JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Australia picks last possible moment to leap ONTO burning ship

Gillard — the Australian Prime Minister — got the timing perfectly wrong.

Within two weeks of the Carbon Tax finally becoming Law, it’s becoming hard not to notice that the whole Global Scam is fragmenting. This Carbon ship is on fire,  the lifeboats are leaving, the rats are jumping, and the Australian team just turned up with the family jewels. Their policies are “take no prisoners” and “bring no life jackets”. Their exit plan is to have No Exit.

Sergey Abramov (ship, 1960) ...By Leksey

It’s hard to imagine how the timing could have been more quintessentially insane, or their  “Leadership of Clean Energy” more poignantly inane.

After subterranean lakes of Shale Gas were discovered two months ago under Lancashire in the UK , even half-tinted-Green governments started stepping backwards from diabolical renewables deals. Nearly everyone popped up and said No No No to Kyoto. “Let’s be frank” said EU Climate Commissioner Connie Hedegaard, “At best we could only get the EU, Norway and maybe two or three more countries to sign up for a second Kyoto period.” The Bloomberg article about the collapse of the Kyoto agreement discusses 14 nations and two continents, but Australia wasn’t  one of them. So much for setting examples for the world.

Meanwhile, renewables are so openly on the nose that even  the Duke of Edinburgh not only said windfarms are absolutely useless, but he got away with it. Windfarms are unpopular in Spain, the UK (here and here), Vermont, Scotland, New Zealand, and even the-iconic-home of-windmills the Netherlands. Solyandra sank like a concrete block. Google are pulling out of renewables, then on top all that, the IPCC shocked everyone by admitting they don’t know if the weather will get warmer or cooler for the next thirty years.

And that was just last week.

This week, FOIA popped up and released another 5,000 emails of self-serving scientists behaving badly (and another 200,000 encrypted ones, no password yet, just in case). Ross McKitrick put out a carefully cutting report on how the IPCC needs to be reformed or abandoned. Then another report pops out by Schmittner and co, saying that actually, the worst case scenario is just 1.7 – 2.6 degrees not 4 ,5, 6, or 11 degrees.  Carbon trading value is crashing

The EU is teetering on financial collapse, and panic selling sees the price of carbon is hitting record lows (€ 7.040 in the EU, and in New Zealand just $9US). The carbon price has dropped by half since June.  There is an oversupply of carbon credits and trading houses are asking how low the price can go? UBS is suggesting a price of €3 (A$4). Australians will pay a fixed price of $15 per ton, set by people who keep telling us that a free market is the “best solution”. (If only they knew what a free market was.)

The word carbon is so unpopular that even the Carbon Market and Investors Association changed its name — they think “Climate Market” has a better ring to it (oh boy, do we have news for them).

Poetically, record snow is falling in the Northern Hemisphere (eg in Canada and Russia).

How times are changing

Headlines in The Australian newspaper rather put a fine point on it. The three stories below were all just on Friday; the top story about exaggerating the forecasts was on the front page. For the fans of man-made Global warming who say The Australian is biased in favour of skeptics, I say just wait until The Australian starts reporting the other side of the story for real (they look they might be working up to it). We haven’t seen anything yet. Fans of catastrophic warming prophecies will soon yearn for the days when The Australian only printed the occasional politically-skeptic article among their reprints of unquestioned government propaganda.

(The Australian, like the rest of the media world, never publishes anything that seriously questions the official science — they’ll print graphs of bond yields, but not graphs of heroic air-temperature predictions that failed, Argo ocean temperature data, or, gasp, the missing hotspot. Why do we get photo’s of X-factor stars, but we can’t spare the space to show photos of corrupt surface thermometers sitting in hot air next to air conditioner outlets?)

Climate forecasts ‘exaggerated’: Science journal

They concluded that current worst-case scenarios for global warming were exaggerated.

“Now these very large changes (predicted for the coming decades) can be ruled out, and we have some room to breathe and time to figure out solutions to the problem,” the study’s lead author, Andreas Schmittner, an associate professor at Oregon State University, said.

The study found high-sensitivity models led to a “runaway effect” under which the Earth would have been covered in ice during the last glacial maximum, about 20,000 years ago, when CO2 levels were much lower.

“Clearly that didn’t happen, and that’s why we are pretty confident that these high climate sensitivities can be ruled out,” he said.

Professor Schmittner said taking his results literally, the IPCC’s average or “expected” value of a 3C average temperature increase for a doubling of CO2 ought to be regarded as an upper limit.

Scientists’ quest for influence in emails

LEAKED emails show climate scientists responding to “huge” political interest in linking extreme weather with climate change, contrary to a later UN report that found evidence of such connections is unlikely to clearly emerge for decades.

Politics muddies the debate

The latest emails demolish any lingering doubts that those at the heart of climate research have been focused as much on social advocacy and political spin as scientific finding.

 Image: Via Wikimedia

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.2/10 (128 votes cast)
Australia picks last possible moment to leap ONTO burning ship, 9.2 out of 10 based on 128 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/cp2f76d

146 comments to Australia picks last possible moment to leap ONTO burning ship

  • #

    The UNEP’s latest report on “climate enforcers”(HERE) names black carbon, methane and ozone emissions. Not a mention of CO2! Hmmm..


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MadJak

    Honestly, I’ve said this hundreds of times.

    The following phrases are for scientifically illiterate imbeciles:

    “Taxing Carbon Pollution”
    combatting “Climate change”
    “Taxing Carbon”
    “C02 is a pollutant”
    “Carbon is a pollutant”

    Anyone in public light referring to these things as being in any way a serious statement (without seeing them as being seriously stupid and ignorant statements), should be left to go and breed with their cousins.

    Surely anyone at Durban with any ounce of intelligence must see these comments and catch phrases for what they are? Ignorant catch phrases being repeated by the technically challenged ignorami?

    I know, I know, the durban crowd are the similar technocratic leeches that brought us Consolidated Debt Obligations and Europe borrowing it’s way out of debt…..


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Juliar

    I think whenever I come across someone who is a climate alarmist, I will lead them onto this site. Unveils and picks apart every part of this scam. Well Done Jo!


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Labor must be groaning as each new day dawns, as everything they promise is shot to shreds with each new revelation.

    I’m not a betting man (these days anyway) but I’m willing to bet that within 5 minutes of the election being called, Tony Abbott’s opening line will be, “There will be no Carbon Tax under a Government I lead.”

    Tony.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      jl

      Lets be clear about the opposition. They fully accept the findings of the IPCC, they will tax us to ‘reduce carbon’. If they remove the carbon tax (unlikely, considering how it was nailed into place forever) they will rename it and use it for other green eco-loony stunts.
      No government has ever abolished a tax revenue!
      The opposition will not open the can-of-worms that is climate-change because it does not need to. The opposition can get into the drivers seat, and keep the tax.
      Until I hear one word questioning the gospel-of-climate-change from the opposition I know that my vote is worth nothing.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Streetcred

        We haven’t heard their policy direction subsequent to the latest Carbon News. I don’t think that Abbott is nearly as stupid as Gillard, and the TAX will be repealed.

        When one considers the amount of disinformation that has been spread by the csiro, flimfammery, garnaut, et al., then one can understand the initial response of the Libs to accept the ‘science’. Now that the TRUTH is rapidly emerging, I’m sure that the policy will likewise be adjusted.

        Labor on the other hand is so heavily invested by way of $, ego, self interest, and unadulterated BS that it has nowhere to go.

        BRING ON THE ELECTION !


        Report this

        00

      • #
        The Black Adder

        Lets be clear jl. U r a ignorant troll not even in the real world!!
        Let’s have a look at your silly post shall we…

        “Lets be clear about the opposition. They fully accept the findings of the IPCC, they will tax us to ‘reduce carbon’…”

        Have you ever heard Barnaby Joyce or Corey Bernardi talk of the CO2 scam. I don’t think so mate! They can see the scam from a mile away and I assure you, the opposition will not surrender Australia’s sovereignty or competitive advantage of cheap fired coal power. Climategate 2.0 is about to bring the whole facade down anyway mr jl.

        “The opposition will not open the can-of-worms….”

        If you pull a worm out of a can, you sure as hell can stuff that worm back into that damn can !!

        “…Until I hear one word questioning the gospel-of-climate-change from the opposition I know that my vote is worth nothing.”

        You obviously got to get out more, than the local Get-up night at Hungry Jacks after the Bowling.
        Once again, jl, go ask Barnaby for his views or Senator Abetz or Senator Bernadi or Warren Truss or Warren Entsch or every one in the damn party except for that turncoat Turnbull. He is the only one who actually believes this crap and that is because he is a banker!!
        God these guys suck! Follow the money jl and not your idealogy…..

