Amazing response from the public:
A social media campaign to fund a replacement for the abolished Climate Commission through private donations has proved a huge success with $900,000 raised in less than a week.
Amanda McKenzie, from the rebadged Climate Council, said the money was raised largely from small donors, with an average donation of about $50.
The funds were raised from about 20,000 individuals and far exceeded the original targets.
“Initially the councillors aimed to raise $500,000 in a week. That target was met after two days,” she said. “Once we got to $800,000 we upped the aim to $1 million on Facebook”.
There is a much greater level of support for action on climate change than our conservative politicians would have us believe.
See also their report on the IPCCs recently released Assessment Report (5th edition).
Watching the Deniers 
This is a massive kick in the teeth for Abbott and Hunt. They tried to shoot the messenger and failed miserably.
So we’re going to get the same advice at no cost to the taxpayer. How good is that!
Lib economic management at its best.
liberal denial of reality at it’s best
Good for morons who can now ignore all that free expert advice just as they would have when it was tax-payer funded. Personlly, I couldn’t give a flying you know what what those morons think. Thats the only bite you’ll get from me by the way. I don’t argue with idiots.
Oh my! You’ve cut me to the quick. 🙂
I think more people are reaching the conclusion that waiting for governments to do something is roughly equivalent to doing nothing and that it’s best to take the initiative. Rarely do politicians lead, mostly they play catch up and pretend they are in touch with the community. I hope this example of people being prepared to put their money where their mouth is makes a few politicians lie awake at night.
WTF
http://www.smh.com.au/national/carbon-emission-target-easier-than-thought-hunt-20130921-2u6w8.html
Hunt “Under direct action, a $2.55 billion fund will be set up to buy emissions reductions from companies and farmers. Companies will also be given an emissions intensity baseline and will face penalties if they breach it”
.
This is a direct contradiction of the policy not to impose penalties but only to provide incentives
someone ask hunt on twitter?
have tried an email
Dear Greg, reading the smh I found this quote
http://www.smh.com.au/national/carbon-emission-target-easier-than-thought-hunt-20130921-2u6w8.html
Hunt “Under direct action, a $2.55 billion fund will be set up to buy emissions reductions from companies and farmers. Companies will also be given an emissions intensity baseline and will face penalties if they breach it”
I can find no such reference to penalties within the policy document, is there an update to the direct action plan?
I hope he was being misleading because the only other explanation is that he does not have a clue
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-01/greg-hunt-carbon-emissions-misleading/4989750
Was that Abbott inspecting the indonesian military personal or was it paul hogan doing an impersonation ?
Alan Jones ranting as usual – spreading the myths of denial and putting the opinion of fossil-fuel funded Bob Carter ahead of climate scientists. It’s time ACMA got serious about enforcing 2GB’s broadcaster licence conditions.
Oh dear… may have to listen to see if they’ve made a Press Council worthy complaint 😉
“1982: Strong global warming since the mid-1970’s is reported with 1981 the warmest year on record”.
So 6 or 7 years of change is significant? In that case if we look at global temperature since 2005 we see a cooling trend.
Oh no, we’re doomed! The Ice Age Cometh!
Bill, you’re sounding more and more desperate.
It’s quite heart warming.
If I made comments about any kind of 6 year trend you’d laugh at me yet that’s exactly what is touted in the graphic. I think we all know that annual variability prevents any meaningful conclusions from being made from short term trends of any kind.
The comments were made in 1982,
it comes from a timeline of reports on global warming
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timeline.htm
No meaningful conclusions came from it at the time
That was my point john – in 1982 they were touting the fact that there had been *gasp* 6 years of warming! From the “mid-1970’s” to 1982. Not a very long period to get all excited and make claims of a trend.
If nothing else it shows the alarmist message started long ago.
i think that it shows that you did not have a clue where it came from and now instead of accepting you total lack of understanding you go off in a rant how they should have known in 1982 exactly what we know now
talk about making an even bigger fool of yourself
What’s your point, Bill? You think you can excerpt a quick observational history, and make a cheap point while ignoring the state of knowledge at the time, and the gains in knowledge of the last thirty years? 6 or 7 years of change in the direction of predictions of the time was interesting. It_just_was_notable. Now after another thirty years, the interest is more than justified. We know a lot more.
Put the observation in context: the climate field was small, the consensus of study [as documented in Peterson, Fleck and Connolley] was that warming was going to occur,and observers crunching numbers saw a global increase,while Ralph Keelings definitive measurement system noted CO2 increase.. Are they supposed to not make a note? There was no IPCC,just some interest at academy level, and some advice flowing through to government like Charney, all of it qualified and couched in cautious language. Concepts of climatic significance have been given a term since those times
bill is just a denier doing what deniers do
he still thinks that reporting facts is alarmist.
we have had six years of warming ,,,,do not tell anyone they will think we are alarmist
last year was the warmest year….. do not tell anyone they will think we are alarmist
bill has the IQ of a retarded gnat
I’m looking forward to them posting a list of their larger donners. They will do that, won’t they? After all they always demand it from skeptic think tanks.
no donors over $1000 at the current time average donation $50
was that larger donners or dongers?
“skeptic think tanks”
big admission that one, interchangeable with climate denial think tanks …
a lot of people are going to suffer while politicians squabble
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-01/us-government-in-shutdown-after-dispute-over-obamacare/4991400#map
The GOP is exercising the madness that the conservative brain imposes. Whatever it takes, the procedural codification of the tantrum. No conservative belief is wrong, regardless the evidence….and they are normalising bad faith action throughout economies, leading to the destruction of trust, the spreading of despair and the hamstringing of their own ideal economic dreams.
still going on
My question is to Bill Jamison,
Why do you continue to haunt the comments section of this site? The science of global warming is over 150 years old, and was settled over 30 years ago. Your continual and monotonous protestation will never change the facts. Most intelligent people have moved on, accepted the fact and are now rolling up their sleeves to do something about it. You on the other hand act like a nasty dumpy troll with a vendetta. No capacity for rational thought or insight. Start acting like an adult, move on and direct your juvenile frustration somewhere else. I hear that burning ants with a magnifying glass in pretty good. We’ve all seen your type many times before. Hanging around forums like a bad smell with evangelical determination, posting pointless, inane and bigoted ramblings. You enjoyment is to taunt and provoke, and never giving any respect. Is there something mentally wrong with you? Where you abused as a child? Why do you persist? Why not just cut your losses and do something constructive with your life.
[…] 2013/09/30: WtD: People power part 2: climate council raises $1 million in a week […]