Agmates

Agmates has been writing for months about the disastrous impact on Australian farmers of the proposed Emissions Trading Scheme in its current form.

We have been critical of Australia’s peak farming lobby group the National Farmers Federation (NFF) almost total public silence on the issue.

Finally flushed out by the concerns of the Agmates community coupled with the rising chorus of dissent from Agricultural economists the NFF has broken its silence on the issue.

As reported In todays Age Newspaper the NFF is calling on the Rudd government to issue the farming community with free permits. “Make ETS Permit Free for Farmers, says NFF”

.

The National Farmers’ Federation said free permits for agriculture would be justified as action by farmers had cut greenhouse emissions from agriculture, forestry and fishing by 41.7% between 1990 and 2005.

.

The NFF call comes from it’s submission released 12 days ago [10th of September] in response to the Governments publication of its Green Paper in July of this year.

The NFF says that free permits would cushion the impact of increased farm input costs that farmers and rural economist have warmed will force 1,000’s of farmers off the land.

.

“This process [free permits for Agriculture] has been adopted in Europe and New Zealand,” the NFF said.”Agriculture’s capacity to pass on costs is notoriously poor, meaning that many farmers will be forced to absorb the vast majority of the cost of these permits,” the NFF said.

“It would be perverse if agriculture was more adversely treated in the Australian CPRS than in any other ETS in the world,” the federation said.

.

The issues we have raised in articles like “ABARE Chiefs warn Ag Doomed under ETS” [18th Sept] are also starting to receive national press coverage. Our most prestigious National Newspaper The Australian today has run this article “Emission Scheme “will mug farmers“.

.

Brian Fisher [pictured] , executive director of Concept Economics and former head of the Australian Bureau of Agriculture and Resource Economics ….

Although farming is exempted from the ETS until at least 2015, Dr Fisher says that many small farmers will be mugged in the meantime by increases in the costs of inputs such as electricity and fertiliser.

His warning reinforces recent modelling by the Business Council of Australia and the Australian Farm Institute that predicts many businesses will be made unprofitable by the scheme.”

.

We have to ask why has the NFF needed to wait for the likes of Agmates,[5/7/08] ABARE, Concept Economics, [18/9/08], Business Council of Australia, Australian Farm Institute,[15/9/08] Queensland Farmers Federation,[15/9/08] to come out publically and state what should have been obvious to Australia’s peak farming body…….

Indeed after the release of The Green Paper on the 8th of July we called for the NFF to ’step up to the plate’ on behalf of Australian farmers.

“National Farmers Federation Must Save Australian Agriculture”.

Finally 10 weeks later the NFF is rather timidly poking their head out of its shell, to add its voice to the protests on behalf of Australian Farmers. Hardly a driving force.

.

Have Your Say!

.

Got a tip off, article or have you seen a video or item you’d like to be seen by the Agmates Community? If so please email it to us at news@agmates.com

CEO of the QLD Farmers Federation John Cherry [pictured] writes:

The Australian Farm Institute has done farmers a huge favour pointing out the massive cost that an Emissions Trading Scheme could impose on farming.

While that cost will be biggest for livestock producers if methane is included from 2015, all farmers will cop it on the inputs like fertiliser, diesel and freight from 2010 (although a rebate on on-farm fuel use will be offered for the first three years).

Queensland Farmers Federation has been arguing that the Government needs to look at more cost effective alternatives, such as uptake of better farm practices on soil, water, feedstock, nutrients and vegetation. A lot of this is not counted under the Kyoto protocol’s accounting rules, making emissions trading even more troublesome for farmers.

While the Government has acknowledged that farming faces particular challenges and will not be included fully in the ETS in 2010, it has not offered full compensation for the cost impost then (even though the ETS will make us less competitive in export markets).

Nor, has it been prepared to seriously consider alternative approaches for the future.

Incidentally, your article was heavily critical of the National Farmers’ Federation’s stance on the ETS. I think this is a bit unfair.

QFF is not a member of the NFF, but we are very supportive of the huge amount of work NFF has put into its
comprehensive 47-page submission on the Government’s emissions trading green paper delivered last week.

That submission covers all the big issues in an informed technical way building up a compelling case for a better approach.

Clearly though, farmers have a long way to go to persuade Canberra that emissions trading might not be the best thing since sliced bread for our sector.

