Australian Libertarian Society

Bingo

It appears our “experts” noses are getting longer like Pinocchio’s from telling fibs.

Professor David Karoly was recently on Lateline suggesting although we can’t attribute short-term weather patterns to climate change we’re playing with a loaded dice. Karoly is like the character Waldo in “Where’s Waldo” because of the frequency in which he shows up on the ABC pushing the alarmist line. There’s an alarmist push and Karoly is invariably interviewed. He’s about as camera shy as the porn star Jenna Jamison.

He says:

But it is clear that things can be done to slow down climate change, and we certainly know that climate change will bring higher frequencies of the extreme fire weather that was experienced on Saturday.

if you like, the mid-range estimate of climate change from the intergovernmental panel on climate change. They’re probably – some of those things are happening at the highest range or at the upper limit of what the climate models would project. And even for things like arctic sea ice are happening faster than even climate models would predict. So, yes, we are seeing many changes that are occurring faster than the IPCC climate models would’ve projected.

But what we’re seeing now is that the dice have been heavily loaded so that the chances of these sorts of extreme fire weather situations are occurring much more rapidly in the last 10 years due to climate change. So climate change has loaded the dice. And what we’re seeing is a much greater occurrence of this extreme fire weather. And certainly in some situations, we’re seeing unprecedented extremes. The hot temperatures on Saturday in Melbourne and in many parts in south eastern Australia were unprecedented. The records were broken by large amount and you cannot explain that just by natural variability. And climate change due to increasing greenhouse gases has been a major factor in increasing the temperatures and likely contributing to the drought in south eastern Australia.

It is certainly part of a global pattern, but Australia has been identified in a number of studies, including by Professor Garnaut’s climate change review of Australia, that Australia is in fact the developed country most at risk from the adverse impacts of climate change.

There’s whiff of misery somewhere that can be blamed on social ills? Clive Hamilton is never too far away blaming it on the consumer society or some rot. Sure enough Hives published a piece in ABC Unleashed more or less blaming climate change for the Victoria inferno.

There are good reasons for believing that the freakish weather conditions over southeastern Australia over the last fortnight have been due to climate change, rather than being a random event like the ones that led to the 1939 fires.

Hives also quotes Barry Brook.

Professor Barry Brook, Director of the Research Institute for Climate Change and Sustainability at the University of Adelaide and one the country’s leading climate scientists, quotes a colleague from the Bureau of Meteorology: “… climate change is now becoming such a strong contributor to these hitherto unimaginable events that the language starts to change from one of ‘climate change increased the chances of an event’ to ‘without climate change this event could not have occurred’”.

You’d think the Southern Australian climate has been heating up, right? Sounds like Southern Australia has been getting hotter. Listening just to Karoly and Hives that’s what you would have to think.

Take a look at this temp graph for South Australia going back since 1857. The place has actually been getting cooler since that time

How about the dead centre – Alice springs?Alice Springs has remained about the same since 1879
Canberra? About the same since 1939
Mildura since 1947? Basically no change.
Cape Otway Victoria? Cooler since 1865

Source… NASA Goddard and CRU

So there’s hard evidence that southern Australia’s temp has basically cooled and these people are telling us climate change is the cause of the Victorian inferno. It seems their opinions are nothing more than ghoulish propaganda meant to swing public opinion at the most vulnerable time.

What’s causing the dry spell in southern Australia? According to a former CISRO scientist (who has looked at the stats and decimated the propaganda pushed by the CSIRO) southern Australia seems to operate in 30 to 40 year wet/dry spells and aren’t out of the ordinary.

It’s really offensive being lied to like this.. When you have academics pushing stuff that isn’t true you really need to start again. Seriously people need to be fired if they’re deliberately deceiving the public. Tony Jones from Lateline ought to receive some really rough treamtment by ” Our ABC”, as he should have obtained a second opinion. There should be no remorse.

I actually think there is global warming and we shouldn’t be pushing all that crap into the atmosphere. I’m with Lomborg on this issue. However we just don’t need these people on our side.The sheer brazenness of pushing that line when there is absolutely not one single shred of evidence and in fact the evidence is quite the opposite ought to be punished severely. It’s no longer science as we used to know but some form of a Lysenko-hybrid type pseudo science meant to scare people.

These people are being paid with taxpayer money.

Update:
Niche Modeling rips apart the idea drought conditions caused the fire.

February 13, 2009 Posted by jc | General | 44 Comments

Has US middle class income stagnated over the past 30 years?

Mark Bahnisch at LP (quoting excerpts from another blog) in a thread titled ” The politics of failed economic doctrines” says it has. Here are some other quotes propagating what looks like a myth

Since the mid-1970s, however, income growth has been confined almost entirely to top earners.
—Robert H. Frank,
NY Times, March 9, 2008

The modern American economy distributes the fruits of its growth to a relatively narrow slice of the population.
—David Leonhardt,

NY Times, April 9, 2008

Almost all the benefits of economic growth since [the 1970s] have gone to a small number of people at the very top.
—Robert Reich,
Financial Times,Jan.29, 2008

The Minneapolis Fed in a study called “where has all the income gone” calls it nonsense and is quite pointed in the fact that such claims are dangerous as they could actually steer public policy to non-existent problems and thereby push scarce resources in the wrong direction. The Fed goes further and suggests misdirected policy could be moving resources from the very poor to a group that has done very well over the past 30 years in addition to poisoning public attitude toward free trade, globalization and free markets factors which have actually helped rising living standards in the US and elsewhere.