        Go home Troll!
        Election Now Please Juliar.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          jl

          Dear Mr. Adder.
          That B. Joyce is able to express a contrary opinion to the liberal policy on climate change is indeed welcome.
          But if you go to the liberals site and look under the “environment’ heading (its easy to spot, it has a picture of windmills!)and read THE POLICY you will find lots of this stuff:
          “-stand for real action to tackle the complex challenges of climate change”
          “-climate change strategy based on direct action to reduce emmissions”
          “-will reduce CO2 emissions by 5% by 2020″
          “-will establish an emissions reduction fund”
          They further boast of having spent between 1996 and 2007 “$3.5 billion in action to address climate change” and promise another $2.5 billion more to come.
          What I could not find is anything doubting the science, or promising anything more than rebranding Gillards tax and spending it in slightly different ways.
          So, sorry Mr. Adder, but until something changes it appears you have a choice of government where the green stripes on their suits lean slightly to the left, or slightly to the right. Me? I see that as no choice at all.
          Almost all posts here are hell-bent on getting labour out, as if a new day will dawn and we can finally lay the climate-change zombie to rest.
          But as it stands, until the liberals change their policy to accord with the all too few examples of dissent, it will just be business as usual.
          If you can point out where I am wrong, please do.
          If you can’t, then continue with the random abuse, if it makes you feel better.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Juliar

            I agree partly with both you and Black Adder. The Libs are going to have a harder time pulling this carbon tax out but they maybe inclined to bring some sort of other legislation which may cost the general public for the benefit of the environment in to ‘stop climate change’. There are plenty of Liberal supporters who do believe in it and there are Liberal MP’s who are believers of CAGW such as Turnbull and Pyne therefore it is in the best intersts of the party to actually have policies about Climate Change and the Environment. Also the MSM has a strong control of maintaining the belief that CAGW is a real prospect so they need to loosely support that concept in order to havestrong support of the media and elections. Abbott clearly accepts that CAGW is a scam and it is in the parties (and the peoples) interests to take out a Carbon tax but I don’t think they will axe all possible future legislation regarding CO2. jl had some valid points Black Adder and abusing him/her is not fair.


            Report this

            00

      • #

        3 years ago who would have guessed that all the Republican Candidates in the 2012 US election would have to make out like skeptics, even if they weren’t? None of them can afford to look like gullible patsies.

        And so it shall come to pass in Australia too…


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          It’s that

          … make out like skeptics, even if they weren’t

          that scares me. Some of them are dyed-in-the-wool believers. A politician always sticks up a wet finger to see which way the wind is blowing and then, like a chameleon, changes color to match. But the underlying agenda never changes. If opportunity presents itself…well, you can fill in the rest.

          Beware those whose positions change with the wind. The wind is very fickle.


          Report this

          00

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          I agree with Roy.

          As far as I can tell, the general strategy has been for the US to be in the market, from the point of view of exchange transfers, and also to be “a major global carbon exchange” as well (although that didn’t quite pan out as expected). Even without having an ETS, the American economy stands to gain through the financial sector, just because it is there.

          The Democrats wanted to have it because it calls to their supporters, and people stand to make a lot of money when it goes ahead.

          The Republicans wanted to have it because it increases their influence on the global stage, and people will stand to make lot of money when it goes ahead.

          And nothing has happened geopolitically to change that, and probably wont until after the next Presidential election.

          It is all Sizzle and Sausage politics.


          Report this

          00

      • #
        Catamon

        Until I hear one word questioning the gospel-of-climate-change from the opposition I know that my vote is worth nothing.

        In fairness to the man, Tony Abbott did tell a meeting of the party faithful @ Hepburn Springs in 2007 that “climate change is crap”.

        But i’m not sure that he wrote it down, so you may not be able to take it as gospel truth by his standards??

        Be an interesting election come Sept/Oct 2013.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          J.H.

          Yep, Tony Abbott called it “crap” and Ray Bradley the climate scientist agrees with him….

          Phil:
          You commented that the Chinese series of Yang et al (GRL 2002) looked weird. Well, that’s because it’s crap–no further comment on what stuff gets into GRL!

          You appear to have used their so-called “complete” China record. You really should
          consider what went into this –2 ice core delta 18O records of dubious relationship to
          temperature (one is cited as correlating with NW China temperatures at r=0.2-0.4), 3
          tree ring series, one of which is a delta C-13 record of questionable climatic
          significance (to be generous). The other series include two records from a Taiwan
          lake–a carbon/nitrogen isotope and a total organic carbon series (interpreted as
          high=”warm, wet”) and an oxygen isotope series from cellulose in peat!!! (& don’t ask
          about the C-14 based chronology, interpolated to decadal averages!)

          God, this would all be funny if wasn’t costing us all a fortune.


          Report this

          00

        • #
          MadJak

          Once again relying on the central committee spin lines there catamon.

          It is my understanding that abbott said:

          “The argument is absolute crap”..

          On that, it appears even the chief “scientists” at the University of East Anglia would agree with him.

          REGIME CHANGE NOW!


          Report this

          00

      • #
        Cookster

        Let’s be clear WHY the Australian opposition needs to accept the findings of the IPCC. This is clearly a symptom of the success the warmists and their allies in the MSM have had in controlling the debate. Australians by nature are conservative folk who don’t vote for what is seen as unorthodox or extremist policy. Unfortunately through controlling what passes as science through the peer review process and revealed in the Climategate emails, the warmists can still claim science is on their side. For this reason any political party who directly challenges the science rightly or wrongly will be seen to lack credibility. Until ‘official’ scientific consensus on AGW changes any political party would be wise to tow the line.

        However something that can be done in smaller economies like Australia is to rule out any emissions controls until similar commitments have been make by China, US, India et al. I think this is what the Australian opposition has been asking for has it not?


        Report this

        00

      • #
        Hasbeen

        Do you really think there aren’t a number of reasonably intelligent members in the Labor camp..

        Difference they would get their you know what cut off, if they dared tell the truth, as they see it. That’s not the Labor way.


        Report this

        00

    • #
    • #
      handjive

      On ABC Insiders last week (20/11/11), Ian MacFarlane (LNP), Opposition energy and resources spokesman, confirmed the opposition WILL NOT OPPOSE the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA), which is part of the Government’s $10 billion carbon tax package

      He said it was ‘a good amendment’ (2.45 min).
      Cassidy asks the Billion dollar question of MacFarlane & the LNP ‘direct action’ or ARENA:

      Will it reduce global temperatures?

      No guesses what the answer is. We have all seen it before from GreenLaboUr.

      In his weekly blog in the Sydney Daily Telegraph, Tony Abbott, in response to a question from-
      speedy2460 of Grafton (NSW)
      Fri 18 Nov 11 (01:02pm):

      We’ll rescind the whole lot
      ( Tony Abbott 
Fri, 18 Nov 11 (02:51pm)

      The whole lot? That would be a negatory, big buddy.
      Politicians of all persuasions are beholden to this fraud.
      But, one target at a time. GreenLaboUr are #1 target at the moment…
      Just don’t forget.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    pattoh

    Looking on the bright side:-

    With parliament rising there will be a good period to culture/brew/fester a nice focussed solid opposition to the right royal rogering the Australian population is about to start getting.

    By the time they get back from their nice cheap European fact finding trips they may have a better sense of exactly what they have done to the future & economic sovereignty of the nation.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Siliggy

    My prediction is that the carbon price will go negative and continue to climb in the negative numbers.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    phil

    0073.txt Phil Jones sends email to UEA staff about carbon trading:
    http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=0073.txt&search=carbon+trading

    How is this not conflict of interest?

    http://blogs.nature.com/news/2011/11/european_carbon_market_plummet_1.html

    If you’re a scientist, not a market trader, you might hope this will have little direct effect on research. But if today’s low prices persist for a few more months, they will slash billions of euros from a European fund dedicated to clean energy projects. That’s because the fund, named NER300, is about to raise its cash by selling 300 million carbon credits on the ETS. Eight carbon capture projects and 34 renewables projects were set to benefit from the money. But at current prices, the sale would raise only €2.1 billion, instead of the €4.5 billion hoped for when the fund was proposed. Sales of the first 200 million carbon credits are due to start in December, and continue for the next 10 months, says Stig Schjølset, head of EU carbon analysis for the consultancy firm Thomson Reuters Point Carbon.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Lawrie

      phil,

      Doesn’t that just increase the supply of an already oversupplied commodity. The UBS report recently said it may take until 2025 for supply and demand to find equilibrium. At the rate things are going when 2025 rolls around the great carbon scam will be history and those who supported it will be writing memoirs with nary a mention of it. I hope lots of warmers bought credits back in May this year. Their portfolio has halved with much more bad news to come. The banks took 50% on Greek debt.I can’t wait for the Euro credits to reach a half Euro. All those rent seekers with their windmills must be starting to >>>> bricks.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Jaymez

    Excellent article Jo.

    It certainly appears that the chickens are finally coming home to roost, but my observation of alarmist sites over the past few days is they are not taking any of these matters seriously. They have already written off Schmittner’s paper as being erroneous and just one paper against hundreds. They believe the rise in negative publicity is simply the ‘big oil, right wing deniers’ build up to Durban. I want to warn sceptics against complacency, and against assuming that the above messages of truth will get through to our political leaders.

    Lets face it, the coalition still hasn’t built up the courage to officially state they do not believe in the climate alarmist dogma. They are simply pretending that they have a better way of reducing CO2 emissions. Until we can at least have the coalition go to the next election admitting there is insufficient evidence to believe CO2 will cause catastrophic climate change, the war has not been won. I don’t pretend to believe the current Government will ever step back from their current policy on CO2. So we need to keep writing those letters to the editors, and sending letters and emails to our politicians.

    It is important therefore that we continue writing to our politicians, both the Government and the Opposition to show the evidence does not support their current policies.

    Meanwhile the newly released Climategate 2 emails continue to provide insight into how the ‘climate science’ has been driven to date. Here is one which will be of particular interest given your submission to the Auditer General about the accuracy of BOM records:

    In an email to Phil Jones (CRU at East Anglia Uni), David Jones from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology slurs sceptics, states that BOM have a policy of making life difficult for people requesting data and then declares the drought (which has now ended) was evidence that climate change was running rampant in Australia.

    cc: “Shoni Dawkins”
    date: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 08:28:03 +100 ???
    from: “David Jones”
    subject: RE: African stations used in HadCRU global data set
    to: “Phil Jones”

    Thanks Phil for the input and paper. I will get back to you with comments next week.
    Fortunately in Australia our sceptics are rather scientifically incompetent. It is also
    easier for us in that we have a policy of providing any complainer with every single
    station observation when they question our data (this usually snows them) and the
    Australian data is in pretty good order anyway.

