Carbon Tax 'alarmism' Doesn't fit Facts, Scientists Warn

SCIENTISTS from around the world, including the former head of Australia's National Climate Centre, are calling for calm on global warming, saying alarmist rhetoric is not backed by evidence and is being used to increase taxes.

Writing in The Wall Street Journal, the 16 scientists say a "large and growing number" of scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic action on global warming is needed. "The number of scientific 'heretics' is growing with each passing year. The reason is a collection of stubborn scientific facts," they say. "Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now."

Carbon Tax 'alarmism' Doesn't fit Facts, Scientists Warn

OneSteel Gets $64m Ahead of CarbonTax

MANUFACTURER OneSteel will receive $64 million to help it prepare for the introduction of the Federal Government's carbon tax in July. 
 
Climate Change Minister Greg Combet announced today that the advance payment had been finalised under the government's $300 million Steel Transformation Plan (STP).
OneSteel expects to receive the payment within 30 days and it will be recorded as income in the company's financial statements for fiscal 2012.

Labor finalised a similar $100 million advance to BlueScope Steel in December.
"The assistance provided to the Australian steel manufacturers will help OneSteel and BlueScope to adapt and modify their business models to ensure their long-term sustainability in a low carbon economy," Mr Combet said in a statement.

OneSteel chief executive Geoff Plummer told the stock exchange the company was "pleased with the government's interest in steel manufacturing in Australia" and welcomed the funds.

The STP, announced in July 2011, was intended to help steel makers adjust to the government's carbon tax, which will start with a fixed pollution price of $23 a tonne.

But the advance payments will also help OneSteel and BlueScope deal with the high Australian dollar, weak domestic demand and excess supply in international steel markers, Mr Combet said.

Labor's $300 million STP was passed by the Parliament in November alongside the 18 carbon tax bills.

Climategate (Part II) A sequel as ugly as the original.

The conventional wisdom about blockbuster movie sequels is that the second acts are seldom as good as the originals. The exceptions, like The Godfather: Part II or The Empire Strikes Back, succeed because they build a bigger backstory and add dimensions to the original characters. The sudden release last week of another 5,000 emails from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of East Anglia University​—​ground zero of “Climategate I” in 2009​—​immediately raised the question of whether this would be one of those rare exceptions or Revenge of the Nerds II.

Before anyone had time to get very far into this vast archive, the climate campaigners were ready with their critical review: Nothing worth seeing here. Out of context! Cherry picking! “This is just trivia, it’s a diversion,” climate researcher Joel Smith told Politico. On the other side, Anthony Watts, proprietor of the invaluable WattsUpWithThat.com skeptic website, had the kind of memorable line fit for a movie poster. With a hat tip to the famous Seinfeld episode, Watts wrote: “They’re real, and they’re spectacular!” An extended review of this massive new cache will take months and could easily require a book-length treatment. But reading even a few dozen of the newly leaked emails makes clear that Watts and other longtime critics of the climate cabal are going to be vindicated.

Climategate I, the release of a few thousand emails and documents from the CRU in November 2009, revealed that the united-front clubbiness of the leading climate scientists was just a display for public consumption. The science of climate change was not “settled.” There was no consensus about the extent and causes of global warming; in their private emails, the scientists expressed serious doubts and disagreements on some major issues. In particular, the email exchanges showed that they were far from agreement about a key part of the global warming narrative​—​the famous “hockey stick” graph that purported to demonstrate that the last 30 years were the warmest of the last millennium and which made the “medieval warm period,” an especially problematic phenomenon for the climate campaign, simply go away. (See my “Scientists Behaving Badly,” The Weekly Standard, December 14, 2009.) Leading scientists in the inner circle expressed significant doubts and uncertainty about the hockey stick and several other global warming claims about which we are repeatedly told there exists an ironclad consensus among scientists. (Many of the new emails make this point even more powerfully.) On the merits, the 2009 emails showed that the case for certainty about climate change was grossly overstated.

More damning than the substantive disagreement was the attitude the CRU circle displayed toward dissenters, skeptics, and science journals that did not strictly adhere to the party line. Dissenting articles were blocked from publication or review by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), requests for raw data were rebuffed, and Freedom of Information Act requests were stonewalled. National science panels were stacked, and qualified dissenters such as NASA prize-winner John Christy were tolerated as “token skeptics.” The CRU circle was in high dudgeon over the small handful of skeptics who insisted on looking over their shoulder, revealing the climate science community to be thin-skinned and in-secure about its enterprise​—​a sign that something is likely amiss. Even if there was no unequivocal “smoking gun” of fraud or wrongdoing, the glimpse deep inside the climate science community was devastating. As I wrote at the time (“In Denial,” March 15, 2010), Climategate did for the global warming controversy what the Pentagon Papers did for the Vietnam war 40 years ago: It changed the narrative decisively.

