|
|
A new study of Law Dome Ice cores tells us that droughts are common in Australia, and that there appears to be eight mega-droughts over the last thousand years, including one that lasted a whopping 39 years from 1174- 1212AD. By their reckoning the 12th Century in Australia was a shocker with 80% of it spent in drought conditions. Things weren’t so bad from 1260 – 1860, at least, as far as they can tell. The researchers are convinced theirs is the first millennial-length Australian drought record. It does seem significant.
The researchers, sensibly, think we might want to pay attention to the Pacific cycles and store a bit more water. Without fanfare the paper also suggests that droughts were worse in medieval times.
“this work suggests Australia may also have experienced mega-droughts during the Medieval period that have no modern analog. Therefore, management of water infrastructure in eastern Australia needs to account for decadal-scale droughts being a normal feature of the hydrological cycle.”
h/t to Paul Homewood at Notalotofpeopleknowthat
The ABC reported this largely as a water management story, without asking whether their past stories that blamed CO2 for droughts were less likely to be true. They also didn’t talk about how natural climate change could be worse than the current “man-made” variety. Nor did they discuss the uncomfortable idea that if there were naturally more droughts when CO2 was ideal, perhaps the droughts now might be natural ones too? At least The Australian and Graham Lloyd put the emphasis on the idea that current droughts are par for the course.
 Figure 4 (see Caption in footnote to blog). So how does a study find droughts in Australia with a hole drilled in Antarctic ice?
A very good question — and though the study is corroborated with historic studies, and instruments in Australia as much as it can be, the bottom line is that we really need millenial proxies from Australia, but at the moment, this is the best we have. Law Dome is a spot in East Antarctica that is almost due south of Perth, Western Australia. Researchers looked at sea salt in the ice to estimate wind speed, and in this case, it means specifically winds from the Indian Ocean sector of the Southern Ocean. Those winds correlate with the strength and position of the Antarctic High and circumpolar trough (among other things). Law Dome has such good resolution they can even identify summer patterns from winter ones. The age uncertainty is ±1 y at 1000AD. It’s just flat out remarkable. Other researchers have used these sea salts as a proxy for Eastern Australia rain.
The paper also reconstructs the IPO — the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation (the big cousin of the PDO*) and also talks about the effect of Antarctic Rossby waves on rainfall in Australia. They used a combination of annual snowfall and sea salt to reconstruct the IPO. They combine the sea-salt rainfall proxy with the reconstructed IPO cycles to estimate when the droughts hit, and confirmed as many of these as they could with other studies.
Keep reading →
9.1 out of 10 based on 74 ratings
We can finally assess (sort of) the carbon tax in Australia. It ran for two years from July 2012 to July 2014 and cost Australians nearly $14 billion. The National Greenhouse Gas Inventory Office released Australian emissions statistics for the June Quarter of 2014. The headlines hitting the press this week are saying we reduced our emissions by 1.4%. The Greens are excited, but neither the journalists or the Greens have looked at the numbers. Not only is this reduction pathetically small on a global scale, but it’s smaller than the “noise” in the adjustments. Like most official statistics the emissions data gets adjusted year after year, and often by 1 – 2%. We won’t really know what our emissions were, or what the fall was, for years to come… (if ever).
Spot the effect of the Australian carbon tax in the graph of emissions by sector below. It operated for the last two years. The falls in electricity emissions started long before the carbon tax (and probably have more to do with the global financial crisis, a government unfriendly to small business, and the wild subsidies offered for solar power).
 (Click to enlarge) Did Australian industry “reduce” their emissions a year ahead of the carbon tax? Maybe. In anticipation of the pointless expense and increased sovereign risk, they may have shut down or moved overseas. Should we celebrate?
The cost-benefits of using a tax to change the weather
During the carbon tax period we “saved” something like 17Mt of CO2. That’s how much less we theoretically emitted compared to what we would have been produced if our emissions had stayed at the annual level they were at in June 2012 (subject to adjustment). Australia’s emissions are 1.5% of total human emissions, which are 4% of global emissions*. Those global emissions from all sources during the two years of the tax were roughly 416 Gt. Thus the carbon tax may have reduced global CO2 emissions by 0.004% and global temperatures by less.
The carbon tax is often framed as “revenue” or money raised, as if the government created some wealth. It should always be called a cost. And it’s not money from “polluters” — it’s money from Australians.