    Truth be know, climate change here is now running so rampant that we don’t need
    meteorological data to see it. Almost everyone of our cities is on the verge of running out
    of water and our largest irrigation system (the Murray Darling Basin is on the verge of
    collapse – across NSW farmer have received a 0% allocation of water for the coming summer
    and in Victoria they currently have 5% allocations – numbers that will just about see the
    death of our fruit, citrus, vine and dairy industries if we don’t get good spring rain).
    The odd things is that even when we see average rainfall our runoffs are far below average,
    which seems to be a direct result of warmer temperatures. Recent polls show that
    Australians now rate climate change as a greater threat than world terrorism.

    Regards,
    David

    This makes David Jones out to be the activist fool that we know he is rather than any sort of objective scientist.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Streetcred

      Whose the ignorant prat now, Jonesey? Stick to your ‘science’ because you sure as hell know little of anything else!

      I hope that your super’ is doing well ’cause you will, no doubt, be one the first to kissing his own ass hasta la vista!


      Report this

      00

    • #

      Exactly what is this guy a scientist of, tea leaf reading.

      Words cannot express how hopelessly useless our government organisations have become but I believe they’ve done it for the kudos and not the science.

      I won’t be happy until the ship is lying 5 kilometres deep with no hope of salvage.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    incoherent rambler

    wait until The Australian starts reporting the other side of the story for real

    What is it that makes you think they will (or can)?

    Half the journos at the A would resign rather than write an article that reports CAGW as a scam.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Winston

      I’m sure you are probably right. However, perhaps the Australian’s editors should call their bluff. Plenty more where they came from I’m sure. After all, it’s not like journalism is difficult, or requires a degree of professionalism, or curiosity or intelligence, now does it?


      Report this

      00

  • #

    Unfortunately Professor Schmittner’s paper is a unmitigated pile of horse dung. And that’s by the lower than whale excrement standards of climate “science”.

    The methodology is a joke.

    We need to fire aroud 95% of academics. The looming financial crisis will be a good opportunity as government spending is cut.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Streetcred

      Bring it on … self-serving academics, csiro clowns, and bureaucrats; Labor / Greens will be history so no point in naming them.

      One thing that I would love to see … Flannery having his “Australian of the Year” rescinded.

      No love here.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Jaymez

        Unfortunately that won’t happen and Flannery will be able to trade on his award forever, just as Gore does on his Nobel Peace prize.

        What would be a really worthwhile move is to rescind PhD’s and Professorships awarded to those found to have allowed their ideological positions influence their “science”. This would include those who deliberately didn’t cover dissenting views, did not properly review papers (either ones they blockaded, or once they ushered through), who applied unfair pressure on editors or academic staff, who didn’t declare conflicts of interest etc etc.

        Hansen, Jones and Mann would be a good place to start.


        Report this

        00

    • #

      Why only fire 95% of academics? Pol Pot and mao Tse Tung fired 100%…


      Report this

      00

      • #
        MadJak

        Pol Pot and Mao were both totalitarian nutcases.

        Interestingly, Pol Pots Agrarian utopian Ideal doesn’t appear to be far off the views of teh dark green catastrafarians.

        Mao would’ve been smiling at the concept of a centralling managed “Carbon tax”, I am sure.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    Sean McHugh

    I would love Gillard and all of Labor to see this. I left out Brown and the Greens because they aren’t just about themselves; they want to see Australia go down. Great article, Jo.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    I suspect climate issues are a distraction to avert our gaze from more important activities.

    Anyone who believes that the carbon tax and ETS is about mitigating possible weather effects has missed the point badly.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    The Schmittner paper is just as bad as the rest of them.
    Until they get “climate sensitivity” (I laugh at this every time) down to about one fifth of a poofteenth they’re not worth taking seriously.

    To me, “climate sensitivity” is a well designed emotive term just like “fragile nature”.
    IF (and that is a huge if) the climate was sensitive, it would have had its feelings hurt at some stage in the last 2.5 billion years when forcings/feedbacks of all sorts was thrown at it long before my ancestors climbed down from trees.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mervyn Sullivan

    What else could we expect from the most incompetent politicians Australia has ever had? We’ve seen one policy debacle after another from Labor… and it was always going to be the same on climate change.

    But let us be frank here… the opposition has also got it totally wrong about the science on climate change.

    Both sides of politics have been pushing the same bullshit for far too long. Both sides have refused to acknowledge what has been exposed since Copenhagen about the climate science, the IPCC and the IPCC’s reports. Both sides have refused to accept the real world observational data on climate in favour of the flawed model based scenarios relied upon by the IPCC that have now been shown to be wrong.


    Report this

    00

    • #

      I agree Mervyn although I think the Lib’s policy is better balanced than the Labor/Green’s it makes more sense to have Aussies getting paid to take action (if any is needed) than to pay someone overseas for some shoncky Carbon Credits at least the $10b will be staying here and employing Aussies.

      Change of my catch phrase because it’s now redundant.

      Vote Liberal for a strong future !! (It needs to be catchier, I might have to work on this)


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    Slightly off topic, but

    An Australian friend of mine, with family in Canberra, has told me that Gillard did not lie when she said, “There will be no Carbon Tax in a Government I lead”.

    The reason she did not lie is that Brown is actually the person leading the Government, not Gillard.

    I just thought it was worth sharing.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Peter Lang

    Just for fun, I’ve done a projection of climate sensitivity in the years ahead.

    Two recent papers, since AR4, have estimated climate sensitivity from palaeoclimate data:

    Greenhouse Gas Effect Consistent Over 420 Million Yearshttp://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070328155540.htm
    3C (1.5C to 5.5C)

    Climate Sensitivity Estimated from Temperature Reconstructions of the Last Glacial Maximumhttp://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2011/11/22/science.1203513
    2.3C (1.7C to 2.6C)

    Poster presentation:
    Climate Sensitivity Estimated from Temperature Reconstructions of the Last Glacial Maximumhttp://www.wcrp-climate.org/conference2011/posters/C18/C18_Schmittner_T145B.pdf

    My projection: Most likely Climate sensitivity will be 1.9 C by AR5 release date, 1 C by 2020 and 0 C by St Patrick’s Day 2027.

    Also notice that there will be no uncertainty in the Climate sensitivity by the time AR5 is due to be released (October 2014).

    So no need to do anything. Just wait, and the problem will go away.

    BTW, please do not take this seriously. It is more like a projection of increasing common sense and science getting “Climate Science” back under control.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Peter<

      … please do not take this seriously …

      I can’t think why you would say that. It seem just as valid as any other projection on sensitivity that we have been given.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      cohenite

      Hi Peter; I assume you are familiar with the Beenstock and Reingewertz paper:

      http://economics.huji.ac.il/facultye/beenstock/Nature_Paper091209.pdf

      The relevance to climate sensitivity, which is expressed for purposes of AGW as the temperature response to increases in CO2, is that Beenstock found only increases and exponential increases in CO2 were relevant to temperature increase. This is another way of expressing the logarithmic relation between temperature and CO2.

      Unless CO2 is increasing at an exponential rate then climate sensitivity is 0.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Peter Lang

    I left out a key bit of data needed to reproduce my linear projection. The first paper was published 28 March 2007 and the second is 24 November 2011.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Peter Lang

    Jo said:

    Australia picks last possible moment to leap ONTO burning ship

    But we should get commended for consistency. We also signed Kyoto after everyone else realised it was a dud.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Joe V.

    Excellent broadcast on Climategate TV Jo.
    Jo Nova on Climategate 2.0:

    “… so bad, you could throw in a bus timetable and still get a hockey stick”

    I’ve never heard it put quite like that before.

    :-)

    What’s with the 2.0 though ?

    Can we look forward to some more point releases through Durban and the months following ?
    :-)


    Report this

    00

    • #
      DavidH

      I liked Jp’s comment that “retired engineers and geologists” are downloading and analysing data from the various sources and that it’s “much more interesting than bowls and bingo”. To me it says, never mind we aren’t “climate scientists” (whatever that means) – we can all work it out for ourselves.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    wes george

    It’s Saturday night on the week Climategate 2.0 broke, the EU is kaput. China’s bubble has burst, but it will be awhile before the public announcement. Obama can’t win a second term. The Gillard/Brown coalition sealed its fate (again, for good measure) with a golden Slipper. And it just won’t stop raining, raining, raining.

    Yes, these are definitely the End Times. Just not the ones modelled by The Team– they’ve done better consulting the Mayan calendar rather than trust Michael Mann.

    Time to break out another bottle of Schadenfreude vintage 2011, another cool, wet year! Because come Monday it’s back to work, I don’t want to hear any triumphalist clap!

    But for now, I like to raise a toast to the great kangaroo scientist Tim Flannery! Perhaps the iconic dunce of the year. A paragon of our national idiocy!

    Cheers! And God bless us all.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Wes,

      Don’t be so sure Obama can’t win a second term. It’s entirely possible. And if Republicans don’t wake up and realize what their real problem is, it’s inevitable.

      They will spar over every subject except the real one, which is Obama himself. He’s the only issue there is in this election. There is literally enough evidence to convict the man of violations of both the Constitution and federal law. He is borderline treasonous. In addition to that there is credible evidence of a major attempt at voter fraud — one that will make the 2008 problems look trivial — in order to steal the election if he can’t win any other way. The public is not hearing these things. Judicial Watch


      Report this

      00

      • #
      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        Both your links appear to be broken Roy (assuming that I am not being filtered).