The Fed’s Conclusion

The claim that the standard of living of middle Americans has stagnated over the past generation is common. An accompanying assertion is that virtually all income growth over the past three decades bypassed middle America and accrued almost entirely to the rich. The findings reported here—and summarized in Chart 8—refute those claims. Careful analysis shows that the incomes of most types of middle American households have increased substantially over the past three decades. These results are consistent with recent research showing that the largest income increases occurred at the top end of the income distribution. But the outsized gains of the rich do not mean that middle America stagnated.

Why does the debate about Middle America matter? Because an accurate assessment of the economic progress of middle America is a crucial input in formulating good public policy. Claims of long-term Middle America stagnation—such as those quoted at the beginning of this article—are often part of a broader argument about the adverse impact of globalization, outsourcing and free trade.

And middle class stagnation is used as motivation for a specific set of policies. But if Middle America has not stagnated—as this analysis has shown—then this motivation for those policies is without merit. Furthermore, if it is understood that Middle America has indeed experienced substantial gains, policy priorities may change. For example, more emphasis might be placed on policies that promote continued economic growth or that target deeply rooted poverty rather than middle class stagnation. But regardless of the specific policy, policymakers and the public should base their decisions on an accurate assessment of how the economy has impacted and continues to impact people’s lives.

It took me all of two minutes to find this conclusive study basically putting the kibosh on the idea that middle class income in the US has not only not stagnated but also risen at a healthy clip over the past 30 years.

If they’re in denial of this sort of economic research put out by a respectable authority like the Minneapolis Fed how can they possibly be trusted on anything else let alone the economics?

February 3, 2009 Posted by jc | General | 14 Comments

You can’t take a “good” drug down. Markets will always find a good way around the problem

Slate a good story on smoking (and tobacco) that is sure to send the tobacco Nazis crazy.

While LA County is implementing a ban on smoking even in your own apartment and smoking consumption is falling about 3% per year, smokeless tobacco products are making their way in the market.

So tobacco is doomed, right?

Wrong. Smoking may be doomed, but tobacco is evolving into more elusive prey. Or, perhaps I should say, a more elusive predator. As Kevin Helliker reports in the Wall Street Journal, the industry is going smokeless.

Altria Group Inc., the nation’s largest cigarette maker, this month completed its $10.3 billion purchase of UST Inc., the biggest smokeless-tobacco maker and owner of the Copenhagen and Skoal brands. Reynolds American Inc., which owns Conwood Co., a discount smokeless purveyor, this month announced that the Camel Snus brand has performed well enough in test markets to warrant national distribution.

And

[M]ore Americans are continuing to give up smoking, helping to push cigarette consumption down about 3% each year. … Morgan Stanley estimates that U.S. consumers spent $4.77 billion on smokeless tobacco in 2007 versus $78 billion on cigarettes. Smokeless-tobacco sales have been increasing about 5% or more a year. … “There are probably in excess of 400,000 adults switching to smokeless each year,” says Seth Moskowitz, a spokesman for Reynolds American.

And it’s becoming less carcinogenic:

One recent study showed that some newer brands, with names like Ariva, Camel Snus and Marlboro Snus, have sharply lower levels of a dangerous carcinogen than do older varieties of smokeless tobacco, such as Copenhagen and Skoal. Britain’s Royal College of Physicians, which sets health standards in the United Kingdom, has said smokeless tobacco is between one-tenth and one-one thousandth as hazardous as smoking, depending on the specific product.
The December study also found that Marlboro Snus contained a very low level of nicotine. By contrast, Camel Snus offers a jolt of nicotine that “has the potential to satisfy those smokers who are looking for a substitute to smoking, and to keep them addicted to this product,” the authors said.

Tobacco is evolving and escaping for two fundamental reasons. One is that it can be engineered into new forms. The other is that the problem targeted by legislation—the weed’s tendency to cause cancer—isn’t essential to the tobacco business.

So the upshot is that a good drug like nicotine will still be with us for a long time and the only change is how some people who like to use it will be finding products to consume that are less harmful.

This should of course bitterly disappoint people like Harry Clark.

February 2, 2009 Posted by jc | General | 32 Comments

Is Atlas shrugging?

Received this. Can’t vouch for it’s authenticity but was told it holds up. It’s from a boss to his employees.

To All My Valued Employees,

There have been some rumblings around the office  about the future of this company, and more specifically, your job. As you know, the economy has changed for the worse and presents many challenges. However, the good news is this: The economy doesn’t pose a threat to your job. What  does threaten your job however, is the changing political landscape in this country. However, let me tell you some little tidbits of fact which might help you decide what is in your best interests.  First, while it is easy to spew rhetoric that casts employers against employees, you have to understand that for every business owner there is a Back Story. This back story is often neglected and overshadowed by what you see and hear. Sure, you see me park my Mercedes outside. You’ve seen my big home at last years Christmas party. I’m sure; all
these flashy icons of luxury conjure up some idealized thoughts about my life.  However, what you don’t see is the BACK STORY:   I started this company 28 years ago. At that time, I lived in a 300 square foot studio apartment for 3 years. My entire living apartment was converted into an office so I could put forth 100% effort into
building a company, which by the way, would eventually employ you.  My diet consisted of Ramen Pride noodles because every dollar I spent went back into this company. Read more »

January 15, 2009 Posted by jc | General | 27 Comments

James Hansen backs John Humphreys Carbon tax.

Well not directly so as I’m jut kidding, however today’s Wall Street Journal op-ed carries a piece that is absolutely jaw opening. It seems James Hansen, described by the WSJ, as the spiritual father of AGW proponents is going home: his political home that is -the moderate free market wing of the Republican Party (something he always claimed to be the case). Good for him.

Hansen supports a carbon tax lobbing a huge broadside at the big government tax grab that is cap and trade by Washington politicians (and ELSEWHERE)

Read more »

December 5, 2008 Posted by jc | General | 11 Comments