- The carbon tax cost Australians $6.6 billion in 2012-2013 and cost $7.2 billion (projected) in 2013-14.
- Over the two year period, that’s $13.8b for an average reduction of 0.004%.
- The carbon tax was projected to cost $7.6 billion in 2014-15 if it had not been repealed.
The story of shifting data
Despite the headlines of “record falls” in Australian emissions, the data keeps changing, and the fall was about the same size as the adjustments. Each quarter, the numbers may be revised by up to 2%. In four of the last six years the annual emissions were announced and then were later raised. In two years the original estimate was similar to the last.
In other words, any 1% change is mere noise (in so many ways). Some of the time the headlines will have announced a fall in emissions that later vanished with data revision.
According to the most recent Excel data statistics I can find (subject to change), over the two years of the carbon tax our emissions started at 555Mt, fell to 550Mt and fell again to 542 Mt. As you can see by reading across the rows, the emissions may be adjusted for years after the fact. Who knows what Australia’s emissions of 2014 will be listed as 10 years from now.
Table 1: Running adjustments
As reported in June Q reports
|
2008 |
2009 |
2010 |
2011 |
2012x |
2013x |
2014x |
| Emissions in year to June 2008 |
544 |
551 |
549.5^ |
… |
548.9 |
545.5 |
552.4 |
| Emissions in year to June 2009 |
… |
544 |
548 |
… |
547.9 |
541.3 |
554.2 |
| Emissions in year to June 2010 |
… |
… |
548 |
548 |
545.4 |
540.1 |
548.3 |
| Emissions in year to June 2011 |
… |
… |
… |
546 |
551.2 |
541.2 |
552.8 |
| Emissions in year to June 2012 |
… |
… |
… |
… |
550.9 |
546.2 |
554.9 |
| Emissions in year to June 2013 |
… |
… |
… |
… |
… |
545.9 |
550.2 |
| Emissions in year to June 2014 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
542.6 |
These figures don’t count land use changes and forestry.
2014x, 2013x and 2012x are the Excel figures released with their respective June Quarterly reports – these are original emissions, not adjusted for seasonal effects or weather normalized. The other figures are “preliminary estimates” (like the 2014 figure) and come from the summaries and overviews issued each year. If they are adjusted for the weather or seasonality, I couldn’t find the note telling us so.
The Greens Leader Christine Milne thinks this 1.4% fall in emissions is embarrassing for the Abbott government. She looks at this graph and sees “success”. Its just as likely the cause of any flattening in our emissions is due to the Labor Party and Greens, or simply the GFC.
Spot the difference Australia’s Carbon tax made. Anyone?
Other quarters may look different but for the June Quarter this is what “success” looks like:
 …. Figures from the Dept of Environment.
Keep reading →
8.7 out of 10 based on 78 ratings
Reader William York points out that Dr Xargle’s Book of Earth Weather (published 1992) is a similar vintage to the IPCC FAR report. Xargle’s job was to explain Earth’s climate to the Planet of Queeqians. Like the FAR report, Dr Xargle was turned into a fictional TV series.
Perfect fodder really for a Holiday Unthreaded. – Jo
——————————————————————————————–
From William York,
The following work, first published in 1992 is arguably one of the best interpretations of the 1990 IPCC First Assessment Report.
The book appears to be based on the earlier work of Mark Twain who wisely said “climate is what you want and weather is what you get”.
Dr Xargle from another planet should be well aligned with our climate modelers.
Keep reading →
8.3 out of 10 based on 50 ratings
The Doom message version 48.2a (subclause i) has been released.
Forget methane clathrate pits, now extra plant growth (blame CO2) could cause global soil to unleash massive amounts of carbon.
Carbon dioxide (aka “pollution”) feeds plants. This is now bad (didn’t you know?). An all new “first” computer model with plants, soil, and fungus, warns us that more plants could get soil microbes excited which might break down more soil carbon and release it into the air. Disaster! It’s a could-be-might-be-catastrophe. (At least until paragraph 6 — see that caveat below.)
In the meantime this is is so big, it’s practically nuclear — the model reports that it could set off a “chain reaction”:
An increase in human-made carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could initiate a chain reaction between plants and microorganisms that would unsettle one of the largest carbon reservoirs on the planet — soil.