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          Rereke,

          I just tried both and they work from here. See if you can ping the server using the URL http://www.judicialwatch.org. Then ping 50.56.52.210 which is the server IP address and see if you can reach that.

          You ISP’s DNS may not have the URL, in which case there isn’t anything you can do.


          Report this

          00

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          Damn, the http:// was added to what I typed without my permission. It will not work that way so leave off the http://


          Report this

          00

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          Please let me know what happens because I want to let Judicial Watch know.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            Roy,

            Sorry about the delay – very occasionally I take an afternoon off :-)

            The links seem to work now, so whatever was broken has been fixed.

            Our office was also hit by a trojan attack today, shortly after I tried the links … yeah yeah, correlation does not imply causation, even if time sequenced, but we did have a “hmm moment’ there for a while.


            Report this

            00

      • #
        Robert

        What do those of you elsewhere (AU, Europe, etc.) make of this:

        ChiaObama

        The commercials for it have been going fairly regularly the last few days as we are entering the pre-Christmas advertising blitz. I honestly can’t decide if the makers of this little gem realize what a joke he is and have taken the opportunity to ridicule him in this manner or if they are actually serious in thinking this is a way to commemorate a president.

        Personally I think it’s hilarious. Why anyone who actually respects him (which I also can’t understand) would want one makes no sense to me.


        Report this

        00

      • #
        wes george

        Well, that’s true Roy. Obama could win.

        But only if two things happen: the Republicans field a weak candidate, which they might and only if the U.S. economy improves. We can’t know how the Republicans will ride…However, we can be pretty certain that Obama’s economic ineptitude combined with his ideological tendencies towards socialism, class warfare rhetoric and Keynesian stimulus pretty much has sealed the economic fate of the U.S. until the adults regain control of both congress and the white house.

        Economics isn’t rocket science. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with the US that simple fiscal restraint couldn’t cure overnight. The problem is that Obama (like Gillard) is just too stubbornly partisan to do what even blind Freddy can see needs doing.

        Obama won in 2008 by carrying the independent voters, whisked in on the coattails of the much reviled Bush admin. combined with incredibly good will from everyone against a very lackluster opponent. In 3 years he has squandered the lot, made a mess of every issue he’s touched and, like Gillard, he broke most of the promises he made as a candidate. Many Americans are not only disappointed with Obama but feel cheated by him. He’s simply not who they thought they were voting for. People once loved Obama. Even I had a tear in my eye watching the inauguration….Now no one admires him as a person anymore. That’s the 10-ton elephant in every newsroom. Obama is a dud.

        Obama’s re-election strategy is to argue the economy is in ruins and Americans are polarised because of Republican opposition to his brilliant plans, which are too difficult for many poorly educated Americans clinging to bibles at the Tea Party Riots to understand. That flies well with the rusted-on Left, but isn’t how support is grown.

        Obama is in the same position as Gillard. The opposition’s leadership isn’t very popular. But if an election were held today in either country the Democrats there and Labor here would be soundly routed, with the two electorates handing the new leadership solid mandates to reverse the economic vandalism of Obama’s and Gillard’s regimes.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          Wes,

          I hope you’re right and I’m wrong. But you underestimate both Obama’s slick tongue and his willingness to violate the law at your peril. So far Republicans show me that they have no idea what they’re up against. And that’s the formula for disaster.

          Just to start with, who would you pick to run against Obama?


          Report this

          00

          • #
            wes george

            I haven’t follow the Republicans closely but the field is very disappointing. The weakness of the Republican leaders is all that Obama has going for him. But, (I think) if the Repubs can get a candidate up that conducts a decent, professional, if unspectacular, campaign with few errors Obama will lose. The media will be gunning for the Republican, so lack of flash is a plus.

            Obama does have one ace in the hole. He could dump senile Biden and take on Clinton as his VP. This would be the only way to get a bit of the sparkle of 2008 back on Obama’s side. A Barack/Hillary ticket dramatically tips the scales to favour a second term for Obama…

            Obama’s slick tongue is no longer an asset. It was always over-rated. It’s ironic that he was ever considered brilliant.

            Interesting that you mention Obama’s Chicago-style willingness to violate the law. ACORN, never waste a crisis, his disdain of the Constitution and eagerness to exploit loopholes. It’s absolutely certain this is going to be the dirtiest election since the Kennedy years and likely the most violent since 1968. The Occupy anarchists presage the potential for inner-city rioting in the summer and autumn of 2012. The level of civil unrest will depend on how badly Obama is travelling. To the left, Obama can not lose this election on merit, he’s entitled to a second term. If America looks as if it might refuse Obama’s entitlement it’s because America is racist and it’s time to take it to the street. If Obama looks to be winning then America is gets a pass.

            Not since the 1860′s have Americans found themselves in a situation that couldn’t be resolved with an election. But it looks like 2012 might be one of those times when at least a section of the American people will demand their way regardless of the democratic process. Fact is, Obama has to win or America burns, baby, burn. That threat will become more explicit next year.

            The final unknown is what will be going on internationally besides an extension of today’s recession.

            I’ve long feared that 2012 is going to be a perfect storm year where the Arab Spring, EU implosion, Chinese recession, Iranian menacing, Russian aggression, Turkish idiocy, etc. combine with the chaos of US elections to provide a very special window of opportunity for all sorts of mischief on the world stage, which if it were to lead to war between, say Israel and Iran, might tip over into a very broad global conflict as various parties use the chaos to settle old scores.

            Hey, never let a good crisis go to waste, right?


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Roy Hogue

            Wes,

            You have a good grip on our crisis if I may use that word and you explained it better than I could.

            We are left with the one important question — who?

            Right now for me it’s Newt Gingrich, not withstanding that six weeks ago I would be rejecting him without a second thought. He’s the only one who has kept his eye squarely on the real issue. He’s savvy politically and very disciplined. When you hear talk about how Clinton reformed welfare and balanced the budget remember that it was Newt in the House of Representatives who worked with Clinton and actually made it happen.

            The political landscape is more volatile this year and next than ever before in our history. If you’ll forgive a metaphor, the melting pot we once were has become a boiling witch’s pot with an evil brew we may end up having to drink.


            Report this

            00

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          Wes just a comment on your last post …

          I agree with absolutely with your analysis – and I have learnt a few things too … but you refer to a “Chinese recession” in your lists of risks, and I think that stands out above all the others. We need to watch China very carefully, because they will avoid a recession at all costs.

          Politically, because of the internal tensions within China, Beijing cannot allow itself to fall into a recession. The differential in incomes between the agricultural interior, and the industrialised coast is probably the highest it has been since the Great March (depending on how you measure it).

          The lid is kept on the situation by moving large numbers of workers from the farms, training them to work in factories, and then paying them two to three times what they would get working in the fields. Much of that money gets sent home to support the extended family.

          But such a strategy is predicated on having consistent, and growing, international orders for Chinese manufactured goods and components. If and when there is a world recession (as in 2012, as you predict, or in 2013, as we think is more probable), the Chinese will reach a point where they are not be able to sustain this model, and the resulting recession would deteriorate into unrest, riots, and potentially another revolution.

          The answer to that, is to avoid any recession by creating internal stimulus. The Chinese have traditionally done that by building infrastructure, but how many empty universities and hospitals do you need? The other way is to build up the military, invest in armament manufacture, and pursue expansionist policies. The early signs are there, in their claim over the entire South China Sea, and the Spratly Islands in particular, and some politicking over Taiwan (again), etc.

          The US also recognises that, which is the reason for the very recent agreement between the US and Australia for an American base in Darwin.

          The next couple of years are going to be tense – we are about to find ourselves living in “interesting times”.

          Do you think any of the candidates for US President will be able to step up to the plate? I don’t.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            wes george

            Rereke,

            I agree. China rules an empire of oppressed and rebellious minority groups with an iron fist AND the promise of a pathway to increasing prosperity.

            With an average growth rate of over 8% for about 25 years even the most transparent economy would have made some real whooper-sized bad investments, but China is hardly a paragon economic accountability, much less uncorrupt. From what I am hearing China is already in a recession but has been lying about the numbers to hide it. Civil unrest is already rising.

            http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204224604577029550570114554.html

            My worry is that Beijing leadership – being totalitarian militarists – will have to start an international conflict of some kind if they go into a dire financial collapse. Nothing like a good war to stir up national pride, keep the factories running, shut down the media/internet and in the chaos liquidate tens of thousand of Arab Spring wannabe activists, settle old scores, etc. Plus, a good war gives all those young unemployed men jobs while returning the balance of power back to the generals. The generals own a big hunk of the economy, for them militarism might just be their hedge against recession.

            Then there was Obama’s weird trip to Australia where he and his new deputy sheriff girlfriend kicked sand in China’s face and warned them not to start anything. Imagine if Bush had done that! Obama’s visit became a most undiplomatic and gratuitous provocation against our biggest business partner and neighbour.

            http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203611404577043792580820370.html

            And now Pax Americana is going into an election year interregnum after poking China in the eye with a burnt stick….perhaps the most chaotic election year since 1968 amplified unpredictably by new social media and much more connected and savvy world players able to manipulate the American situation to their advantage. 2012 is a narrow window of opportunity for international trouble makers that’s going to slam shut in 2013, especially if the Republicans win both branches of government. American will be back big time.

            One can see an analogy between today and the run up to the first world war. An old world order, soft, decadent and in demographic decline as in the EU and a global financial system addicted to over leveraged debt derivatives that are too complicated for anyone to understand are teetering, while all around the planet various militarists are calculating when best to make their move towards ascendancy.