As the Farm Institute’s research and similar work done in New Zealand shows, failure to get this policy right could be devastating for the profitability of our sector.

And that would be on top of what ABARE tells us will be the very substantial cost of adapting to climate change and increased climate variability for our sector.

John Cherry

CEO Queensland Farmers Federation.

.

Have Your say!

.

In releasing an explosive new report the Australian Farm Institute (AFI) yesterday warned that the Rudd governments proposed Emissions Trading Scheme will do more damage to the farming sector than any drought. Institute Head Mick Keogh said:

.

“Our economic modelling shows farm profitability under the proposed trading scheme could drop to zero.

Reductions in farm profitability of between 5 per cent and 10per cent are projected even with quite modest emission prices,” Mr Keogh said.

The sector, which is fully trade-exposed, is going to be significantly impacted.”

.

The Australian Farm Institutes’s economic modeling on the impact of the proposed ETS on Australian farmers has borne out what Agmates has been saying as far back as the 5th of July “ETS will kill family farms”

In that article no doubt some readers may have thought I was being a little melodramatic. The AFI used 10 model farm businesses and three future emissions price scenarios to come up with their findings. Those findings back up what we said two months ago.

.

“Under scenarios where farmers are required to pay the full cost of estimated farm emissions, the modelling projects farm profit reductions of more than 100 per cent, especially for farms running sheep and cattle,”

.

I find it incredible that this modeling had to be carried out by the AFI. I have been requesting the same information from the state farming bodies only to be told that it was being done by the National Farmers Federation (NFF).

The NFF have repeatedly ignored my requests for information on what they were doing in relation to modeling the impacts of an ETS on farmers. If you look at the NFF’s web site you’ll see that you have to go back to the 14th of July to see their last press release on the subject.

This is the Australian Farmers supossed national peak lobby group who to date remain mute on the biggest issue to ever impact on the Australian farming sector.

This is a disgraceful situation and Australian farmers will suffer from the NFF’s ineptitude.

The Farm Institute’s findings mirror recent modelling from New Zealand’s Ministry of Agriculture, which showed profitability across all farm types plummeting under an ETS.

New Zealands peak farming body Federated Farmers of NZ is dismayed by the passing of ETS legislation there last week.

President Don Nicholson fears the ETS coupled with an already struggling NZ economy will turn his country into a 3rd world economy. He had this to say:

.

“Agriculture, like the rest of New Zealand, will be affected from day one through higher input costs.

If New Zealand wants to try and remain a first world country, rather than a third world country, the simple fact is it needs agriculture to prosper and grow.

This flawed bill simply isn’t going to help the nation’s prospects.”

.

Meanwhile Queensland Farmers Federation chief executive John Cherry thinks the ETS is insanity.

.

“John Cherry said the concerns of the rural sector were being ignored by the Government, even though the costs associated with an ETS will start to hit within 18 months.

“We will be less competitive on world markets from 2010,” Mr Cherry said.

“With 70 per cent of agricultural produce exported, there is no opportunity to pass these costs on.

It’s going to cost a fortune. It is an insanity.”

.

We have already discussed what impact the ETS’s in Australia and New Zealand will have on Global emissions - almost zero.

As I’ve said all along - Putting a carbon cost on farming in Australia and New Zealand where we are both 100% trade exposed is the greatest threat to farming we have ever seen, worse than any drought or supposed threat from climate change.

With modeling showing a 100% drop in farm profitability it will be the end of family farm in both countries. Why isn’t the NFF in Australia doing more to stop this?

It’s not as if we haven’t called on them to act before.

[5th July 2008] NFF Must save Australian Agriculture.

Why is it left to the Australian Farm Institute and the QLD Farmers Federation to take up the fight for Australian Farmers? - because there is no one else willing to do it.

.

Have Your say!

.

Emission Trading Schemes in Australia and New Zealand will have almost zero impact on global CO2 emissions. So why are both countries charging into enacting legislation that will harm our economies and decrease our standard of living?

In what can only be described as an act of madness New Zealand politicians passed Emissions Trading legislation last week to become the 28th Nation in the world to do so.

The other 27 nations are the member states of the European Union.

New Zealand out of 207 nations is ranked 69th in global CO2 emissions and accounts for just 0.1% of global emissions.

New Zealand is the first nation outside of the European Union to enact an emissions scheme, Australia will be the second.

Australia is ranked 19th on the world scale of emitters with 1.2% of global emissions.