Did you know there is twice as much CO2, carbon in the soil as there is in Earth’s whole atmosphere?
Researchers based at Princeton University report in the journal Nature Climate Change that the carbon in soil — which contains twice the amount of carbon in all plants and Earth’s atmosphere combined — could become increasingly volatile as people add more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, largely because of increased plant growth. The researchers developed the first computer model to show at a global scale the complex interaction between carbon, plants and soil, which includes numerous bacteria, fungi, minerals and carbon compounds that respond in complex ways to temperature, moisture and the carbon that plants contribute to soil.
(The “first”? Dr David Evans tells me that FullCAM — the Australian carbon accounting model he helped develop — did this on an Australian scale years ago, and that they weren’t the first then.)
Note the politically-correct permitted phrasing next:
Although a greenhouse gas and pollutant, carbon dioxide also supports plant growth.
So after 500 million years of evolution of carbon based life-forms, carbon dioxide is first and foremost a greenhouse gas, secondly it’s a pollutant, but but… it does… “support” plant growth. (Could we make that weaker? Plants need CO2 so desperately that they suck out all the stuff they can get before morning tea, then they stop growing — and the way to describe this is that CO2 “supports” them — like a tomato stake, right?)
Keep reading →
9.3 out of 10 based on 83 ratings
How to separate creative genius from creative mistakes? Not with peer-review. It is a consensus filter.
Classical peer review is a form of scientific gatekeeping (it’s good to see that term recognized in official literature). Unpaid anonymous peer review is useful at filtering out some low quality papers, it is also effective at blocking the controversial ones which later go on to be accepted elsewhere and become cited many times, the paradigm changers.
And the more controversial the topic, presumably, the worse the bias is. What chance would anyone have of getting published if, hypothetically, they found a consequential mathematical error underlying the theory of man-made global warming? Which editors would be brave enough to even send it out for review and risk being called a “denier”? Humans are gregarious social beings, and being in with the herd affects your financial rewards, as well as your social standing. Even high ranking science journal editors are afraid of being called names.
Mark Peplow discusses a new PNAS paper in Nature:
Using subsequent citations as a proxy for quality, the team found that the journals were good at weeding out dross and publishing solid research. But they failed — quite spectacularly — to pick up the papers that went to on to garner the most citations.
“The shocking thing to me was that the top 14 papers had all been rejected, one of them twice,” says Kyle Siler, a sociologist at the University of Toronto in Canada, who led the study1. The work was published on 22 December in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
There is no formalized sure-fire system to find and reward the creative genius needed for the big leaps in science. Their work must be impeccable logical, but it is an art to cut through human biases to recognise that genius. And art cannot be mandated or controlled. We should never place much confidence in a formalized process, especially one that’s unpaid and anonymous, to spot the papers that will be the most cited 50 years from now.
But the team also found that 772 of the manuscripts were ‘desk rejected’ by at least one of the journals — meaning they were not even sent out for peer review — and that 12 out of the 15 most-cited papers suffered this fate. “This raises the question: are they scared of unconventional research?” says Siler. Given the time and resources involved in peer review, he suggests, top journals that accept just a small percentage of the papers they receive can afford to be risk averse.
For the record:
Siler and his team tapped into a database of manuscripts and reviewer reports held by the University of California, San Francisco, that had been used in previous studies of the peer-review process.
Anyone who thinks “peer review” is somehow part of the scientific method does not know what science is.
h/t to the brilliant Matthew.
REFERENCES
Peplow, Mark (2014) Peer review — reviewed, Top medical journals filter out poor papers but often reject future citation champions. Nature,doi:10.1038/nature.2014.16629 [Discussion of Siler et al]
Siler, K., Lee, K. & Bero, L. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1418218112 (2014).
9.3 out of 10 based on 89 ratings
The more we give the UN, the more it wants.
The UN Green Climate will get more than $10 billion of other people’s money to spend, but are arguing that they shouldn’t need to obey the laws and taxes that other people do. The Chosen Ones are above all that.
Potentially this could include organizations that are not part of the UN but “working” with it and thus more of the global economy and financial system would come under complete UN control. We could get a whole separate economic and legal system that operates far beyond any voter control. Fun, Fun, Fun. Global parasites anyone?
Another reason to shut down the UN.