            Meaning back home in the Lucky Country, our lovely government will have almost finished flossing the carbon lint out of Bob Brown’s belly button just in time to look up and discover the whole world is careening into a perilous future, wheels flying every which way.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Mark D.

            Wes,

            perhaps the most chaotic election year since 1968 amplified unpredictably by new social media and much more connected and savvy world players able to manipulate the American situation to their advantage.

            No I don’t think so. The 92 Perot, Bush, ? Oh yes Clinton election was more chaotic. Don’t believe the news stories about “occupiers” They are idiots and almost everyone knows this.

            Interesting that Perot was onto the budget balance issue almost prophetically.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            wes george

            Mark, I’m talking about the possibility of rioting, major civil disorder, in big American cities in the summer/autumn of 2012, if Obama looks to be losing the election. Rioters, by definition, are idiots, so the anarchists of Occupy whatever are the perfect leadership kernel, at least for the white leftist radical elements. A separate black leadership will come about as well.

            btw, US presidential elections seem to be much more on knife edge since the Bush/Gore tie in Florida when the it came down to the Supreme Court picking the winner. Ever since then each side has had armies of lawyers and volunteer legal aids on stand by across the nation to challenge the vote where ever it was close on election night. The willingness to simply accept the verdict of the polls is declining in America. If Nov 2012 is a close run race it could spill over into the streets because this time passions are already just below boiling and we’re still 12 months out.

            I’ve seen polls that show that the Occupiers have only about 10% less “support” than the Tea Party movement when Americans were asked if they agreed with the goals of the two movements.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Mark D.

            Wes, you may be right about the possibility of “civil” upset, and it is a fear of mine too. There are more than a few here that would agree with you about the “leadership kernel” too together with Acorn might be initially viable. The bigger question is what would happen after they got something going.

            Those polls are wrong (based on my own gut feeling which has not been wrong in 30 years.) because the overall number of people that would identify with tea party ideals is far larger than the number that would support what Occupiers stand for.

            Essentially you have tea partiers identifying as a wing of conservatives by way of Constitutional support. The Occupiers claim (lean) on the Constitution but fall short beyond the “free speech” meme but upon close scrutiny are fringe leftists. The former won’t ever vote for Obama, the latter will lose all but the radical left if they riot. This would not put Obama back in office.

            I agree that what would put him back is a significant economic uptick. I don’t think that will be happening in the next 11 months.

            PS. I’m impressed with the detail in your scenario, I wish I could say you were completely nuts.


            Report this

            00

  • #
    David Lilley

    Joanne, I would love to believe the analysis presented in your article that we are witnessing a sinking ship. But here in the UK that wish would be hopelessly optimistic. I have not seen Climategate 2 even mentioned in any TV or radio bulletin, in any broadsheet newspaper or any of the left wing tabloids. The population at large is completely oblivious of the issue. And, of course, even if it were reported, which journalist would dare analyse and explain the significance of individual emails? The only people who are aware of the email release and its implications are those who read climate blogs. The UK press, in common with the UK politicians, get their climate information exclusively from “official” sources. They simply do not know the weaknesses of the official science and the huge weight of the counterarguments.

    We even see in some of the emails BBC correspondents colluding with CRU scientists to promote “the cause” in contravention of the charter obligation for impartiality.

    Similarly, the population is largely unaware that their energy bills are 20% higher because of subsidies to wind farms and (to a lesser extent) those with solar panels and carbon (dioxide) capture. Opposition to wind farms is mainly based on aesthetics and noise, rather than economics, which allows opponents to be portrayed as nimbies. And of course businesses pay more for their energy too – costs which are passed on to customers.

    It is largely for these reasons that I look in hope to the people of Australia and USA where awareness of the issues does seem to extend to much of the population and, more significantly, even to ‘some’ politicians and journalists. Please keep up the pressure. It could be Australia which is the first place to turn back the tide of unnecessary and futile legislation so that the world can get back to addressing real problems, of which there are many.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    incoherent rambler

    great kangaroo scientist Tim Flannery

    Which institution is responsible for issuing his qualifications?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] Putting in the boot while we are on a roll. Gillard — the Australian Prime Minister — got the timing perfectly wrong. [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    matthu

    David Lilley – I’m not sure where you gete the idea that none of the UK media is covering this?

    It featured briefly on BBC Newsnight within the first couple of days and it has also been in most if not all of the newspapers. They were far quicker off the mark this time around than two years ago, though of course they rely on analysis being carried out by bloggers before the story grows legs.

    Here is a sample:

    The Independent

    Climategate erupts again ahead of key summit

    Hacked emails do not subvert climate science, says university

    The Telegraph

    Climategate 2.0: Lawson squishes Huhne

    The Guardian

    Green news roundup: Hacked emails, shale gas and Durban

    The Daily Mail

    Climategate scientists DID collude with government officials to hide research that didn’t fit their apocalyptic global warming


    Report this

    00

  • #
    perturbed

    I wonder if Gillard and Co. knew this was coming. If they did, it makes them even more venal and corrupt; if they don’t, it proves their idiocy beyond a shadow of a doubt. On rolls the Government of Unintended Consequences on its merry way.

    Please oh please give us three Labor resignations, for whatever reason, so we can wipe these idiots out at the ballot box. Hopefully this time we can bury the Greens forever.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      I wonder if Gillard and Co. knew this was coming.

      Nah. They’re just possums in the headlights …

      “Where did that come from … Bob, did you throw that? Well, whoever did, I want you to know that it bloody well hurt … so don’t do it again … can’t you see I am busy glamming my CV for a job at the UN.”


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Robert

      Are you folks getting an early election now? Australian politics is a bit confusing to most of us in the states. I know many of you have wanted one but up until some of the recent posts today I was under the impression it was still a long way off.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Juliar

        Another two years and 3 days. Yes I am counting down the days.


        Report this

        00

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        New Zealand, which has a three-year cycle because we like them so much (not!), has just had an election. The ruling National Party has just won a second term, as almost all of the pundits assumed.

        Some interesting aspects are: 1) Labour are probably at their lowest ebb ever. They hold most of the heavily urbanised constituencies, and the two constituencies on the West Coast of the South Island, but almost nothing in the rest of the country. 2) The Greens lost about six seats in this election. 3) The New Zealand First party is back in parliament again (they failed to get any seats at the last election). 4) National almost has enough seats to form a Government on their own, but will need the help of … 5) The Act Party who got one vote and are nominally a far-right party, and … 6) United Future who also got one vote and are a centrist party who will bed with anybody (although we are not allowed to call them sluts).

        The lack of votes for Labour and the Greens is another sign of a real sea-change in opinion. People might not understand the science, but if you promise them something, and it doesn’t eventuate, they start to get a bit tetchy and start looking elsewhere.

        Interestingly enough, one of the first things that John Key did, when National came to power in the previous election, was to introduce an ETS that was, “based on the Australian model, and designed to dovetail with it”. There has been no real kick-back on the ETS (as the new election results demonstrate), but rather it has been accepted by society. Having said that, it is nowhere near “as cleaver” as the one devised by the Australian Greens. In fact, I do not believe the New Zealand one, as designed, will be compatible with the Australian Carbon Tax, at any level.

        Ah, fun and games.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    Richard deSousa

    I feel sorry for you Australians! You’re being led by Tweedl Dee and Tweedl Dumb (Gillard and the Environmentalists) and they will drag down your once beautiful country back to the Stone Age.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    val majkus

    Sorry if this has been posted before but this is a great letter (Australia’s Garnaut report gets a serve)

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100119723/climategate-2-0-lawson-squishes-huhne/

    Dear Secretary of State

    25 November 2011

    We are pleased that you have decided that a public response to growing criticism of your climate policies is now required. We regret, however, that you do not address our main arguments and key concerns. Neither are we impressed by evidently ill-advised assertions.

    For a start, you make the mistake of connecting the reality of 20th century global warming, which no one doubts, with the various causes for it. You claim that the evidence for man’s influence is getting stronger every year, yet you fail to provide any empirical evidence for this statement.

    In reality, over the past few years there has been a growing realisation among scientists that other influences (such as solar, stratospheric water vapour, oceanic cycles, to name but the most dominant) are likely to be more significant than previously thought. These factors have seriously impinged on estimates of the magnitude of mankind’s influence.

    Your faith in the conclusion of Australia’s Garnaut Review – that there has been no change in the rate of global warming in recent years – is wholly at odds with the latest scientific work and even the Government’s own Met Office: Most research papers published in the last 12 months confirm that there has been no warming trend in the last 10 years.

    It is true that the fundamental greenhouse effect yields only a 1.2°C increase for a doubling of CO2 (so-called climate sensitivity) and that larger increases depend upon various feedback mechanisms. There is no convincing evidence, however, to support your assertion that the increase of the level of water vapour in the atmosphere (as a result of doubling of CO2) would (other things being equal) raise global average temperature by around 3°C.

    In reality, the magnitude of water vapor feedbacks, positive as well as negative (such as increased cloud cover and precipitation) remains a poorly understood subject. Do you seriously belief that only ‘one or two people’ (sic) have published research that shows moderate rather than catastrophic warming in the next 100 years?

    You do not seem to appreciate the incomplete state of scientific knowledge regarding these extremely complex feedbacks. In reality, most scientists will tell you that we do not know all of them; and that most of those we do know, we understand only rudimentary.

