this study again provides proof that the AGW-alarmist researchers will use each and every attempt to remove and/or minimize the exceptional Medieval Warming Period that the vast majority of local/regional paleo research studies, and the historical literature, have well documented. It is simply freaking amazing that this group of researchers would present an analysis of Europe's past warming without the extreme and extended warming of the Medieval era (see chart of right).
* Eleventh, this study clearly proves to the public that the proponents of AGW-alarmism will utilize excessive cherry-picking of empirical paleo research to fabricate their "scientific" claims of modern "unprecedented" warming. Not only did this study exclude the preponderance of paleo-scientists' research that documents past extreme warming, but this study was brazen enough to include paleo temperature reconstructions that even a peer-reviewed science journal ultimately rejected because of its statistical flim-flam.
Without the infamous, widely discredited Gergis et al. study, it is highly likely that the "Australasia" region of the above chart on the left would have to be moved to the chart of the right, above - thus leaving just 2 regions of the world that may have had modern "unprecedented" warming in the 20th century, and only a single region of the world that had "unprecedented" warming since 1970 (recall that this study confirmed the Arctic was warmer from the 1940s to the 1970s). Confirms view of skeptics.
Conclusion: This multi-cherry-picking proxy study has many claiming that modern temps are the "hottest" across the globe, over the last 1,400 years. In fact, as the above information clarifies, some regions of the world had strong modern warming (that is, supposedly), while the majority did not.
As this study itself determines, global warming, cooling and climate change are not done in some lock step manner across the world in a monotonous cause and effect relationship with CO2.
Skeptics of both the IPCC's catastrophic global warming hysteria and the elites' CO2-kills fanaticism have pointed this out for years (if not decades).
The geological and historical records/datasets support the essentials of the non-hysterical skeptic/lukewarmers' analysis of climate change, and now this study suggests the alarmist community has inadvertently accepted many of the same views.
More HERE (See the original for links, graphics etc.)
GREENIE ROUNDUP FROM AUSTRALIA
Three current articles below
New paper finds global sea levels will rise only about 5 inches by 2100
A new peer-reviewed paper by sea level expert Dr. Nils-Axel Morner concludes that Australian government claims of a 1 meter sea level rise by 2100 are greatly exaggerated, finding instead that sea levels are rising around Australia and globally at a rate of only 1.5 mm/year. This would imply a sea level change of only 0.13 meters or 5 inches by 2100. Dr. Morner also finds no evidence of any acceleration in sea level rise around Australia or globally.
From the conclusion of the paper:
In view of the data presented, we believe that we are justified to draw the following conclusions:
(1) The official Australian claim [2,3] of a present sea level rise in the order of 5.4mm/year is significantly exaggerated (Figure 3).
(2) The mean sea level rise from Australian tide gauges as well as global tide gauge networks is to be found within the sector of rates ranging from 0.1 to 1.5 mm/year (yellow wedge in Figure 3).
(3) The claim of a recent acceleration in the rate of sea level rise [2,3,12] cannot be validated by tide gauge records, either in Australia or globally (Figure 3). Rather, it seems strongly contradicted [19,21,24,39-41]
The practical implication of our conclusions is that there, in fact, is no reason either to fear or to prepare for any disastrous sea level flooding in the near future.
Present-to-future sea level changes: The Australian case
By Nils-Axel Morner & Albert Parker
We revisit available tide gauge data along the coasts of Australia, and we are able to demonstrate that the rate may vary between 0.1 and 1.5 mm/year, and that there is an absence of acceleration over the last decades. With a database of 16 stations covering only the last 17 years, the National Tidal Centre claims that sea level is rising at a rate of 5.4mm/year.We here analyse partly longer-term records from the same 16 sites as those used by the Australian Baseline Sea Level Monitoring Project (ABSLMP) and partly 70 other sites; i.e. a database of 86 stations covering a much longer time period. This database gives a mean trend in the order of 1.5 mm/year. Therefore, we challenge both the rate of sea level rise presented by the National Tidal Centre in Australia and the general claim of acceleration over the last decades.
Related: NOAA 2012 report finds sea levels rising at less than half the rate claimed by the IPCC
Businesses don't want carbon tax: Abbott
Opposition Leader Tony Abbott says businesses will be better off without a carbon tax, as power companies warn the coalition's climate policy will be tough to implement.
Power companies say the coalition's alternative "Direct Action" policy will be more difficult to run than Labor's carbon pricing mechanism, which Mr Abbott has vowed to repeal if elected prime minister.
The Energy Supply Association of Australian supports an emissions trading scheme (ETS), and says falling electricity demand will force the coalition to review its climate change policy if elected, The Australian Financial Review reports.
A number of business groups, including Wesfarmers Ltd and the Australian Industry Group, have recently called for the carbon tax to be scrapped and replaced with an ETS with a floating carbon price.
Mr Abbott said no business wanted to pay more tax than less.
"Obviously, every business that is currently paying the carbon tax, either directly or indirectly, will be better off without it," he told reporters in Victoria.
Scrapping the carbon tax and four agencies associated with it would make "life more affordable and more simple for everyone", he added.
The coalition insists its climate policy uses the market to tackle global warming via a carbon buyback approach that rewards innovation and initiative while meeting Australia's climate targets.
Its Direct Action Policy is designed to directly funds activities that reduce CO2 emissions - known as abatement - at the lowest possible cost.
Business bogged down by a dud carbon tax
AUSTRALIANS are being dudded by the carbon tax and the crash in the European market last week confirms it.
Sadly, the consequences are felt in lost jobs and increasing power prices while Europe heads in the other direction.
And here is just one example. Last Thursday morning I met with a cafe owner and the owner of a small local supermarket just south of Ulladulla. Both said the 15 per cent increase in their electricity prices due solely to the government's carbon tax was coming straight out of their pockets because they couldn't pass on the increases.
So in order to try to cut costs, the cafe owner had reluctantly let one young staffer go and was instead coming in at 5.30am and staying late into the evening to make up the gap.
The other had deferred hiring a staff member and was increasing his already long hours.
These are the real consequences of the carbon tax for people's lives - working longer and laying off staff - that the Prime Minister and Treasurer have ignored. Now however, they must finally take their heads out of the sand and acknowledge the real world impact of the carbon tax.
With the collapse of the European carbon price, to what The Economist called junk bond status, the Australian carbon tax is now about six times higher than the European price. While the European price has plummeted to $3.50, the Australian tax is $23. And while the European price is plummeting, Labor has locked in two more carbon tax rises. So the carbon tax goes up again on July 1 and then again next year. Two simple messages come out of this.
Firstly, the Australian tax is completely out of line with the rest of the world. Secondly, Treasury's own modelling assumes the carbon tax is set to soar to $37 per tonne by 2020. In the meantime the government has spent this money - in the same way it spent the mining tax before it was received.
Either government modelling is correct and we will be even more out of line with the rest of the world, or the carbon tax will face a multi-billion-dollar black hole and the deficit will get much worse.
The government's own figures show the carbon tax doesn't even reduce our emissions. At the cost of $9 billion a year it doesn't even achieve its policy objective.
For more postings from me, see DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.
Preserving the graphics: Graphics hotlinked to this site sometimes have only a short life and if I host graphics with blogspot, the graphics sometimes get shrunk down to illegibility. From January 2011 on, therefore, I have posted a monthly copy of everything on this blog to a separate site where I can host text and graphics together -- which should make the graphics available even if they are no longer coming up on this site. See here and here