Fox News (via GWPF)
If the GCF succeeds in its broader negotiations, not only billions but eventually trillions of dollars in climate funding activities could fall outside the scope of criminal and civilian legal actions, as well as outside examination, as the Fund, which currently holds $10 billion in funding and pledges, expands its ambitions.
The shield would cover all documentation as well as the words and actions of officials and consultants involved in the activity documentation—even after they move on to other jobs. As a tasty side-benefit, the “privileges” attached to such “privileges and immunities,” as they are known in diplomatic parlance, mean that employees get their salaries tax-free.
Just why the GCF needs the sweeping protections is not exactly clear. In response to questions from Fox News, Michel Smitall, a Fund spokesman, provided mostly opaque answers.
“Privileges and immunities are intended to facilitate GCF activities in countries in which it operates and the GCF’s ability to use contributions by donor countries in an effective and efficient manner that serves the objectives agreed by its member countries,” he said.
If they succeed, the tax benefits alone make the $10b effectively twice as much.
The UN is seeking bilateral agreements with each country. Can you imagine how many UN workers it takes full time to negotiate that and how many special deals can be done?
Keep reading →
9.4 out of 10 based on 88 ratings
…
8.3 out of 10 based on 21 ratings
Two weeks ago on the HockeyStick Update post we discussed the miracle of how the Bristlecones used in HockeyStick graphs had finally (sort of) been updated. I marvelled that 800 year old tree rings were easier to find than ones from 2002. Now 16 years after the MBH98 “seminal” (well, popular) paper was published, Salzer et al had finally found some rare modern trees and updated the temperatures after 1980, but gosh, the tree rings didn’t proxy for the red-hot rising trends of the modern era, instead they recorded a fall. That particular hockeystick collapsed (again).
It took a while, but Greg Laden bravely dropped in here on Thursday to share a link to his post on how skeptics are misunderstanding the update with “mind numbing” arguments. My reply to him on the old thread may have gone unnoticed. So I’ll repeat it here (with slight edits). Perhaps Greg missed my reply?
Steve McIntyre has also taken Laden to task on his blog.
 Greg Laden December 19, 2014 at 12:54 am
A post on one of the studies you refer to here: http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2014/12/17/new-research-on-tree-rings-as-indicators-of-past-climate/
—————————————————————–
 Joanne Nova December 19, 2014 at 1:41 am
Greg, thanks for popping in, thumbs up from me. Lets share your arguments with everyone here. Quoting from your link:
“More recently, climate science denialist JoNova took the new paper by Salzer et al to task using equally mind numbing arguments.”
What’s the scientific definition of a “denialist” Greg, or are you just namecalling? [I am still hoping Greg would answer this.]
JoNova notes that “after decades of studying 800 year old tree rings, someone has finally found some trees living as long ago as 2005. These rarest-of-rare tree rings have been difficult to find … The US government may have spent $30 billion on climate research, but that apparently wasn’t enough to find trees on SheepMountain living between the vast treeless years of 1980 to now.”
I’m sure the scientists involved in tree ring research would like to know where their $30 billion dollars went, but that’s another story.
The $30 billion went here. It’s out of date now, the real number is much higher.
I asked Malcolm Hughes about JoNova’s implication that there has been next to zero research on or with bristlecone pines over these many years. He said, “This post makes a big deal about the lack of updating of bristlecone pine chronologies since 1980. This is simply wrong. She fails to acknowledge that in 2009 we published on bristlecone pine growth rates in PNAS (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences) and put tree-ring data from Sheep Mountain out to the year 2005 in a publicly accessible archive.”
OK, so pushing multiple hockey-stick papers, and repeats and iterations in the IPCC reports plus press conferences is equivalent to quietly putting the data in a “publicly accessible archive”. As if listeners of MSNBC are trawling PNAS for loosely connected “growth rate” studies and hunting down the datasets while they drive to work. Good luck with convincing people that climate scientists are working just as hard to update their scary graphs as they did to create them.
JoNova also implies that the lack of tree ring proxy use for periods after 1980 is somehow suspicious, but as detailed at length above, the divergence problem is, well, a problem. Also, further work such as that reported here is likely to revive some of that data and allow it to be used, eventually. At the very least, future work with high altitude/latitude tree ring data will be improved by these methodological and ecological studies.
Yes, the divergence problem is real. Congratulations. And “one day” the data might be improved enough to “allow it to be used”. Or then again, we might turn it into a logo for the IPCC and put it on hats, banners, and posters all over the world instead. What would a scientist do, I wonder?