    What is more, estimates for climate sensitivity in the peer reviewed literature have been going down. You and your advisers will no doubt take a look at the latest research findings on this very subject by Schmittner et al. published this week in the journal Science. This is yet another study that corroborates a low estimate of climate sensitivity and concludes that “these results imply a lower probability of imminent extreme climate change than previously thought.”

    Your faith in the integrity of the IPCC process is no less ill-advised. There have been three reports on the IPCC – by the InterAcademy Council in 2010; the recent book by Donna Laframboise; and the report by Professor Ross McKitrick published recently by the GWPF (a copy of which is attached). You and your advisers need to study all three as they all identify a common set shortcomings in the IPCC’s scientific approach and its working methods.

    The IPCC seeks to present itself as embodying the independent, impartial advice of the world’s best scientists in the field. All three reports reveal serious flaws in this claim – its lack of transparency in how the so-called experts are chosen, its resistance to views challenging its orthodoxy, its lack of proper governance to deal with conflicts of interest, its excessive use of non-peer reviewed (grey literature), and its infiltration by activists from environmental pressure groups.

    We are surprised that you have been so slow to recognise that the IPCC, which has influenced a great deal of UK policy, no longer carries the credibility necessary to persuade society of the massive changes it is advocating. It should be drastically reformed or wound up and replaced.

    We note that you appear to be denying the charge on unilateralism in UK policy. This is curious as you and your predecessors were keen to boast that the Climate Change Act made Britain a world leader in decarbonisation. And you personally have been urging the EU to adopt even more ambitious targets, fortunately unsuccessfully.

    Admittedly, you limit your claim that Britain has not adopted unilateral policies to “until 2020,” but even this ceiling is at odds with the introduction of the carbon floor price which you wish to introduce in the next couple of years. This scheme most certainly is a unilateral folly which is already having a devastating effect on manufacturing and energy-intensive industries – which, of course, are also concerned about what is planned for after 2020.

    In reality, the UK stands alone as the only country in the world to impose long-term legally binding CO2 emissions targets. No other country in the world is willing to inflict such unilateral burden on its business sector and economy.

    Even within the EU Commission major concerns about its unilateral targets have begun to surface. The EU is now seriously considering to discontinue its unilateral decarbonisation in the absence of a global agreement.

    Whether you like it or not, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, has pledged that the government will no longer be bound by unilateral decarbonisation targets that cut CO2 emissions in Britain faster and deeper than other countries in Europe. We trust that his promise to abandon the path of green unilateralism will be followed, sooner rather than later, by a less extreme and more pragmatic policy.

    Lord Lawson

    Lord Turnbull

    Don’t imagine these sentiments would sway Aust’s Govt or their mineons

    As to those mineons ‘whose bread I eat his song I sing’ – this was quoted before the media inquiry recently and I looked it up. It’s variously attributed to ‘a German proverb’ and (I think) by Burnside QC to Ireland


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Eve

    Results from the EU on Carbon Trading. Notice that the Emissions Trading cost consumers 287 Billion. Where did they think that money would come from?

    National Affairs
    Europe’s $287bn carbon ‘waste’: UBS report

    SWISS banking giant UBS says the European Union’s emissions trading scheme has cost the continent’s consumers $287 billion for “almost zero impact” on cutting carbon emissions, and has warned that the EU’s carbon pricing market is on the verge of a crash next year.
    In a damning report to clients, UBS Investment Research said that had the €210bn the European ETS had cost consumers been used in a targeted approach to replace the EU’s dirtiest power plants, emissions could have been reduced by 43 per cent “instead of almost zero impact on the back of emissions trading”.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mike of NQ

    I know I am not very wordly, but I do have a question about the following statement “how low can the ‘price on carbon’ go in Euro($)?”. Does this not rely on the Euro surviving as a collective? I hear rumours that many countries are considering pulling out of the European Union. What happens to the Carbon Price if say France, Begium, Portugal and Spain pull out of the EU. Is this even possible?

    Last question – Is it possible to print a European Dollar symbol onto my post?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    u.k.(us)

    “Australia picks last possible moment to leap ONTO burning ship”
    =============
    Priceless.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Jo, you say:

    Australians will pay a fixed price of $15 per ton, set by people who keep telling us that a free market is the “best solution”. (If only they knew what a free market was.)

    I thought our fixed price started at $23 per tonne. It is worse than we thought :)

    Excellent piece BTW, will be busy reading The Australian articles assuming they aren’t behind the paywall…


    Report this

    00

  • #
    • #
      val majkus

      thanks Janama; great interview Jo!


      Report this

      00

    • #
      The Black Adder

      Wow! Thanks for the link janama.

      What a brilliant interview Jo! Bloody Hell, us Aussies can make a good impression when it counts!

      You done it succintly, informatively and mind-numbingly simple, Bloody good stuff Jo.

      Today The Bolt Report covered in 4.07 minute with Steve McIntyre what you spent 37 minutes in detailed discussion with the Corbett Report. It was an riveting interview that i just wish would happen in Australia…..

      Keep it up, we will get there in the end!!!


      Report this

      00

  • #
    pat

    turned on Bolt this morning, to watch Steve McIntyre, but had to keep turning it off as segments with Christopher Pyne and Peter Costello, showed both men unwilling to discuss the rorting by Peter Slipper. guess they all do it.

    there are no new MSM articles on Climategate II since the 25th Nov, and none so far have examined the content of the emails in any depth whatsoever. and here is the rightwing, conservative UK Telegraph, which has had multiple pro-CAGW articles in recent days:

    25 Nov: UK Telegraph: Geoffrey Lean: Climategate II: the scientists fight back
    The first Climategate made scientists dive for cover, refusing to comment. This time, they held a press conference.
    Yet the public response seems to have been nothing more than a yawn. The emails dropped out of the news within a couple of days. And Google’s record of trends for searches and news coverage of Climategate, which went through the roof two years ago have scarcely registered a blip…
    And the science itself remains sound, based on a wide variety of sources and studies and so far not invalidated by anything that has emerged from either Climategate…
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/8915689/Climategate-II-the-scientists-fight-back.html

    funny how Bradley Manning/Wikileaks cables were covered for months!

    as i always say, i’ll be voting informally.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      bunny

      Pat you keep saying you will vote informally, so I will assume that you are either a disenchanted Labor supporter pretending to be a conservative, or a fool who has no appreciation of the meaning of democracy and the value of a vote.
      Your continual criticism of the Abbott led Coalition leads me to think you belong to the former group.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    pat

    btw if u open the Telegraph link, u will find a pic with the caption:

    More signs of a warming planet? The vanishing glaciers of the Himalayas Photo: EPA

    truly mindboggling…


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Another Ian

      Pat,

      FWIW I remember looking at one of these Himalayan “vanishing glaciers” in before and after and thinking “That’s not being photographed from the same place!”

      Might bear research


      Report this

      00

  • #

    Jo, you quote the following;

    Meanwhile, renewables are so openly on the nose that even the Duke of Edinburgh not only said windfarms are absolutely useless, but he got away with it. Windfarms are unpopular in Spain, the UK (here and here), Vermont, Scotland, New Zealand, and even the-iconic-home of-windmills the Netherlands. Solyandra sank like a concrete block. Google are pulling out of renewables, then on top all that, the IPCC shocked everyone by admitting they don’t know if the weather will get warmer or cooler for the next thirty years.

    I have a solution, if the Labor/Greens government want renewable energy let’s give it to them. Chop down the trees near their homes and in their electorate and put in as many Wind farms and Solar power stations as they can handle. I think we’d hear Bob Brown, Julia Gilliard and all the other cronies screaming for an eon to come but it would be worth it !!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    incoherent rambler

    Is the global warming scare the greatest delusion in history?
    The scare over man-made global warming is not only the scientific scandal of our generation, but a suicidal flight from reality.

    Booker gives me hope


    Report this

    00

  • #

    I have made an update on the de Freitas affair, in which I have put the first half of the narrative in order, and added more commentary. I hope that it makes a better read than the original:

    http://newzealandclimatechange.wordpress.com/2011/11/27/climategate-2-and-corruption-of-peer-review/

    It is the story of a plot by the ‘team’ to get Chris de Freitas sacked for allowing ‘contrary’ articles to be published in journal of Climate Research. In addition to key member of the team being involved, Pachauri is copied in as cc in many of the most outrageous comments. He does nothing to stop his out of control ‘leading scientists’.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    theRealUniverse

    Bad day at the office….
    Juliar has a knock at door and opens to finds 3 men in black suits wearing earpieces at the door..
    “I would rethink that statement ‘no carbon tax….’ you said ms PM or we will demolish your economy”
    THE END ..


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Len

    #29 Mike of NQ. In WA a Euro is the name of a medium sized kangaroo.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Faye Busch

    I had just read in The Telegraph UK “Lobbyists who cleared ‘Climategate’ academics funded by taxpayers and the BBC” written by Jason Lewis, Investigations Editor, on 23 April 2011.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/8469883/Lobbyists-who-cleared-Climategate-academics-funded-by-taxpayers-and-the-BBC.html

    The lobbyists are an incestuous bunch of pariahs sucking all they can get out of the Climate Change con in the name of “saving the planet”. They are British MPs and others of Globe International, “an international climate change lobbying group.

    Some of the names mentioned are politicians… current Globe president Lord Deben; John Gummer; Lord Michael Jay, former head of Diplomatic Service; Lord Oxburgh (the whitewasher); Niklas Zennstrom (Skype) is a principal backer.

    Working alongside Globe is the Grantham Institute. Some names mentioned are… Jeremy Grantham bankrolls Grantham Institute; Muir Russell (another whitewasher); Bob Ward.