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd tells Australians that we have to lead the world in cutting greenhouse gas emissions. Professor Ross Garnaut has said that we can’t make deep cuts unless the major emitters also follow suit.

The top 20 emitting nations account for 79% of global emissions. Of those 5 EU nations, Germany 3.1%, United Kingdom 2.2%, Italy 1.7%, France 1.4% & Spain 1.2% are in the top 20 global emitters with a total of 9.6%. The other 22 Nations that make up the European Union emit 5.1%. Total EU emissions are 14.7%.

That leaves 15 nations including Australia accounting for 69.4% of global emissions.

If you take off Australia’s 1.2% that leaves 14 Nations contributing 68.2% of emissions, while the remaining 187 nations contributing just 21% between them.

Map of Global CO2 Emissions by Country.

Key to Map in Metric Tons.

For example The USA and China emit over 5,000,000 each in metric tons a year.

Australia emits just over 300,000 tons a year.

New Zealand emits less than 10% of Australia’s emissions at just over 30,000 tons a year.

.

One would imagine that it will be these 14 nations that the Australia & New Zealand governments hope to convince / influence into adopting a legislated emissions trading Scheme:

USA, China, Russia, India, Japan, Canada, South Korea, Mexico, South Africa, Iran, Indonesia, Brazil, Ukraine, & Saudi Arabia.

Don’t hold your breath waiting for world super powers USA, China and Russia agreeing any time soon on an agreement on anything, let alone introducing a scheme that will harm their economies.

It is just incredibly naive or stupid of prime ministers Kevin Rudd and Helen Clark to believe they have much if any influence on any of the 14 major emitting nations.

If Australia and New Zealand were to cut their emissions 10% by 2020 we would have reduced global emissions by 0.13% whilst stifling our economies and lessening our standard of living to achieve it.

Harming our economies as ‘first movers’ will be judged by history as incredible acts of stupidity.

.

Have Your say!

.

The New Zealand Parliament has flung the country head long into an Emissions Trading Scheme.

.

.

Wednesday 10th September 2008. -

The Government’s flagship climate change legislation has been passed into law.

The bill that sets up the emissions trading scheme (ETS) was the last essential item that had to be passed before the election and it went through its third reading tonight on a 63-57 vote.

Electricity comes under it in 2010, transport in 2011 and agriculture in 2013.

.
.
New Zealand now joins 27 others nations that have adopted emissions trading schemes.

(thanks to Agmates reader Jeff)

Agmate Jeff’s Comment:

The mindset shows through in the statement “charging the polluter”, indicating CO2 is a pollutant. Grin and bear it, we’re next.

.
Have Your say!
.

Cobar Western NSW, local farmer Alastair McRobert (pictured) spokesperson for the Commonwealth Property Protection Association writes:

On Tuesday 26th August in the Federal Court the Honourable Justice Emmett J brought down his decision on weather the matter of Peter Spencer v The Commonwealth proceeds to Trial.

The decision contains a finding important to all farmers concerned with obtaining the benefit of carbon sequestration rights in respect of their land.

In paragraph 149 of the decision there is a strong endorsement of the Property Rights of Peter Spencer as quoted.

149

“I consider that Mr Spencer has established that there is a serious question to be tried as to whether he has suffered such sufficient detriment as a consequence of the 1997 Vegetation Act and the 2003 Vegetation Act as might constitute a taking or acquisition in respect of Saarahnlee.

Further to the extent that there was a benefit to be derived from the grant of carbon sequestration rights by undertaking voluntary restraint, it is certainly arguable that Mr Spencer has been deprived of that benefit.

Whether the restriction is such as to constitute a taking or acquisition or expropriation may depend upon detailed evidence of value.

Nevertheless there is at least a seriously arguable case for concluding that there has been an acquisition of property of Mr Spencer’s”.

.

Nonetheless the Judge then held that Peter had no right to claim compensation for the loss of those property rights from the Commonwealth because the intergovernmental agreement between NSW and the Commonwealth, which led to the acquisition of property, was not authorized by any Commonwealth statute.

The case was stood over by the Judge until Thursday for further argument.

On Thursday counsel Peter King successfully argued that there was grounds for appeal and the Judge accepted his argument and granted an appeal.

The question of compensation is under appeal as it is a fundamental principle of our democratic society, embedded in the Constitution section 51(xxxi), that if the Commonwealth takes property including any property right whether by law or otherwise it should pay Just Terms Compensation.

