Warburton says energy market modeling as bad as climate modeling

Climate change skeptic Dick Waburton has been at pains to say that his views on climate science have not influenced the outcome of the RET Review panel he headed.

But he was only too happy to conflate the two issues in a television interview with far right commentator, climate denier and renewable energy hater Andrew Bolt on Sunday.

Bolt wanted to know why Australians were being “forced” to use more green power, which was costing money and not lowering global temperatures.

“Either I am mad or we are looking at one of the greatest frauds of our lifetime,” Bolt said, much to the amusement of  Warburton.

Screen Shot 2014-09-02 at 1.37.04 PM

A smiling Warburton agreed that the RET made only a “small reduction to emissions”, and “not a lot of difference in global warming at all.”

He described the RET – and the prospect of injecting more electricity into an oversupplied market – as a “market distortion that we do not need.”

He then went on to respond to Bolt’s question about the rise in global temperatures:

Warburton: “As I read the facts coming through, temperatures  have not risen since 1998, it’s just been just a flat area, even though carbon emissions have gone up, the temperatures have not. Which is quite against what the modeling has said.”

Bolt: “So if temperatures have not risen much, why have we spent $9 billion on a scheme that makes zero difference? What the hell are we doing this for?”

Warburton: “Well, the suspicion was that the temperatures would rise, but they haven’t done so – the same was the effect that electricity demand would rise, but hasn’t done so. So, the models going back to 2010, or earlier on the temperature thing, were wrong. What we are attempting to do is to bring it back into proper perspective again.”windmills

Bolt:  “Shouldn’t your report say, ‘this is crazy, end it now’?”

Warburton: “Well, I don’t say it is crazy, in the report, I keep words down to a more basic level. We do say it is a time for a change. Why should we spend this amount of money to pump more electricity into an oversupplied market? We do say it should be ended now.”

Bolt: “If the government takes your recommendation on board, with luck we will see no more wind farms despoiling the countryside.”

Warburton: “If they take the first option, that is correct.”

Later, Bolt asked Warburton whether – having been described as a climate science denier and a former oil industry executive (he is a former chairman of Caltex) – he had a vested interest?

Warburton: “I have no vested interests at all in this. I just like to study the facts. And the facts at this stage are speaking for themselves.”

Comments

13 responses to “Warburton says energy market modeling as bad as climate modeling”

  1. Lachlan Avatar
    Lachlan

    Not often I agree with Andrew Bolt, but I can’t fault him on “Either I am mad or we are looking at one of the greatest frauds of our lifetime”. Correct Andrew. You are mad.

  2. Steven Zilm Avatar
    Steven Zilm

    Now Tony, you’ve put Dick Warburton in charge of the RET Review. And what is the result…. Chaos! What’s next?….. Putting Rolf Harris in charge of the Royal Commission on Child Abuse?

  3. michael Avatar
    michael

    As written here, all of these statements are in themselves true, no?

    A smiling Warburton agreed that the RET made only a “small reduction to emissions”, and “not a lot of difference in global warming at all.”
    He described the RET – and the prospect of injecting more electricity into an oversupplied market – as a “market distortion that we do not need.”

    The other section where he starts talking about whether or not temperatures are rising is where he loses it

  4. Alan Baird Avatar
    Alan Baird

    Well one way or another, we’re… oh I forgot, I’ve already used that line. However, if I was on The Blot’s show I could say the same thing every day and providing it was a fact free zone, he’d never object. And yeah, the scientists are the frauds and the miners and pollution generators are only interested in telling the truth… which brings to mind the old howler that the Blot Lot have used again and again. The theory is, scientists are only pushing the climate change line in order to attract MONEY. The miners of course are only in it for the ah, let me think what they usually say, that’s right, the JOBS for good Aussie workers and good Aussie families and to ah, develop our STANDARD OF LIVING but NOTHING so TAWDRY as MONEY. Bet those greedy scientists’ hands are shaking when they see those HUGE payslips each fortnight. But those fiscal fools of the coal mining industry are just interested in giving stuff away like jobs and have NO interest in profit. Perish the thought. To complete the picture, of course NO ONE in the shock jock brigade would EVER accept money from er, mining (and kindred industries) interests would they? What never? Well, hardly ever! They’re not interested in money either! Such selfless souls. The above scenario is similar to the wonderful politicians and “mates” that had money-making schemes for NSW Maritime (and that ain’t all) and accused the bureaucrat that ran it of corruption! He who accuses first wins. What a wonderful world we live in.

  5. suthnsun Avatar
    suthnsun

    The problem for people who can’t deal with processes is they resort to ‘ facts’ , then the problem is, one needs a very large slab of facts to adequately describe a process and no one I know of has the cognitive power to hold those facts in active contemplation, hence inevitably cherry picking results…
    Increasing age does not help..

    1. Chris Fraser Avatar
      Chris Fraser

      Nor does it help that a malicious government picks a small group of biased skeptics rather than utilise expert views available within the CCA, who then pick an economic modeller who alerts us to all the positives in the RET, but whose results are completely ignored by the Panel before they simply put out their preordained ideological results. They live in a world of their own.

  6. Rob G Avatar
    Rob G

    Nothing more than a conversation between two idiots. Does anyone actually watch this stuff?

    1. Chris Fraser Avatar
      Chris Fraser

      I got the impression all the questions were scripted …

  7. Alen Avatar
    Alen

    Warburton: “I just like to study the facts. And the facts at this stage are speaking for themselves.”
    Am I the only one that finds these words laughable? I ask him to back his climate skepticism with proper facts contradicting the IPCC conclusion that global warming is occurring mostly due to human activity. I also do not understand why he’s still referred to as a climate change skeptic, besides smear campaigns and recycled arguments there is no valid argument disproving the anthropogenic global warming claim (backed with a 97% scientific consensus), so what is the justification in still referring to him as a skeptic and not another plain old denier?

  8. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Warburton is an embarrassment to the aged and his ‘review’ a dangerously incompetent farce: http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2014/9/2/policy-politics/dick-warburtons-10-minutes-woe

  9. Dark green Avatar
    Dark green

    Warburton is evidence for the unemployability of the aged and his review an obvious sham: http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2014/9/2/policy-politics/dick-warburtons-10-minutes-woe

  10. Chris Turnbull Avatar
    Chris Turnbull

    When is a Bolt a nut?

  11. Rob Avatar
    Rob

    I knew there must be some reason for his lame-brained view of the world. The tragedy is our government subscribes to the same view.

Get up to 3 quotes from pre-vetted solar (and battery) installers.