    I then read on Reuters site an article dated 24 November 2011 written by two of the above people – John Gummer, Lord Michael Jay and John
    Prescott titled
    “Imperceptibly, the tide of debate is turning on climate change”

    http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/2011/11/24/imperceptibly-the-tide-of-debate-is-turning-on-climate-change/

    These chaps are scared the money will dry up. They’re scrambling to make a case why countries should make a deal at Durban before Kyoto ends in 2012.

    If you want to be physically sick read their article.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    sonny

    I’m new to this forum. I must admit that over the past two years I have become somewhat obsessed by climate change. To me it is the most fascinating political, scientific and media fraud of our times. I am dumbfounded by the average persons naivety and blind faith on this issue, and their refusal to see the corruption which is at the heart of it all.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robert

    Wes @ 20.1.4.1.1

    You said:

    But it looks like 2012 might be one of those times when at least a section of the American people will demand their way regardless of the democratic process. Fact is, Obama has to win or America burns, baby, burn. That threat will become more explicit next year.

    Unfortunately that is what it may take. The violence, rioting, burning, looting, etc. that envisions may be what is needed to wake the rest of the US up to finally do something.

    I am not looking forward to next year as everything we have seen from Obama was in fact predicted by many of my older conservative friends and this nation can not survive a second term of his foolishness and narcissism.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Robert,

      The alternative scenario is that it makes Obama a hero because he can step in and stop it. That might well get him reelected.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Mark D.

      Yes Robert, we probably cannot survive a second term.

      However, I strongly believe that even if there is a plan to incite riots as a political move, it will fail due to limited support. You can agitate some to do what the stupid “occupy” people are doing but the real 99% do not care for them. The real 99% won”t put up with serious riots and I feel the backlash might surprise everyone.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Robert

        That is what I would hope for. That 99% who have jobs, mortgages, children to care for, and other real responsibilities are busy people. They cannot leave their responsibilities and go “occupy” anything. But they do tend to be a rather nasty bunch when they see a real threat to their being able to safely go about managing their responsibilities.

        That “backlash” may surprise many who mistakenly assume that because they are not as vocal, abusive, destructive, etc. as the “activists” tend to be they are to be discounted. It is why I think attempting to create chaos in the form of riots etc. to use as a political lever may be what will “wake up” that 99%. Not that they aren’t aware and need “waking” but in balancing their responsibilities (work, family, obligations, etc.) it may be what will finally push many of them to step forward to preserve the safety of their communities and nation.

        A common response I hear from the left regarding self defense and prevention of crime is “that is why we have the police” which is wrong. We have the police to investigate crimes and bring the perpetrators to justice before the courts. If (which is generally very rare) they happen to be around as a crime is being committed then they will intervene but in general they are not a part of the process until after the fact.

        What people seem to forget is it is the responsibility of the citizen to prevent crimes. Unfortunately those that do understand that responsibility have many others as well and it often takes extreme circumstances for them to place those other responsibilities behind that of maintaining the order and safety of their community or nation.

        Abrogation of that responsibility is what I expect from the left.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Mark D.

          Excellent Robert! very keen thoughts and very wise comments. My son has a friend (young 20′s) that leans conservative. A month ago he and I were discussing “occupy” tenets and he suggested that they were much the same as Tea Party folk. I lost my cool at that point and did my best to explain the wide differences. I’m not sure he accepted them yet but your comment at 42.2.1 has many of the same descriptions as I told this young man. The Tea Party folk are the ones working and living the middle class life here. They neither support Wall Street excesses, political abuses or freeloaders. The latter being the “occupy” idiots.

          The only thing that concerns me is this young right leaning man had been hoodwinked over the occupier “issues”. This may be an indication that other propaganda has been put out for the younger minds.


          Report this

          00

  • #
    pat

    bunny -
    as most people on this blog know, i am a lifelong labor voter who then turned to the Greens when i believed in CAGW. post-Climategate, i’m a sceptic. no secrets.
    however, as the Tories are in power in the UK, and much of the EU which is implementing CAGW policies are rightwing, and as the Coalition still “believes, i’m not naive enough to think CAGW is a leftwing conspiracy. unless we all join together and oppose this commodification of carbon dioxide, we will never succeed. finally, the MSM is waking up:

    27 Nov: UK Daily Mail: David Rose: BBC sought advice from global warming scientists on economy, drama, music… and even game shows
    BBC insiders say the close links between the Corporation and the UEA’s two climate science departments, the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and the Tyndall Centre for Climate Research, have had a significant impact on its coverage.
    ‘Following their lead has meant the whole thrust and tone of BBC reporting has been that the science is settled, and that there is no need for debate,’ one journalist said. ‘If you disagree, you’re branded a loony.’…
    The man at the centre of the BBC-UEA web is Roger Harrabin, the Corporation’s ‘environment analyst’, who reports for a range of programmes on radio and TV…
    Labour MP Graham Stringer last night said he would be writing this week to BBC director-general Mark Thompson to demand an investigation into the Corporation’s relationship with UEA. ‘The new leaked emails show that the UEA scientists at the Tyndall Centre and the CRU acted more like campaigners than academics, and that they succeeded in an attempt to influence the output of the BBC,’ Mr Stringer said.
    Conservative MP David Davis said: ‘Using research money to evangelise one point of view and suppress another defies everything I ever learnt about the scientific method. These emails go to the heart of the BBC’s professed impartiality… its actions must be investigated.’
    But the BBC insisted its relationship with UEA had never been ‘unhealthily close’, saying it was always impartial. A BBC spokesman said: ‘We would reject the claim that the Tyndall Centre influenced BBC editorial policy.’
    As for Mr Harrabin’s place on the Tyndall board and the advice he gave, he said: ‘The idea was for him to look out for potential stories for the BBC and to offer academics a media perspective on climate change and policy. We do not believe that com-promised impartiality.’
    Mr Harrabin added: ‘It was right that the BBC decided not to give sceptics parity on climate change,’ saying there was a ‘cross-party consensus.’ But he said he had maintained they should still be given some air time.
    Prof Jones was not available for comment last night…
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2066706/BBC-sought-advice-global-warming-scientists-economy-drama-music–game-shows.html

    27 Nov: Uk Daily Mail: Cameron’s green guru reveals his doubts over global warming
    Steve Hilton, the Prime Minister’s director of strategy and ‘green guru’, is the latest person to admit to doubts about climate change.
    ‘I’m not sure I believe in it,’ he announced at a meeting of the Energy Department, prompting one aide to blurt out: ‘Did I just hear that correctly?’
    According to one witness, Hilton, 41, the man who coined the slogan ‘Vote Blue and Go Green’ and changed the Tory symbol from a Stalinist style torch to an eco friendly tree, said: ‘Climate change arguments are highly complex.
    ‘My focus has always been more on using green issues to improve the quality of life.’ …
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2066720/David-Camerons-green-guru-Steve-Hilton-reveals-doubts-global-warming.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Peter Lang

    In the lead article for this thread, Jo referred to a paper published on Friday in Science:

    Climate Sensitivity Estimated from Temperature Reconstructions of the Last Glacial Maximum
    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2011/11/22/science.1203513
    2.3C (1.7C to 2.6C)

    Poster presentation:
    Climate Sensitivity Estimated from Temperature Reconstructions of the Last Glacial Maximum
    http://www.wcrp-climate.org/conference2011/posters/C18/C18_Schmittner_T145B.pdf

    If this paper holds up it will be important because it chops off the worst case scenarios that the Alarmists use to scare people with.

    IPCC AR4 says the most likely climate sensitivity is 3 C to a doubling of CO2 concentration and the 66% range is 2C to 4.5 C. Modellers have been talking about a ‘fat tail’ with non-zero probabilities extending to much higher climate sensitivities. This is what has been used to scare people.

    However, if I understand it correctly, this new paper chops all that off. It is saying that the climate sensitivity is most like 2.3 C and cannot be higher than 3 C.

    [by the way, these figures are from the abstract in the published paper; the poster (see link above) gave the most likely value as 2.2 C and the press release says 2.4 C].


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Peter Lang

      I’d just add, this paper suggests we have a long way to go before the science is settled on climate sensitivity. This paper begins the look at climate sensitivity during the last glaciation. It is using, in part, sparse data from the ocean sediments. It is the data from the oceans that is showing the lower climate sensitivity, much lower than on land. They admit “a tension” in that land versus ocean data; they are not showing the same climate sensitivity for the whole planet but should be.

      I suspect, for decades to come, we will get progressively better at determining the past temperatures and CO2 concentrations. We will get more information over a much longer time period. Instead of just the last glacial maximum, we will get climate sensitivity over a much longer time period.

      We have a very long way to go with this, I suspect.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Peter Lang

      I’d like to refer you to this poster by Schmittner et al. I presume it was released before the paper because the sensitivity figures were slightly lower

      Our best estimate (2.2 K) and 66% and 90% (1.4-2.8 K).

      http://www.wcrp-climate.org/conference2011/posters/C18/C18_Schmittner_T145B.pdf

      I am focusing on the figure in the middle of the poster (the chart with the green, blue and black lines). I suspect, over time as data from the oceans improves, the peak in blue and black at about 1.2 K will tend to increase, the peaks at 2 K to 2.5 K will shrink and move to the left, the green peak at 3 K to 3.5 K will reduce and move to the left, and the whole thing will turn into a narrow hump with peak at around 1.5 to 2 K (or less).

