14 July, 2014

George Christensen Ridicules Australian Policies on Climate Change/Global Warming

Well worth a read. http://www.scribd.com/doc/233126123/140701-GC-SP-Climate-Change-Conference-Slides

Lomborg and Realistic Optimism

Just because it sounds good …

THE world has generally become a much better place during the last half-century. Sceptics will scoff, but the numbers don’t lie. The task now is to make the world even better.
In 1960, 20 million children under the age of five died. In 2011, with 40 per cent more children, deaths had declined by two-thirds, to 6.9 million.
In 1970, only 5 per cent of infants were vaccinated against measles, tetanus, whooping cough, diphtheria and polio. By 2000, the proportion was 85 per cent, saving about three million lives annually. Each year, these vaccines alone saved more people than world peace would have saved in the 20th century.
Air pollution, the world’s biggest environmental problem, has declined dramatically. Though there has been a small uptick in outdoor air pollution, the much larger problem of indoor air pollution — cooking and keeping warm with open, polluting fires — has declined precipitously. Since 1960, the risk of dying from all types of air pollution has been more than halved.
In 1962, 41 per cent of the world’s children were not in school — today that number is below 10 per cent. Worldwide ­literacy has risen from one-third to two-thirds.
Likewise, the number of those living in poverty worldwide has dropped from 43 per cent to less than 18 per cent since 1981. During that period, more than three billion people joined the ranks of the non-poor.
There are many reasons for this progress — not least rapid economic development, espec­ially in China. But there has also been a concerted international ­effort, reflected in the Millennium Development Goals, which the UN adopted in 2000 to make the world a better place by 2015.
The MDGs set 18 clear and mostly achievable targets in eight areas, including poverty and hunger, gender equality, education, and child and maternal health. In the period since 2000, development aid worldwide reached about $900 billion, of which perhaps $200bn was due to the MDGs.
The UN is now contemplating how to extend this target-setting process from 2015 to 2030. If the successor scheme, the Sustainable Development Goals, has a similar impact, it could ­determine the allocation of upwards of $700bn.
Obviously, this means everyone wants their favourite issue on the agenda, and more than a thousand targets have been proposed, which is tantamount to having no priorities at all. It would be useful, therefore, to get a sense of what really works, not just what sounds good. As Julie Bishop rightly points out, development dollars need to be spent “to the greatest effect”. That is why she has welcomed the new project from my think tank, the Copenhagen Consensus.
Here we have engaged with 57 teams of world-class economists to investigate 19 major areas and about 50 targets. Within each area we ask how much each target will cost and how much good it will do. This information will be ready by the end of this year, well before the UN decides on its SDGs late next year.
But negotiations have already begun, and the UN would like some information right now. So we asked our economists to give a quick assessment on 200 of the proposed targets. Some targets, such as getting broad access to family planning, are phenomenally good. That is because contraception is mostly inexpensive and can help both ­individuals and society. The bene­fits can rise as high as $150 for every $1 spent.
Similarly, we should focus on at least halving malnutrition, as there is robust evidence proper nutrition for young children leads to a lifetime of large benefits — better brain development, improved academic performance and higher productivity as adults. For every $1 spent, future generations will receive almost $60 in benefits.
But the UN draft says we should “end malnutrition”, and the economists warn that, while such an absolute goal sounds ­alluring, it is probably both implausibly optimistic and inefficient. We cannot achieve it, and even if we could the resources to help the last hungry person would be much better spent elsewhere.
Likewise, the UN would like to end HIV, malaria and tuberculosis. And, while reducing malaria and TB significantly is a very good deal, it is likely that eradication is unrealistic and uneconomical.
At the other end of the scale, some of the UN’s proposed targets are entirely unrealistic, like promising work to everyone. We do not know how to do that, and some low level of unemployment is necessary to have a functioning labour market from which employers can recruit. Instead, the economists suggest focusing on reducing barriers to employment, particularly for women.
Other poor targets simply cost more than the benefit they provide. Doubling the share of ­renewable energy by 2030 sounds good, but is an expensive way to cut just a little CO2. Instead, we should focus on getting more ­energy to poor people, a proven way to increase growth and TO reduce poverty. And to cut CO2 emissions we should phase out the substantial fossil-fuel subsidies that riddle much of the developing world, leading to wasteful consumption and straining government budgets.
The ultimate decision about which targets to set for the coming 15 years is a complex and deeply political discussion, and advice from economists will not magically resolve all complications. But providing evidence of what works really well and what doesn’t makes it more likely that good targets will be selected — and poorer ones left out.
Realistically, this approach may help to exclude only a few poor targets, or even just one, and it might generate enough tailwind to put just one additional good goal on to the final list.
But because the world is likely to spend $700bn on the SDGs, even a small change can do tens or even hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of good. That is why helping the UN narrow its priorities to include the best targets could be the most important thing any of us can do this decade.
Bjorn Lomborg is adjunct professor at Copenhagen Consensus Centre.