Climate science denialist Steve McIntyre has also weighed in on Salzer et all’s research. His post is truly mind numbing, as he treats Salzer et al as a climate reconstruction paper, and critiques it as such, but the paper examines the methodology of tree ring proxy use and the ecology of tree rings. McIntyre shows the same figure I show above (Figure 5 from that paper) and critiques the researchers for failing to integrate that figure or its data with Mann et al’s climate reconstructions. But they shouldn’t have. That is not what the paper is about. Another very recent paper by the same team is in fact a climate reconstruction study (published in Climate Dynamics) but McIntyre manages to ignore that.
Of course, Mann et al should not rush to integrate the new data with their 1998 Hockeystick. It’s only been 16 years that it’s been in the headlines, and there are only global agreements, billions of dollars and the fate of the planet at stake. Why hurry?
This is Green B-lobby science at work.
As I said then:
More important than the details of one proxy, is the message that the modern bureaucratized monopolistic version of “science” doesn’t work. Real scientists, who were really interested in the climate, would have published updates years ago.
The screaming absence of this obvious update for so long is an example of what I call the “rachet effect” in science — where only the right experiments, or the right data, gets published. It’s not that there is a conspiracy, it’s just that no one is paid to find the holes in the theory and the awkward results sit buried at the bottom of a drawer for a decade.
To this evidently Laden, and Malcolm Hughes (of Mann Bradley Hughes fame) who corresponded with Laden about the post had little to say.
9.7 out of 10 based on 140 ratings
It’s time to pin down the definition of the Green Blob
Owen Paterson gets the credit for setting this phrase into popular use (as far as I can tell). Here is his definition:
Owen Paterson: I’m proud of standing up to the green lobby
By this I mean the mutually supportive network of environmental pressure groups, renewable energy companies and some public officials who keep each other well supplied with lavish funds, scare stories and green tape. This tangled triangle of unelected busybodies claims to have the interests of the planet and the countryside at heart, but it is increasingly clear that it is focusing on the wrong issues and doing real harm while profiting handsomely.
Local conservationists on the ground do wonderful work to protect and improve wild landscapes, as do farmers, rural businesses and ordinary people. They are a world away from the highly paid globe-trotters of the Green Blob who besieged me with their self-serving demands, many of which would have harmed the natural environment.
Pressed in Fenbeagle’s hand the Green Blob became The Green B-Lobby. Which adds that edge — the amorphous blob becomes a Lobby blob.
…
Forgive me, Fenbeagle, for rendering the cartoon in gif which uses less memory but destroys the gradients. (To see the original art, which is even better, visit his site ). Published with permission.
Exactly what kind of Blob and Blobby do we mean?
James Murry edits BusinessGreen and, not surprisingly, isn’t too keen on the “Green Blob” term. He argued in July that it’s so broadly defined it is meaningless, or rather, dangerous, in that it combines sensible questioners with eco-anarchists:
Keep reading →
9.6 out of 10 based on 79 ratings
And you thought humans were special because they can control the climate. Move over Big-Coal, make way for the squirrels and beavers. They’ve been stirring up the soil releasing CO2, or damning up streams and producing methane.
Daily Mail — Richard Gray
Forget humans, RODENTS are the climate villains: Squirrels and beavers are contributing to global warming far more than previously thought
- Arctic ground squirrels churn up and warm soil in the Tundra, allowing carbon dioxide gas trapped in the ice to escape into the atmosphere
- Methane released from ponds created by beavers estimated to contribute 200 times more greenhouse gas to atmosphere than they did 100 years ago
- Climate scientists will have to tweak their models to include role of rodents
- Scientists insist that rodents role in global warming does not let humans off the hook but shows animals play more of a role than previously thought
Wake up climate simulators, it’s time to add rodent-forcings to the models. Along with anthropogenic forcing (and beaver-effects), that’s three vertebrate families down, and only 181 to go.
Squirrels have been around in some form for 40 million years, but in the last 100 they’ve become dangerous climate movers. Freaky timing that.
Keep reading →
9.1 out of 10 based on 81 ratings
Naomi Klein is still throwing rocks, and these rocks are hairier than ever. Try this: if you disagree about climate sensitivity you are not just an unconvinced mind, but a white supremacist. It’s racism, racism all the way down, I tell you!