.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………..

.

Have Your say or ask Alastair a question.

.

New Zealand Politician Rodney Hide (pictured below) tells it like it is. Rodney is the leader of the ACT party. Yesterday he spoke in Parliament on New Zealands proposed Emissions Trading Scheme.

.

I think I will be the only person speaking in this debate [in the NZ parliament] who has any qualifications in environmental science.

It is not that that should count, but I think that it is significant for what I am about to say-that is, that the entire climate change - global warming hypothesis is a hoax, that the data and the hypothesis do not hold together, that Al Gore is a phoney and a fraud on this issue, and that the emissions trading scheme is a worldwide scam and swindle.

Enacting this legislation will cost New Zealanders dear-that is the point of it - and it will drive up the costs of basic goods and services for New Zealanders probably by at least $500 or $600 a year.

It will put businesses in New Zealand out of business, and put farmers off their farms. And it will do all this for no impact on world weather, for no environmental gain, and for no conceivable advantage to New Zealand or to the world.

.

Aren’t we hearing exactly the same thing from a few brave Australians.

Then Hide cuts loose on the science and Kevin Rudds beloved IPCC report. Remember Prime Minister Rudd is not a scientist by his own admission he just relies on THIS science:

.

That is bad, but it is the impact that this legislation and this policy will have on New Zealanders that is so truly shocking. All we have in this is a computer model. That is notoriously difficult, because the answers are written in the assumptions. Let me give members just one example.

The problem for the first two Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change reports was what was called the medieval warming period, where a thousand years ago the Earth was warmer than it is now.

Then, magically, an obscure physicist in the US came up with a new bit of analysis - the hockey stick - that showed world temperature to be flat and then rising dramatically as the world became industrialised. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change grabbed this, put it on the front of its document, and repeated it five times.

Researchers all around the world were puzzled by this, because it did not fit any of their data. Eventually they got hold of that computer model and they discovered this: any numbers fed into that model would produce the hockey stick.

We could take the Wellington telephone directory, feed it into the model that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change used in 2001, and we would get the hockey stick that saw the world running scared, that saw policy-makers running scared, and saw Al Gore make his movie based on it.

The science was rubbish, because a computer model is not science. Science is about theories, hypothesis, and the testing of these against the facts. That is not what has happened in the basic science here.

.

Wow - Rodney should come and give some of this plain speak to the Australian Parliament. I mean just a hint of distention in our Parliament gets you branded a “redneck” or a “denier” by the Rudd government and the Greens.

(thanks to Agmates reader Jeff)

.

…………………………………………………………………………………..

.

Have Your say!

.

.

Agmates “Onya” award today goes to Queensland Nationals Senator Ron Boswell.

Senator Ron Boswell has spoken out after Conservation group WWF has blamed climate change for the coldest August in Sydney for more than 60 years.

.

“The freezing temperatures are proof of the urgent need to cut carbon pollution, according to WWF development and sustainability program manager Paul Toni.”

.

Now wait a minute, commonsense would tell us that Labors Carbon Emission Reduction Scheme is being forced upon us to cut CO2 emissions that is causing Global warming? Ron Boswell thinks so too and is brave enough to state the bleeding obvious.

.

“I thought we were concerned with the perils of global warming, that we had to act immediately to stop temperatures and water levels rising and inflicting untold disaster,’

Now the WWF wants us to believe that manmade carbon emissions are responsible for colder temperatures.

.

It did not take Labor long to vilify Boswell over his comments. Victorian Labor Senator Gavin Marshall a former Victorian assistant secretary of the Electrical Trades Union (ETU) yesterday accused Senator Boswell of being a “redneck”.

This is typical of the GW “alarmist”. No sustance just a personal attack on anybody who dares to speak the obvious truth.

Senator Boswell speaking on a Bill amending greenhouse gas reporting by companies went on to say;

.

“The governments green paper is a recipe for colossal damage to our ket competitive industries.”

.

Senator Boswell wins an “Onya” from the Agmates community for common sense and the courage to speak out.

“Onya” Ron.

.

……………………………………………………………………………..

.

Have Your Say!

.

Jennifer Marohasy (pictured) in her article ‘Case of the warm and fuzzy’ in the weekend Australian contributes to the growing tide of media that is causing the Rudd Government a diabolical problem - they’re credibility .