28 June, 2014


Last year I published three posts titled "Oh What a Feeling", "Cricket and Chemo" and "Contemplation" which gave the brutal facts of my flirtation with bowel cancer. The pathology tests on the eleven inches of removed bowel (sigmoid colon and upper rectum) revealed no less than three malignant tumours and a highly suspicious polyp. They also tested 21 lymph glands in the removed bowel and discovered one was carrying malignant cells. This resulted in my surgeon and oncologist advising that I would have to keep my stoma and colostomy bag for a total of eight months while I had six months of chemo.
The chemo was in the form of six identical tablets-three in the morning and three in the evening for two weeks then one week off, repeated eight times, with a visit to the Oncologist with a blood test before beginning each three week cycle. This means that I haven't used my rectum for eight months`. At one stage I described this procedure as a "pain in the bum", which of course in literal terms,  is exactly what it is not! I was very fortunate that the side effects of the chemo were negligible.

Last Thursday (26th June) I re-entered hospital to be "re-connected'. Or in more professionals terms to have the ilieostomy reversed and a massive hernia around it patched up -"pushed back in". Everything seems to be going as planned, last night was extremely uncomfortable and sleep impossible. But I can now tell you that my bum works! My very direct, colourful surgeon told me this morning that the next few days wont be fun, but all is on track.

Wednesday 2nd July
The surgeon was dead right! The last four days and particularly nights have been bloody awful. Someone once told me that our intestines don't like being fiddled around with and are inclined to rebel.   They sure are rebelling. I am swollen up like a poisoned pup and any release of internal pressure, be it liquid, (bowel and bladder) or gas, is very welcome. The worse part is that the pain prevents sleep.The best part is that a new word has entered the Australian lexicon -"Kyrgios", an Australian tennis player, of Greek origin. In the wee hours I have watched his last three Wimbledon wins and he has played superbly. I truly thought Nadal would be too strong-but no way. His temperament is excellent.

My wound has taken to weeping considerable quantities of bloody liquid and is now being "packed" twice daily. What next?? Surgeon says I won't be out before the weekend.

Friday, 4th July
I am more comfortable, but have a gaping wound with a substantial hole under it where the stoma was. Not unusually it carries an infection. They are "packing" it with gauze which they change twice a day and am now on anti-biotics for the infection. The "inner me" is gradually getting back to more like normal-some way to go. Sleeping easier.

Monday, 7th July
I played down this hospital visit as a minor 2/3 day procedure. Twelve days later .......! The last two nights have been horrendous with complete lack of bowel control and much action! This is mostly attributed to the anti-biotic upsetting the system and the fact that the lower bowel has been out of action for eight months. Each night improved as the night went on.
Have had a good day today and it's continuing tonight. Move to once a day wound "re-packing" from tomorrow and have (most?) of my 15 staples removed. If tummy continues to behave expect to be discharged tomorrow or Wednesday.

Tuesday, 8th July
Surgeon agreed to my proposal that I should go home today. Susie and kids picked me up around 11:30 and am now ensconced once more at Arterial Road. Gail seems pleased! Sydney Home Nursing are booked to "re-pack" the wound each day. Hope to go to my Thursday Australian Club lunch and the Swire Lunch on Friday to farewell Mitch Abbo. Like attendance at the Adelaide Test last December the Swire lunch has been my aim this time.

Sunday 20th July
Getting better. Wound is almost healed. Didn't find the home nursing very satisfactory-never knew definitely when they were coming, so took up the alternative of going up to the hospital each morning to have the wound packed there. Bowel behaving better, but not quite back to normal. Am slowly gaining confidence, but don't like getting too far from a toilet. If in doubt I wear a "nappy". I have this sophisticated brief case that I bought in Argentina, which I take with me everywhere. All that is in it is spare "nappies"!!

Saturday 2nd August
My surgeon declared my wound healed yesterday. Bowel behaving well and am gaining more confidence. We did a 2km walk this morning!
Over and out!