Lucky Naomi is here to unpack the sinister World Order of evil white men who control the climate. Who knew? In her world, man-made climate change will kill more non-whites than whites, but the white guys who run everything just don’t care. So there! (Is she saying that white men can control the weather but black men can’t?)
The namecalling reaches a new level of absurdity in “Why #BlackLivesMatter Should Transform the Climate Debate“. Forget money, power and sex, the world is run on racism:
“What would governments do if black and brown lives counted as much as white lives?”
Taken together, the picture is clear. Thinly veiled notions of racial superiority have informed every aspect of the non-response to climate change so far. Racism is what has made it possible to systematically look away from the climate threat for more than two decades. It is also what has allowed the worst health impacts of digging up, processing and burning fossil fuels—from cancer clusters to asthma—to be systematically dumped on indigenous communities and on the neighborhoods where people of colour live, work and play.
Hmmm. The IPCC warned that the biggest temperature rises would be at the poles. If this was about the “intersection of climate and race”, as she calls it, the worst hit nations would be those dark skinned nations like Canada, Finland and Norway, eh?!
The truth is that the temperatures will always be most stable in the tropics — where the evaporation rates and humidity keep things from heating or cooling too rapidly.
She whips out every red flag she can find – it’s not just superstorms and rising seas, but police killing blacks, and asthma, and healthcare.
She mentions “Ferguson” but not “poverty”.
What Klein has spotted, spun and turned into fairy floss, is that any bad weather hurts the poor more than the wealthy. This is the unfortunate, banal truth. Some of us evil people think the answer is to solve the poverty, not to change the global climate. Those who care about the poor want to improve their economies, reduce corruption, and create more wealth. With wealth comes more freedom from the ravages of storms and floods.
Klein is seeing very big monsters under the bed:
The grossly unequal distribution of climate impacts is not some little-understood consequence of the failure to control carbon emissions. It is the result of a series of policy decisions the governments of wealthy countries have made—and continue to make—with full knowledge of the facts and in the face of strenuous objections.
I vividly remember the moment when the racism barely under the surface of international climate talks burst onto the world stage. It was exactly five years ago this week, on the second day of the now-infamous United Nations climate summit in Copenhagen. Up until that point, the conference had been a stultifying affair, with the fates of nations discussed in the bloodless jargon of climate “adaptation and mitigation.” All of that changed when a document was leaked showing that governments were on the verge of setting a target that would cap the global temperature rise at 2 degrees Celsius
Naomi thinks it’s policy-by-racism, as if old white men sit in dark smoky rooms putting racism before profit and power. There are some greedy psycho bastards at the top of some corporates and in politics, I don’t think they care as much about the color of their victims as they do about the size of the pay-off.
If she paid attention to the numbers she’d know the big profits are in carbon exchanges, not pie-in-the-sky planetary tinkering. I’ve written about her crippling problem with numbers before. Only someone who can’t add up would predict that the old white men are hankering to do geoengineering, rather than broker carbon credit deals and derivatives and cream off the fee.
Keep reading →
9.3 out of 10 based on 128 ratings
Too many big names too list, and all in one book, edited by Alan Moran and published by the IPA. I’m am just tickled, delighted to be one of the authors.
The proper headline should include Ross McKitrick, Willie Soon, Pat Michaels, Garth Paltridge, Kesten Green, Stewart Franks, Christopher Essex, Jennifer Marohasy and John Abbott. Not to forget the great writers Rupert Darwall, and Donna LaFramboise.
— Jo
An excerpt:
Shh, don’t mention the water
To state the bleeding obvious, Earth is a Water Planet. Water dominates everything and it’s infernally complicated. Water holds 90% of all the energy on the surface,[1] and both NASA[2] and the IPCC[3] admit water is the most important greenhouse gas there is, they just don’t seem inclined to produce posters telling us this is a humidity crisis, or that water is pollution.
I get right into the Dada-science, foggy-text, Klingon plots and zombies. I went right over the word limit… :- )
There are briefings in February as well, see below for details!
From John Roskam at the IPA
Climate Change: The Facts 2014, a new book from the Institute of Public Affairs is now available. It couldn’t come at a more important time. You can buy your copy here.