      The study is dependent on proxies and model analyses. I suspect as we get more coverage and better results (especially over the ocean areas), the proxies will show lower sensitivity. I also expect that as the pro AGW biases built into the models (human nature) are progressively reduced, the climate sensitivity will reduce.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Sonny

    @ David H
    You said:
    “I liked Jp’s comment that “retired engineers and geologists” are downloading and analysing data from the various sources and that it’s “much more interesting than bowls and bingo”. To me it says, never mind we aren’t “climate scientists” (whatever that means) – we can all work it out for ourselves.

    Actually despite what you are alluding to engineers and geologists should be given a voice despite the fact that they aren’t “climate scientists”. (and a good thing they aren’t). Engineers, especially those with experience in computer modelling are relevant since much of the case for dangerous man made global warming is based on the projections and prognostications that are shat out of climate scientists computer models.

    Geologists are important as their study includes the history of climate based upon objective measurements. They show through analysis of ice cores for example the climate variability over thousands and millions of years. This is relevant in putting today’s climate change into context and determining whether today’s climate change is indeed anomalous and outside the bounds of natural variability (which it isn’t).

    In your comment you express some confusion of what is a “climate scientist” and that certain people should be ignored if they aren’t “climate scientists”. What you fail to realise is that there are many areas of study and experience relevant to the study because the climate is pretty damn complex. Even fully accredited and awarded IPCC gold standard “climate scientists” are only expert in specific fields (if they are expert at all. Some are fresh graduates, some are environmental activists.. It really doesn’t matter as long as they write what the UN wants to hear… And even if they don’t their comments can be edited or ignored and never make it into the policy review section). As such the term “climate scientist” is more a political badge and one that warmists like yourself will willingly adopt to discredit anyone outside the climate change establishment. Hope that clears up your confusion :)


    Report this

    00

    • #
      DavidH

      Me warmist? I must have been writing much more cryptically than I realised. I’m 100% on board with Joanne and the majority of the bloggers here. What I meant was, I don’t believe that climate science is so elevated and beyond other mortals that only the appointed elite can understand it and so we just have to listed to them. The data is there and people can (or should be allowed to) download and analyse it themselves.

      I’ll have to write less flippantly next time.


      Report this

      00

      • #
      • #
        Sonny

        I must have detected some sarcasm which wasnt actually there.
        No doubt you are aware of Phil Jones professional ethics in which data is mysteriously lost and then lied about, FOI requests are ignored or denied. Emails are deleted etc ad infinitem.
        Or volumes of disorganized files are released to requesters in an effort to swamp them. we really don’t need to demonstrate that the data is dodgy – the climate gaists do that for us.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    • #

      Who said I support it? Ice cores don’t have the resolution. But thanks for reminding me, I mean to try and find out if you have a point in the endless-incoherent-comment that is still in moderation. Forgive me for being distracted by actual emails from people with real names.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Mark D.

      Blimey, you must be in tears most days since the new e-mail release. How do you get along with your faith shaken so?

      I feel for you brother. I had faith in Obama once…………NOT!


      Report this

      00

  • #
  • #
    Andrew McRae

    When you’re a dyed-green-in-the-wool-over-your-eyes warmist, even the plummet in EU carbon emission price must be interpreted as SUCCESS!
    http://cleantechnica.com/2011/11/27/cap-and-trade-dead-carbon-under-8-euros/

    The mental agility is amazing.

    Well here’s my analysis, so please, as always, show me where I’m wrong. I will try keep it short this time. :)

    Industry still needs to emit CO2. Under cap’n'trade laws they are required to buy permits for emissions, so this price drop can’t be due to a decrease in the perceived risk of global warming because buying permits isn’t optional. So a plummet in price by a factor of 2 is not due to a decrease in emission demand. Since there is virtually no chance that sequestration projects have matched the 4.1 Gt/year of EU industrial output, I’m rather leaning towards the conclusion that it’s due to an oversupply of sequestration projects. In other words, preventing the 3rd world from growing food and paying landowners to make their land unproductive.
    Way to go guys, yay carbon pricing.

    Of course, fundamentally, none of the above market performance proves anything if there is no chance of CO2 really causing a problem. If there was truly a free market in CO2 emissions you wouldn’t have to buy permits if you thought they weren’t creating a problem. The only fair market price is what people pay when they don’t have to buy it.


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Sonny

    Not skeptic, not denier but “climate heretic”.

    Dear Jo and fellow climate heretics.

    You know as well as I know that the global warming/ climate change is not normal science. Normal science doesn’t survive this long after being so thoroughly discredited on every conceivable ground. Infact the science is simply a decoy or a destruction so that the public never realizes that our governments, university’s and schools are being taken over by a new and extremely dangerous religion. That of Gaism! (aka “The Cause” et al)

    I’m not concerned by the fact that they worship the earth. However, by viewing mankind as a virus or a plague on the face of the earth, Gains are setting up the same kind of dehumanizing mindset that makes possible genocide. They have already resorted to the same kind of scientific propaganda against CO2 as the Nazis did against the Jews.

    Sure they are only persecuting a harmless gas that is essential for life and for human beings to thrive, however as this global religion gains more traction and more resources they will move to curb the greater threat against Gaia – overpopulation.

    Therefore, I believe our best defense is to quit the fruitless debates about the science and focus on the RELIGION which underpins it.

    Therefore I will be calling myself a “climate heretic”. Although I appreciate that I am not the first.

    DOWN WITH GAISM!


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Llew Jones

      It is pretty hard to escape the conclusion that many if not most bona fide climate scientists, who are of the alarmist variety, do come with activist baggage of something like a Gaia slant at least. The idea of a finely balanced self regulating Earth ecology originated with James Lovelock).

      Our own Will Steffen is up to his eyeballs into the anthropocene. The idea that man is despoiling the ecology of the planet. Look up the titles of some of his research. It is more akin to the rants of a futurist than a rational climate scientist, though he has had some training in subjects germane to climatology.

      Ecology is essentially a quasi religious exercise in which its practitioners become omniscient futurists. It is an enlightening exercise to read Lovelock’s prognostications. He makes Tim Flannery appear almost sane.

      Here’s a delightful little sample:

      “Writing in the British newspaper The Independent in January 2006, Lovelock argues that, as a result of global warming, “billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable” by the end of the 21st century.[24] He has been quoted in The Guardian that 80% of humans will perish by 2100 AD, and this climate change will last 100,000 years.

      According to James Lovelock, by 2040, the world population of more than six billion will have been culled by floods, drought and famine. Indeed “[t]he people of Southern Europe, as well as South-East Asia, will be fighting their way into countries such as Canada, Australia and Britain”.[25]
      “By 2040, parts of the Sahara desert will have moved into middle Europe. We are talking about Paris – as far north as Berlin. In Britain we will escape because of our oceanic position.”[25]

      “If you take the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predictions, then by 2040 every summer in Europe will be as hot as it was in 2003 – between 110F and 120F. It is not the death of people that is the main problem, it is the fact that the plants can’t grow – there will be almost no food grown in Europe.”[25]“.

      But Lovelock is, in his better moments, a genuine scientist, unlike the clowns who advise our government. So by 2010 Jimmy was singing a more rational tune. Shades of Climategate 2 I’m sure:

      In a March 2010 interview with the Guardian newspaper, he (Lovelock) said that democracy might have to be “put on hold” to prevent climate change.[28] He continued:

      “The great climate science centres around the world are more than well aware how weak their science is. If you talk to them privately they’re scared stiff of the fact that they don’t really know what the clouds and the aerosols are doing…We do need scepticism about the predictions about what will happen to the climate in 50 years, or whatever.

      It’s almost naive, scientifically speaking, to think we can give relatively accurate predictions for future climate. There are so many unknowns that it’s wrong to do it.”

      Sounds like a bit of apostatising by young Jimmy?

      quotes from wiki.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Sonny

    I can understand the attraction of such an ideology – the earth as a benevolent mother sustaining life etc etc. However if global warming prophecies form an inherent part of their belief system, and their “cause” is to save mankind from impending doom, then any claim to scientific objectivity and credibility is shot to peices. They not only suffer from confirmation bias but also noble cause corruption. To me this signals a departure from the moral and ethical code established by judeo-Christian-legal system.

    Just what means will justify the ends?


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Robert

      Part of the problem with what you said is this:

      To me this signals a departure from the moral and ethical code established by judeo-Christian-legal system.

      Many of the “believers” have replaced God/Buddha/Allah/<insert deity> with a pagan form of nature worship. In their Gaea worship they denounce anything that even remotely resembles Judeo-Christian morals or ethics.

      In fact many of them blame anything Judeo-Christian as part of the problem and run from it as quickly as they can. Why would you then expect them to have any moral or ethical code that doesn’t put themselves and their wants ahead of all else?


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Sonny

        I don’t. However mainstream society is still largely of the assumption that climate science is done by regular scientists with normal morals and ethics (don’t lie, don’t steal, don’t kill). That is a concern for mankind first. If Gaia comes first them you might describe the new ethical code as (don’t lie, don’t steal and don’t kill UNLESS mother Gaia is threatened by the actions of men.)


        Report this

        00

  • #

    Australia doesn’t have a monopoly on stupid when it comes to global warming

    http://mysite.verizon.net/vzeppobl/globalwarming/


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #

    Convert Co2 to algae?

    This is interesting:

    Algae trial could lower carbon emissions

    I have no problem with Co2 emissions, but hey, if it can be useful, why release it or pump it down holes?

    If this works, it could be the answer for both skeptics and alarmists.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] Nova’s take: http://joannenova.com.au/2011/11/australia-picks-last-possible-moment-to-leap-onto-burning-ship/ Share this:TwitterMoreFacebookDiggStumbleUponPrintRedditEmailLike this:LikeOne blogger likes this. [...]


    Report this

    00