The new batch of emails, over 5,300 in all (compared with about 1,000 in the 2009 release), contains a number of fresh embarrassments and huge red flags for the same lovable bunch of insider scientists. It stars the same cast, starting with the Godfather of the CRU, Phil “hide the decline” Jones, and featuring Michael “hockey stick” Mann once again in his supporting role as the Fredo of climate science, blustering along despite the misgivings and doubts of many of his peers. Beyond the purely human element, the new cache offers ample confirmation of the rank politicization of climate science and rampant cronyism that ought to trouble even firm believers in catastrophic climate change.

In fact, the emails display candid glimpses of concern inside the CRU circle. Peter Thorne of NOAA (National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration), who earned his Ph.D. in climate science at East Anglia in 2001, wrote Phil Jones in a 2005 message, “I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.” An appeal to “context,” which the climate campaigners say is crucial to understanding why excerpts such as this one are unimportant, does quite the opposite, and only points to the problems the climate change campaigners have brought upon themselves by their tribalism.

This exchange between Thorne and Jones, along with numerous similar threads in the new cache, is concerned with what should and shouldn’t be included in a chapter of the IPCC’s 2007 fourth assessment report​—​a chapter for which Jones was the coordinating lead author along with another key Climategate figure, Kevin Trenberth. The complete chapter (if you’re keeping score at home, it’s Chapter 3 of Working Group I, “Observations: Surface and Atmospheric Climate Change”) lists 10 “lead authors” and 66 “contributing authors” in addition to Jones and Trenberth. One of Jones’s emails from 2004 displays how explicitly political the process of assembling the IPCC report is: “We have a very mixed bag of LAs [lead authors] in our chapter. Being the basic atmos obs. one, we’ve picked up number of people from developing countries so IPCC can claim good geographic representation. This has made our task harder as CLAs [contributing lead authors] as we are working with about 50% good people who can write reasonable assessments and 50% who probably can’t.”

The final chapter was amended along lines Thorne recommended, but several other objections and contrary observations (one in particular from Roger Pielke Jr. about extreme weather events that has been subsequently vindicated) were scornfully dismissed. And appeals to context avoid the question: Is this “science-by-committee” a sensible way to sort out contentious scientific issues that hold immense public policy implications? Perhaps a politicized, semi-chaotic process like the IPCC is unavoidable in a subject as wide-ranging and complex as climate change; future historians of science can debate the issue. But the high stakes involved ought to compel a maximum of open debate and transparency. Instead, the IPCC process places a premium on gatekeepers and arbiters who control what goes in and what doesn’t, and it is exactly in its exercise of the gatekeeping function that the CRU circle has shredded its credibility and trustworthiness.

One thing that emerges from the new emails is that, while a large number of scientists are working on separate, detailed nodes of climate-related issues (the reason for dozens of authors for every IPCC report chapter), the circle of scientists who control the syntheses that go into IPCC reports and the national climate reports that the U.S. and other governments occasionally produce is quite small and partial to particular outcomes of these periodic assessments. The way the process works in practice casts a shadow over one of the favorite claims of the climate campaign​—​namely, that there exists a firm “consensus” about catastrophic future warming among thousands of scientists. This so-called consensus reflects only the views of a much smaller subset of gatekeepers.

Beyond additional bad news for the hockey stick graph, is there anything new in these emails about scientific aspects of the issue? This will take time to sort out, but I suspect anyone with the patience to go through the weeds of all 5,300 messages and cross check them against published results may well discover troubling new aspects of how climate modeling is done, and how weak the models still are on crucial points (such as cloud behavior). Some of the new emails frankly acknowledge such problems. There are arcane discussions about how to interpolate gaps in the data, how to harmonize different data sets, and how to resolve the frequent and often inconvenient (because contradictory) anomalies in modeling results. Definite examples of political influence have emerged already from a first pass over a sample of the massive cache.

In the editing process before the IPCC’s 2001 third assessment report, Timothy Carter of the Finnish Environmental Institute wrote in 2000 to three chapter authors with the observation, “It seems that a few people have a very strong say, and no matter how much talking goes on beforehand, the big decisions are made at the eleventh hour by a select core group.” In this case, decisions at the highest levels of what specific figures and conclusions were to appear in the short “summary for policy makers”​—​usually the only part of the IPCC’s multivolume reports that the media and politicians read​—​required changing what appeared in individual chapters, a case of the conclusions driving the findings in the detailed chapters instead of the other way around. This has been a frequent complaint of scientists participating in the IPCC process since the beginning, and the new emails show that even scientists within the “consensus” recognize the problem. Comments such as one from Jonathan Overpeck, writing in 2004 about how to summarize some ocean data in a half-page, reinforce the impression that politics drives the process: “The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what’s included and what is left out.”