28 May, 2014

Climate Change-Essay Summary From Nigel Lawson

Share this newsletter: Facebook Twitter Digg Reddit StumbleUpon


CCNet 27/05/14

Nigel Lawson: The Trouble With Climate Change

Climate alarmism is a belief system that needs to be evaluated as such

There is something odd about the global warming debate — or the climate change debate, as we are now expected to call it, since global warming has for the time being come to a halt.

I have never shied away from controversy, nor — for example, as Chancellor — worried about being unpopular if I believed that what I was saying and doing was in the public interest.

But I have never in my life experienced the extremes of personal hostility, vituperation and vilification which I — along with other dissenters, of course — have received for my views on global warming and global warming policies.

For example, according to the Climate Change Secretary, Ed Davey, the global warming dissenters are, without exception, "wilfully ignorant" and in the view of the Prince of Wales we are "headless chickens". Not that "dissenter" is a term they use. We are regularly referred to as "climate change deniers", a phrase deliberately designed to echo "Holocaust denier" — as if questioning present policies and forecasts of the future is equivalent to casting malign doubt about a historical fact.

The heir to the throne and the minister are senior public figures, who watch their language. The abuse I received after appearing on the BBC's Today programme last February was far less restrained. Both the BBC and I received an orchestrated barrage of complaints to the effect that it was an outrage that I was allowed to discuss the issue on the programme at all. And even the Science and Technology Committee of the House of Commons shamefully joined the chorus of those who seek to suppress debate.

In fact, despite having written a thoroughly documented book about global warming more than five years ago, which happily became something of a bestseller, and having founded a think tank on the subject — the Global Warming Policy Foundation — the following year, and despite frequently being invited on Today to discuss economic issues, this was the first time I had ever been asked to discuss climate change. I strongly suspect it will also be the last time.

The BBC received a well-organised deluge of complaints — some of them, inevitably, from those with a vested interest in renewable energy — accusing me, among other things, of being a geriatric retired politician and not a climate scientist, and so wholly unqualified to discuss the issue.

Perhaps, in passing, I should address the frequent accusation from those who violently object to any challenge to any aspect of the prevailing climate change doctrine, that the Global Warming Policy Foundation's non-disclosure of the names of our donors is proof that we are a thoroughly sinister organisation and a front for the fossil fuel industry.

As I have pointed out on a number of occasions, the Foundation's Board of Trustees decided, from the outset, that it would neither solicit nor accept any money from the energy industry or from anyone with a significant interest in the energy industry. And to those who are not-regrettably-prepared to accept my word, I would point out that among our trustees are a bishop of the Church of England, a former private secretary to the Queen, and a former head of the Civil Service. Anyone who imagines that we are all engaged in a conspiracy to lie is clearly in an advanced stage of paranoia.

The reason why we do not reveal the names of our donors, who are private citizens of a philanthropic disposition, is in fact pretty obvious. Were we to do so, they, too, would be likely to be subject to the vilification and abuse I mentioned earlier. And that is something which, understandably, they can do without.

That said, I must admit I am strongly tempted to agree that, since I am not a climate scientist, I should from now on remain silent on the subject — on the clear understanding, of course, that everyone else plays by the same rules. No more statements by Ed Davey, or indeed any other politician, including Ed Milliband, Lord Deben and Al Gore. Nothing more from the Prince of Wales, or from Lord Stern. What bliss!

But of course this is not going to happen. Nor should it; for at bottom this is not a scientific issue. That is to say, the issue is not climate change but climate change alarmism, and the hugely damaging policies that are advocated, and in some cases put in place, in its name. And alarmism is a feature not of the physical world, which is what climate scientists study, but of human behaviour; the province, in other words, of economists, historians, sociologists, psychologists and — dare I say it — politicians.

And en passant, the problem for dissenting politicians, and indeed for dissenting climate scientists for that matter, who certainly exist, is that dissent can be career-threatening. The advantage of being geriatric is that my career is behind me: there is nothing left to threaten.

But to return: the climate changes all the time, in different and unpredictable (certainly unpredicted) ways, and indeed often in different ways in different parts of the world. It always has done and no doubt it always will. The issue is whether that is a cause for alarm — and not just moderate alarm. According to the alarmists it is the greatest threat facing humankind today: far worse than any of the manifold evils we see around the globe which stem from what Pope called "man's inhumanity to man".

Climate change alarmism is a belief system, and needs to be evaluated as such.