.

Even Global warming believer and Editor of The Australian Paul Kelly writes:

.

“Climate change, the dream political issue for Kevin Rudd at the 2007 election, has been transformed into a political and policy nightmare.

Make no mistake, the Rudd Government is now trapped by its pledge to proceed with an emissions trading scheme by 2010, before most of the rest of the world and, in particular, ahead of most of our trading partners.

It faces a dilemma with no escape: it must either alienate the green lobby and climate-change believers to whom it has pandered, or proceed without sufficient support from corporate Australia in the teeth of warnings about corporate financial risk.”

.

Jennifer Marohasy’s article debunks three pet claims made by Rudd, the Media and the Green religion -

.

“Three claims have been repeated so often they are accepted as fact:

• global temperatures are rising,
  
• we have less rainfall and so water is becoming scarce,
  
• and salinity in the Murray River is rising.”

.

Marohasy goes on to show the actual data for each senario:

Global temperatures are not warming but infact cooling. The graph below shows what has happened to global temperatures since Al Gore Released his alarmist movie “An inconvenient Truth“.

.

.

Then onto rainfall in eastern Australia and the Murray Darling Basin.

.

“But, contrary to the Stern report, this chart [below from the Bureau of Meteorology] does not show declining rainfall; rather, it indicates that rainfall was very low in the early 1900s, that there were some very wet years in the late ’50s and early ’70s, and overall the trend is one of a slight increase in rainfall during the past 107 years.

Stern got it wrong, perhaps because he was confusing output from computer models with the real-world data. There are a lot of computer models that foretell dire environmental catastrophe that may not eventuate.

.

Now for rainfall & Salinity in the Murray Darling Basin (pictured Below):

.

Average rainfall in the Murray Darling Basin:

.

And Salinity in the Murray Darling Basin at Morgan in South Australia:

.

Oh if only it would get hotter so that 1,000’s would die of heat stroke, if only sea levels would rise dramatically and drowned a few 1,000 houses, if only the drought would spread right across Australia, if only we’d get more frequent and intense cyclones life would get so much easier for Kevin Rudd and his government implementing they’re - - job killing Emissions Trading Scheme.

.

Read the Whole Australian Article here - it is very good.

……………………………………………………………………………………

.

Have Your say! After you’ve read the entire article why not come back here and tell us what you think!

.

.

Congratulations to Tara Brown (pictured) and the 60 minutes team for they’re program last night - Crunch Time.

60 Minutes is Australia’s most-watched current affairs show and for years has run a Global Warming / the climate is doomed agenda. The program last night was a significant turning point in mainstream media’s reporting of the Global warming caused by human debate.

To date only bloggers like us and the Australian Newspaper have been the only media who have dared too contradict the global warming “consensus”.
.

TARA BROWN: For almost 20 ears now, we have travelled to these places. Places, which - if you believe the dire warnings of global warming - may be doomed. Certainly our Prime Minister Kevin Rudd believes them.

PM KEVIN RUDD: But economic cost (sic) of not acting is massive, it’s through the roof. Think about food production, the Murray, think about the impact on tourism in QLD, no more Barrier Reef, Kakadu, no more Kakadu. Think about the impact on jobs, it’s huge.

.

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd (pictured) and his Labor government are trying too deceive viewers by suggesting they’re carbon tax will make the slightest difference to the climate. The only impact of the new tax will be reducing Australian jobs and dramatically increasing our cost of living and not, as he claims saving jobs.
.

TARA BROWN: How certain are you that mankind is the cause behind global warming?

PM KEVIN RUDD: Well, I just look at what the scientists say. There’s a group of scientists called the International Panel on Climate Change - 4000 of them.

.

Stop right there! What was blindingly obvious from the interview is that Rudd does not have a grasp of the actual facts. Who knows where he got the figure of 4,000 IPCC scientists? The IPCC report he refers to was signed by 2,500 people which according to DR David Evens is made up over over 50% UN bureaucrats, leaving less than 1,200 scientists.

Rudds Bulls**t exaggeration wasn’t picked up by Brown nor the fact that the IPCC report which Rudd hangs his whole need to self harm our economy has a number of the actual 2,500 who strongly disagree with IPCC reports conclusion.

.

Despite that Kevin Rudd BELIEVES the IPCC report to be gospel.
.