The carbon tax might be gone and the planet might not have warmed since 1998 (as even the IPCC acknowledged last month in its Fifth Assessment Report) but the climate change debate is far from over. Tony Abbott is still going to give $200 million to the United Nations’ ‘Green Climate Fund’. This is after he called the Fund the ‘Bob Brown bank on an international scale’. The federal government says it “accepts the climate change science” – but the government never says exactly what the ‘science’ is that it accepts. The science is clear. There’s been no warming since 1998.
Keep reading →
8.9 out of 10 based on 110 ratings
So Lima produced another “accord” of late night unenforeceable nothingness. They pumped out gloom and doom, and trumpeted the $12 billion in funds pledged to the Green Climate Fund. But only a few years ago in Cancun they were aiming for $100 billion. A grand failure as the world grows more skeptical.
But as long as these UNFCCC mega-junkets occur at all, it is still a win for the Green Blobby. Blob-science and the renewables industry still got $12 billion more than skeptical scientists. And 11,000 potential lobbyists got a two week junket in South America, mixing with friends, and hearing how virtuous and important they are. That’s bound to pump up the science-activists — at the very least, they’ll be motivated to make sure they don’t miss out on next year’s two-week junket, or the year after that…
For scientists, this is rock star treatment. Is there any other branch of science which gets a regular paid two-week long international trip to an exotic location year after year? In what other career could B-grade researchers — whose computer simulations fail on every measure — get the red carpet rolled out and lauded as people “trying to save the world”?
Meanwhile the headlines rolled around the world, repeated variations of the last 20 years of pro-forma alarm. How much did each western government spend to make this glorious Olympic junket occur? No one seems to be able to tell us, but it’s pretty clear the amount of private money is negligible and all dollars were involuntarily given. Time to shut down the UNFCCC.
Beware the voluntary soft option
Obama is aiming for a “politically binding” agreement instead of a legally binding one, which he cannot do because US voters didn’t vote for representatives like Obama. So he promised in August that he would try to get around Congress to get a global Climate Accord in Lima. Voluntary agreements sound so pointless, but in the end there is no global police force to enforce a legal agreement (and we pray there never will be), so all agreements legal or not, are subject to the political will of the players. Is there much difference between political and legal deals on this international scale?
What are the options if Spain owes Russia billions at the end of the day and won’t pay? That depends on who has the biggest army and willingness to use it, and the most friends, just like international treaties, deals and agreements always have. Will a country support trade embargoes as a punishment? That depends on political will.
So the soft option is to ask everyone to agree to something voluntary, which seems fairly easy to agree too, then ramp up the political pressure after the deal is done. In its wildest dreams the UN would prefer the legal type of deal, but a “voluntary” deal is still worth a lot of PR, scores headlines, and provides leverage for hounding and hassling weak nations later.
If the citizens of the free world hate the deal, it’ll be ignored and all that political pressure will amount to nothing in the face of the vote-killing potential. But PR like this softens up the citizens; if they are not paying attention it helps create the belief that global carbon deals are inevitable. If domestic politics is distracted by other issues (and that’s the case in nearly every opinion poll in the West) then voters may elect soft governments who use the voluntary deals to justify their moves.
Obama’s plans are shamefully undemocratic
NY Times Aug 26, 2014 WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is working to forge a sweeping international climate change agreement to compel nations to cut their planet-warming fossil fuel emissions, but without ratification from Congress.
In preparation for this agreement, to be signed at a United Nations summit meeting in 2015 in Paris, the negotiators are meeting with diplomats from other countries to broker a deal to commit some of the world’s largest economies to enact laws to reduce their carbon pollution. But under the Constitution, a president may enter into a legally binding treaty only if it is approved by a two-thirds majority of the Senate.
Note the punishment is to “name and shame”:
To sidestep that requirement, President Obama’s climate negotiators are devising what they call a “politically binding” deal that would “name and shame” countries into cutting their emissions.
Naming and shaming only works if people buy into it. It falls apart if people laugh at the labels.
But it has already begun:
A Climate Accord Based on Global Peer Pressure
NY Times
… the driving force behind the new deal was not the threat of sanctions or other legal consequences. It was global peer pressure. And over the coming months, it will start to become evident whether the scrutiny of the rest of the world is enough to pressure world leaders to push through new global warming laws from New Delhi to Moscow or if, as a political force, international reproach is impotent.