No amount of context can possibly exonerate the CRU gang from some of the damning expressions and contrivances that appear repeatedly in the new emails. More so than the 2009 batch, these emails make clear the close collaboration between the leading IPCC scientists and environmental advocacy groups, government agencies, and partisan journalists. There are repeated instances of scientists tipping their hand that they’ve thrown in their lot with the climate ideologues. If there were only a handful of such dubious messages, they might be explained away through “context,” or as conciliatory habits of expression. But they are so numerous that it doesn’t require an advanced degree in pattern recognition to make out that these emails constitute not just a “smoking gun” of scientific bias, but a belching howitzer. Throughout the emails numerous participants refer to “the cause,” “our cause,” and other nonscientific, value-laden terms to describe the implications of one dispute or another, while demonizing scientists who express even partial dissent about the subject, such as Judith Curry of Georgia Tech.

Since the beginning of the climate change story more than 20 years ago, it has been hard to sort out whether the IPCC represents the “best” science, or merely the findings most compatible with the politically driven climate policy agenda. Both sets of emails have lifted the lid on the insides of the process, and it isn’t pretty.

A good example of how the political-scientific complex works hand-in-glove to tightly control the results comes from May 2009, when the IPCC authors were working on a “weather generator,” which they hoped would produce climate change scenarios tailored to localities, so as to promote favored adaptive measures (sea walls, flood control, drought readiness, etc.).

This is a small but hugely controversial aspect of climate modeling, and one where politicians and advocacy groups (the World Wildlife Fund was especially keen to have this kind of work done) may well be asking scientists to do the impossible. But there’s research money in it, so scientists are only too happy to oblige. Kathryn Humphrey, a science adviser in Britain’s DEFRA (Department of Environment, Forestry, and Rural Affairs​—​Britain’s EPA) wrote a worried note to Phil Jones and several other scientists involved in the project about criticisms of the cloistered working group behind the weather generator scheme, noting, “Ministers have also raised questions about this so we will need to go back to them with some further advice.”

Jones tries to reassure Humphrey that he’s got the working group under control: “As I’ve said on numerous occasions, if the WG [working group] isn’t there, all the people that need [the weather generator] will go off and do their own thing.

Climategate (Part II) A sequel as ugly as the original.

Carbon Trading Scheme: Independent MPs back mining tax

The Federal Government has secured the support of key independents Tony Windsor, Rob Oakeshott and Andrew Wilkie for its mining tax.

The independents have secured a $200 million program to examine environmental concerns over coal seam gas mining and an increase in the tax threshold from $50 million to $75 million for small companies.

But the passage of the bill is by no means assured.

The Greens, who have threatened to block the legislation if the tax threshold is increased, are insisting the foregone revenue of $20 million a year be made up by other means.

However the support of the independents is a big boost to Julia Gillard's Government, which is trying to get the tax through the Lower House before Parliament rises for the year on Thursday.

It has been buoyed by Labor Party-commissioned research showing 56 per cent of people do not think average Australians are benefiting from the resources boom.

The Government has agreed to a demand by Mr Wilkie to lift the tax threshold at which the tax will apply to $75 million from $50 million and phase in another increase to $125 million.


Mr Wilkie had expressed concerns about how the tax will affect small miners, a concern shared by Western Australian independent Tony Crook.

The Tasmanian MP says 20 to 30 companies will pay the tax when it reaches the $125 million threshold.

"That will go some way to making for a fairer tax for the small mining companies," he said.

"At the end of the day they are the companies that are going to become the big companies."

Mr Wilkie said he was unable to negotiate any change to the depreciation provisions, but accepted the Government had negotiated in good faith.

But Mr Crook says he will not be supporting the tax and argues the Government should consider amendments to protect small miners.

"Some companies may choose to put their projects on the backburner or not proceed at all," he said.

"This will have a massive detrimental affect. There should be every inducement to keep these mining companies going and keeping people employed."

Sticking points
One of Mr Windsor's key sticking points was a commitment that any decisions about coal seam gas projects are based on rigorous scientific evidence.

Carbon Trading Scheme: Independent MPs back mining tax

Carbon Trading Scheme: Low-income Australian families 'battle energy bills'

LOW-income families are buckling under the strain of rising energy bills, a leading social welfare charity says.