PM KEVIN RUDD: … And what they (IPCC scientists) say to us is it’s happening and it’s caused by human activity.

.

To 60 Minutes credit they tried to give the program balance by interviewing Australia’s NO1 alarmist and as it turns out joker - Tim Flannery (pictured):
.

DR TIM FLANNERY: Stop burning coal and other fossil fuels and stop putting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere because that is what is warming the atmosphere and that is what’s driving the changes.

.

Just a few Flannery’s dire predictions that have proven to be fantasy:
.

In 2004 he warned global warming could leave Sydney’s dam’s dry by 2007 with bushfires circling the city and no water to put them out. Today they are 66% full.

He warned Perth would be so devastated by drought that it would be a “ghost city” in decades. In fact, this year Perth recorded its wettest April on record.

The ice caps would melt so fast that the seas would lap the roofs of “an eight-storey building”. In fact, the IPCC report says at worst case senario the seas will rise this century by 59cm.

Hurricanes & cyclones would become more frequent. In fact cyclones are less frequent and less severe than they use to be.. Thousands of scientists disagree with Flannery.

.
.

From there 60 Minutes moves into overdrive:
.

PROF. RICHARD LINDZEN: We need CO-2. It’s not a poison, it’s not a pollutant. It’s essential for life on earth. I mean how much are we going to depend on people’s ignorance in order to produce panic?… Sounds like our own Viv Forbes.

DAVID EVANS: (T)here’s no evidence that carbon emissions cause any significant warming at all…

TARA BROWN: So statistically, in the last seven years, the flattening and perhaps even slight cooling of temperatures - is that significant?

DAVID EVANS: Yes, yes it is significant. Once it gets up to five years or so it’s really quite significant. Whatever was driving the temperatures up has taken a break for a while and meanwhile carbon emissions have continued and the level of carbon in the atmosphere has gone up about 5% since 2001, yet we see no more warming.

.

Tara Brown should never take up professional poker. Have a look at the 60 Minutes video and watch the incredulous look come across her face as Rudd trots out the dogma :
.

PM KEVIN RUDD: Here’s a measurement which people should just sit back and pay a bit of attention to - the 12 hottest years in human history have occurred in the last 13 years. That’s a fact.

.

Errrrr Sorry Kevin - That is not right.

.

TARA BROWN: It’s not my position to correct you Prime Minister but Ive been told that in fact during the middle ages the global temperatures were two to three degrees warmer than now. Certainly we’ve had the hottest 12 years in recent history but the planet’s been a lot hotter.

.

Caught out Rudd retreats back to his unsakeable belief in the IPCC report:
.

PM KEVIN RUDD: Well, I stand by what the International Panel of Climate Change Scientists have had to say. There will always be argy-bargy about elements of the detail.

.

.
CAUGHT talking Bulls**t Rudd describes it as “elements of the detail”? Obviously he’s heard nothing of the discredited “Hockey Stick” theory that Al Gore used in his film to scare the b-jesus out of people.

.

Tara Brown then completes the Job:
.

TARA BROWN: But one thing climate scientists agree on - if global warming is caused by CO-2 emissions then the CO-2 will leave a distinct signature their computer models predict a big red hotspot above the equator. The problem is thousands of weather balloons equipped with some very sophisticated thermometers have measured the temperatures in the atmosphere to test the theory, and guess what, no hotspots.

DAVID EVANS: There’s no hotspot, there’s no hotspot at all. It’s not even a little hotspot and it’s missing. We couldn’t find it.

.
Then Rudd tries to recover with this spin. I mean after watching his performance you have to ask - “Have they looked at ALL the detail” - Apparently not.

.

PM KEVIN RUDD: The key thing is, how do you bring carbon pollution down in an economically responsible fashion? And having looked at all the detail this is the best way forward.

TARA BROWN: But if you believe the sceptics, and carbon dioxide isn’t to blame for global warming then we face massive change for no good reason.

DAVID EVANS: Isn’t it a bit dopey to wreck the economy for a purely theoretical reason when the alleged symptom, warming, stopped six years ago.
.

.
.
60 Minutes has skipped miles ahead of any other mainstream media in Australia. Top marks.

For ages I’ve said that Rudds National Emissions Trading Scheme is the proverbial “Emperors New Cloths”.

Well last night Tara Brown & 60 Minutes pointed and said “look the Emperor has nothing on”.
.
………………………………………………………………….
.

.
Have Your say!