Alan Jones pretty much sums up the situation about Christopher Monckton’s prediction last year about Tony Abbott and Stephen Harper. Listen to Monckton from 40 seconds.
“They want $100 billion. In a world that’s broke, swimming in debt…” — Alan Jones
“David King was asked whether all the nations of the world were now, in principle, ready to sign their people’s rights away in such a treaty. Yes, but there are two standouts. One is Canada. But don’t worry about Canada. They’ve got an election in the Spring of 2015 and we and the UN will make sure the present government is removed. He was quite blunt about it.
The other hold out is Australia. And Australia we can’t do anything about because Tony Abbott is in office until after the December 2015 conference. So that means you all have to guard Tony Abbott’s back. Because the Turnbull faction, in conjunction with the UN, will be doing their absolute level best to remove your elected Prime Minister from office before the end of his term and , in particular, before the end of 2015, so that they can get 100% wall-to-wall Marxist agreement. They do not want any stand-outs. And the most likely stand-out at the moment is Australia. So look after him.” — climatescepticsparty
King may have been fantasizing and blowing his own trumpet (the Canadian election was not close). But to openly brag in public about removing a democratic government with UN help is remarkable.
There will be some agreement signed in Paris, for the sake of PR and to keep the gravy flowing. That is guaranteed. The question is, “how much” will that agreement matter? Will it be all show and no teeth? How many billions will the pretend environmentalists and unproductive parasites drag from the world’s middle-class? How much power will they get to interfere with democracies? Will there be a get-out clause?
The Australian BOM, and an actual real debate on global warming
The interview with Jennifer Marohasy about the BOM is introduced around the 7 minute mark. Around the 9 minute mark Jennifer talks about a remarkable meeting called by MP Craig Kelly yesterday at Parliament House on Monday this week. For the first time, people like John Church was forced to do a live debate with people like Bob Carter and Jennifer.
Jennifer described the event in an email. At one point Dennis Jensen pinned down Mark Howden with a question, forcing him to admit that everything he was presenting came from a model rather than direct from data. Straight after that several in the audience left the room. I guess they’d heard enough. Bizarrely, when confronted with a UAH (satellite) graph of temperatures of Australia pausing flat for 17 years, Guldberg dismissed it because he “didn’t know where the data came from” and Howden improbably suggested that combining all the atmospheric layers showed “warming”. Thank goodness Jennifer was there to set them straight! When cornered, establishment scientists flounder because they have been shielded from skeptical questions.
Jennifer Marohasy describes question time during the meeting:
Guldberg attempted to dominate the question time.
Credit to MP Craig Kelly for organising this event in response to the one-sided propaganda event promoted by Guldberg, and supported by Greg Hunt. Shame Greg Hunt did not come to hear skeptics.
For those who want more detail. Marohasy explains the background and how her main focus was on real measurements rather than modeled ones:
Yesterday/Tuesday there was a Parliamentary Information Session in Canberra sponsored by the Global Change Institute and the University of Queensland at which many government-funded climate scientists predicted that the end is nigh unless the Australian government signs on to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals at the upcoming COP21 in Paris. Documentation promoting the event indicated a particular focus on sea level rise, and the presence of Dr John Church, a sea level change expert from CSIRO.
The night before, Monday night, Professor Bob Carter and I were invited to address the Coalitions Environment Committee with three of the alarmists including Dr Church.
It is very significant that a meeting was actually held in Parliament House at which both government-funded alarmists and credentialed independent sceptics were present; this is almost a world first and certainly an Australian first.
The exchanges were at times vigorous, with the alarmists often appealing to the authority of the IPCC, while Professor Carter and I relied on evidence.
In particularly, I emphasized the importance of distinguishing between real historical data as opposed to believing output from computer models that homogenize original measurements. For example, the tide gauge at Fort Denison in Sydney Harbour indicates that the rate of sea level rise has been in decline for some decades, while the alarmists tend to use remodeled sea level data to suggest an acceleration consistent with anthropogenic global warming theory. At the meeting on Monday night, Dr Church told the Committee how many metres of sea level rise was expected by 2100 based on output from a computer model, and how much worse it would be if the government didn’t sign on to the Paris accord.
There is a really big difference between what the measurements say, and output from computer models. My presentation focused on surface temperature data from Rutherglen, and how the Bureau of Meteorology has remodeled this temperature series which shows sustained cooling over the 20th Century, into dramatic global warming. This is achieved by the Bureau dropping down past temperatures and promulgating these backwards. For example, at Rutherglen, the Bureau dropped down the actual measured temperatures by 0.57 degree Celsius for all minimum values measured before 1974, by 0.63 for all minimum values measured before 1966, and by 0.49 for all values measured before 1928. The net change back to the beginning of the record in 1912 is thus 1.69 degrees Celsius, which is huge, particularly considering that the total extent of warming according to the alarmists government-funded IPCC scientists is only about 1 degree over the same time period.
At the meeting I explained how the Bureau adjusts the historical temperature record, including at Rutherglen, essentially COOLNG THE PAST and thus making the present appear hotter.
I explained how the data from entire 104 weather stations that are used to construct the CONTRIVED official temperature trend for Australia are adjusted in this way. The official name for it is homogenization.
Last year Environment Minister Greg Hunt prevented a proper inquiry into this practice, ostensibly to protect the reputation of the Bureau.