WARNING. AEF IS A FRONT ORGANIZATION FOR THE IPA. These people are not Environmentalists.
Never have I read such a large amount of BS in one site. I don't know why I bother.
However, I know you don't have time to look into each and every claim. I however have
looked into a lot of it, so have written a short comment for some of the BS here.
My comments in red.
However, I know you don't have time to look into each and every claim. I however have
looked into a lot of it, so have written a short comment for some of the BS here.
My comments in red.
Link to the AEF site: http://aefweb.info/
|
Their 1st story:
Wxxxxx Bxxxxx: 'WIND FARMS DON'T MAKE SENSE WITHOUT THE TAX CREDIT ' Billionaire Wxxxxx Bxxxxxx would do anything to lower the tax rate of his company Berkshire Hathaway, including building unprofitable wind turbines to get federal government tax credits. “I will do anything that is basically covered by the law to reduce Berkshire’s tax rate,” Buffett told an audience in Omaha, Nebraska this weekend. “For example, on wind energy, we get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That’s the only reason to build them. They don’t make sense without the tax credit.” The rent-seekers in Australia taking billions of dollars in subsidies funded by electricity consumers via higher power bills are not nearly as honest as Buffett! My comment: What they aren't telling you is that about 50% of your power bill is due to the $42 billion dollar upgrade to the "Poles and Wires". This was approved in 2009 on the basis of industry projections of increasing demand. In 2009 demand started to fall and has ever since. Big surprise, their projections were wrong. Bigger surprise; they get paid on the assets value (poles and wires) and not on the actual electricity delivered by the poles and wires. In other words, the more poles and wires, the more money they get. Also they don't mention that the existing (coal) network was subsidized. Another 20% goes to the Retailer. about 20% also goes to the Generators. New Coal is more expensive than new Wind farms. See HRL coal power station which was going to get $150 million from the state and federal Governments. They criticize Wind because they want to reduce the RET Their story:
AUDIT OF CSIRO & BOM CLIMATE DATA REQUIRED The Australian government relies on the CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology for advice on global warming. The BOM in particularly relies in large part on its historical temperature dataset, but has no confidence in its own dataset prior to 1910. On March 26th Dennis Jensen, the Member for Tangney, spoke in the Australian Parliament about how the Australian Bureau of Meteorology plays “fast and loose” with critical temperature data. Dr Jensen emphasises the problem with the Bureau claiming unreliable temperature data for Australia prior to 1910, while supporting and contributing to a United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) global temperature data base from 1850 including for Australia. The government needs to set in place an independent agency to audit all science on which it relies on in the formulation of policy. My comment: We have independent agencies already. They are called the CSIRO and BOM. The IPA and the Liberal governments simply don't like what these agencies have to say. I personally believe any financial cuts to the CSIRO are political. Most of the planet's warming has occurred since the 1970s. Not having good data for pre 1910 doesn't change anything. They have access to other agency's data. WATER IS REPLACING CLIMATE CHANGE AS THE NEXT U.N. ENVIRONMENTAL SCARE
Canadian Dr Tim Ball in this article at the Watts Up With That website highlights what he sees as the focus of the U.N. Environmental Program as the hysteria over 'dangerous' anthropogenic global warming loses its political shine. Once a problem is falsely established, control is not far behind. The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) needs a replacement for the climate change scare. It must be a natural global resource, little understood by most so they can easily mislead transcend national boundaries and quickly raise passions and concerns. The target, water, is already in play. My comment: The irresponsibility of this position is mind boggling. Fresh water reserves are declining and have been for over a century.
It's not going to get better quickly. For more info, click here... |
Their story:
AMA BLASTED OVER POSITION STATEMENT ON WIND FARMS & HEALTH Blah blah........ AMA DESCENDS INTO WIND INDUSTRY ADVOCACY In the established tradition of some self-serving individuals in the medical profession supporting the tobacco and asbestos industries for decades, the Australian Medical Association appears to have thrown caution to the wind in the release in March of their position statement on wind farms and health. From the opening sentence the position statement reads like a publicity blurb for the wind industry shamelessly extolling how wind energy is an “inexpensive and effective means of energy production” when the empirical evidence demonstrates otherwise. Furthermore the AMA statement is as brazen as wind industry hype in its certainty that there are no adverse health impacts from wind farm noise. My comment: The stupid thing about this is that in another story further down the IPA refers to Richard Lindzen as if he is an expert on Climate Change but decades earlier Richard Lindzen had been a witness for tobacco companies, questioning the reliability of statistical connections between smoking and health problems. And they have the nerve to say " some self-serving individuals in the medical profession supporting the tobacco and asbestos industries for decades." I'll take my chances with the AMA any day over the IPA. Their R. Lindzen story (appears much further down their site page) IPCC report ‘hilarious incoherence’ says Lindzen MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen told Climate Depot on September 27, 2013: I think that the latest IPCC report has truly sunk to level of hilarious incoherence. They are proclaiming increased confidence in their models as the discrepancies between their models and observations increase. Their excuse for the absence of warming over the past 17 years is that the heat is hiding in the deep ocean. However, this is simply an admission that the models fail to simulate the exchanges of heat between the surface layers and the deeper oceans. My comment: Heating has occurred and a lot of it has gone into the oceans and the landmass. What's happened over the last decade is considerably more complicated than the IPA are making out. One has to also consider the effects of El Ninos. http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47 90% of the heat goes into the ocean. 3% of heat goes to heating the atmosphere. The graph below is from http://skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=65 
Click to go to http://www.skepticalscience.com/
The graph shows how average global temperatures vary from year to year. To get an idea of the overall temp change, one needs to view as long a period of time as possible. What skeptics do is pick a convenient point, in too short a time frame to suit their argument.
|
I could go on forever but it's simple;
The IPA represent certain business interests and have a far right wing ideological view of the world. They want to increase profits with little intervention from government. The result is we all pay later, especially if you are younger.
Climate Change action will cost everybody. It's not avoidable. If you don't pay now, you pay a proportionally much larger amount later. If you retire or die you can avoid some or all of the costs.
All they need to do is delay and deceive younger people into believing we don't need to do anything yet. They create doubt intentionally.
The IPA represent certain business interests and have a far right wing ideological view of the world. They want to increase profits with little intervention from government. The result is we all pay later, especially if you are younger.
Climate Change action will cost everybody. It's not avoidable. If you don't pay now, you pay a proportionally much larger amount later. If you retire or die you can avoid some or all of the costs.
All they need to do is delay and deceive younger people into believing we don't need to do anything yet. They create doubt intentionally.