Anglicare Sydney has recorded a sharp increase in the number of people seeking emergency aid to help meet household energy costs, which have risen 17.3 per cent since July.

Low-income families are under the highest pressure, Anglicare's director of advocacy Sue King said in a statement.

"Anglicare Sydney has given out $10,000 more in assistance for energy bills in the first quarter of this financial year compared with the same time last year,'' she continued.

"The increase in the amount of energy assistance distributed directly relates to the increase in electricity prices.''

It comes as the NSW Energy and Water Ombudsman confirmed many customers are now facing financial hardship because of rising energy bills, with a steady stream of complaints about large arrears and disconnections.

Ombudsman Clare Petre revealed there had been an eight per cent increase in complaints from customers facing disconnection during the last financial year.

There was an 18 per cent increase from customers who had been disconnected due to financial hardship.

Carbon Trading Scheme: Low-income Australian families 'battle energy bills'

The impact of the carbon price overtakes Australians' main concern, Loan Market online survey reveals

CONSUMER worries about interest rates have been overtaken by concerns about the impact of the carbon orice and utility costs on household finances.

An online survey conducted by mortgage provider Loan Market shows 39 per cent of respondents nominated the carbon tax as their biggest financial concern for 2012, while 30 per cent nominated utility costs.

Of the 484 respondents, 21 per cent said interest rates would have a negative impact, while just 10 per cent said fuel prices.

What costs are hitting you the hardest? Take our Cost of Living survey below.

"Even though it does not come in until July 1 next year, the majority of our respondents cite the carbon tax as their biggest financial concern for 2012,'' Loan Market chief operating officer Dean Rushton said today.

The survey also found Gen-Yers were more concerned about the carbon price, with 51 per cent of respondents in that age group saying it would have the greatest negative impact on their finances.

But consumers were less concerned by interest rate rises, after the Reserve Bank of Australia in November cut the cash rate for the first time in more than two and half years.

"There is no doubt in that they will need to cut further to continue to shore up confidence in the current global environment,'' Mr Rushton said in a statement.

Read more: http://www.news.com.au/money/money-matters/the-impact-of-the-carbon-price-overtakes-australians-main-concern-loan-market-online-survey-reveals/story-e6frfmd9-1226195967052#ixzz1d1wqsx1G

Carbon Trading Scheme: Carbon Tax Opposition Grows: Newspoll

There is growing opposition to the carbon tax after the House of Representatives passed bills for the scheme, a Newspoll has found.

Opposition to the tax has jumped six percentage points to 59 per cent, the poll commissioned by The Australianhas found.

Support for the tax has fallen four points to 32 per cent.

But it's not all bad news for Labor, with the poll showing there was a four-point drop in the Coalition's primary vote to 45 per cent, the lowest since May this year.

The Greens climbed back to a record 15 per cent primary vote support, rising three points.

Prime Minister Julia Gillard's personal satisfaction with voters rose three percentage points to 31 per cent.

Opposition Leader Tony Abbott's rating was down from 36 per cent to 34 per cent.

However, Mr Abbott still maintained the lead as preferred prime minister at 39 per cent compared with Ms Gillard's 36 per cent.

Newspoll chief Martin O'Shannessy said Labor's primary vote was stuck on 29 per cent, unchanged from two weeks ago while the Coalition's loss of support had mostly gone to the Greens.

Ms Gillard might take heart from the improvement in her approval rating, he said.

But continuing opposition to the carbon tax made it hard to accept the government's view that the passage of its legislation through Parliament would improve Labor's position.

"We have been tracking this now for a while. Back in April-May it was 60, in July 59," Mr O'Shannessy told ABC Radio.

The latest Newspoll has opposition to the carbon tax still at 59 per cent.

Parliamentary secretary Kate Lundy believes commonsense will prevail on the carbon tax.

"This policy is embedded in good science," she told Sky News.

"I think the opposition is starting to be exposed in the lack of sincerity in their fear campaign."

People were starting to question the opposition's motivation, knowing it was about "dirty politics" not policy.

Opposition frontbencher George Brandis said the Coalition was "very, very happy" about the latest Newspoll.

"For the Labor Party to find comfort from the fact they're only 16 [percentage points] behind the Coalition on the primary vote ... just goes to show how desperate the Labor Party's situation has become," he said.

Senator Brandis rejected any suggestion the Coalition was playing politics over the carbon tax.

"We simply think it is a stupid idea and, by a majority to two to one, so do the Australian people."

Carbon Tax Opposition Grows: Newspoll