“If a country doesn’t submit a plan, there will be no punishment, no fine, no black U.N. helicopters showing up,” said Jennifer Morgan, an expert on climate negotiations with the World Resources Institute, a research organization.
Instead the architects of the plan, including top White House officials, hope that the agreement will compel countries to act to avoid international condemnation.
“It relies on a lot of peer pressure,” Ms. Morgan said.
The structure of the deal is what political scientists often call a “name-and-shame” plan.
Under the Lima Accord all countries must submit plans that would be posted on a United Nations website and made available to the public
What do we take from this? We have to keep up the information campaign direct to voters and politicians. We need to name and shame the unskeptical scientists and the freeloader financials and industrialists who profit from the scare. But we especially need to name and shame the gullible journalists — the media IS the problem. If we had a better media we’d have better policies and better politicians.
It makes the new media and channels of communication all the more important. We need the blogs, letter to editors, and emails to representatives. Peer group pressure works. The difference between skeptics and unskeptics is that the one side has logic and data, and the other has billions of reasons.
9.5 out of 10 based on 100 ratings
…
8.5 out of 10 based on 31 ratings
The emotional babies in Parliament will do anything to avoid discussing certain ideas on their merits.
The Australian Department of Education has been asking specialists if their appointed curriculum reviewers have been “connected” with two of Australia’s most prominent non-leftist think tanks. The crime apparently is to consort with the scum who ask if big-government is too big.
Both the IPA and CIS support free markets, individual liberty and limited government.
South Australian Greens senator, Penny Wright, wants to know.
“This is outright McCarthyism,” IPA deputy director James Paterson said. “It is pretty much ‘Are you now or have you even been a member of the IPA?’ ”
Should we or should we not teach points X, Y or Z to the children of Australia? Green-logic says it depends on whether the person making the decision has ever been associated with the IPA or the CIS. Presumably reviewers who’ve been published by Green Left Weekly, the CFMEU, The Wilderness Society, Greenpeace, or The Australian Conservation Foundation should be weeded out too. Right?
Maybe not.
The lead author of the original history curriculum was Melbourne University historian Stuart Macintyre. His connections were not pursued by the Greens. Professor Macintyre was once a member of the Communist Party.
The unspoken implication is that merely being associated with highly respected, law abiding organizations that question the value of big-government is something that needs to be disclosed.
The battle of words
To fight this kind of irrational reasoning, the grown-ups need more tools in the language box. What word describes someone who is afraid to debate the point, or so confused about logical arguments that they ask loaded questions with the aim of denigrating their opponent? What word do we use for someone who repeatedly uses this meta-tactic to avoid polite debate? All the choices for “illogical” are here, but none seem be specific. Suggest away…
Our national conversation is stuck in kindergarten, debating and discussing various forms of name-calling. Every time we need a whole newspaper article with quotes to describe why this is such a bad idea, it tells us that we need words to describe these meta-tactics, and we need to teach them. If we have to have a National Curriculum (and we don’t), shouldn’t we at least make sure all children learn to spot the cheats and cop-outs by they way they dissemble, avoid the topic, and use character assassination as their main tool of debate.
Stick ad hominem in your curriculum.
There is no reasoning with the unreasonable
Keep reading →
9.4 out of 10 based on 108 ratings
In The Australian Bob Carter compares the long term tide gauge record in Sydney with projections, and exposes the exorbitant cost of insurance for alarmist sea level forecasts. The good news is that it appears councils are waking up, and “peak-sea-level-panic” is behind us.
Sea-level alarmism has passed high tide and is at last declining. With luck, empirical sanity will soon prevail over modelling.
After years of research it turns out that talking about “global” sea level rise is nearly meaningless to real people who live in one place. The ocean rise varies locally from beach to beach from as little as 5cm per century to as much as 16cm per century. The variations are mostly due to different rates of land subsiding or rising.
More importantly, the rate of rise was either the same or was even faster before World War II when CO2 levels were “safe”.
 Figure 5: Comparison of decadal rates of change over historical record. Analysis based on relative 20-y moving average water level time series. | Watson 2011 Fort Denison in Sydney has one of the longest running continuous records, starting in 1886, and finally local councils are realizing that they need to use the local data to plan ahead, not the IPCC’s one-size global fear index.
For example, measurements at Sydney between 2005 and 2014 show the tide gauge site is sinking at a rate of 0.49mm/yr, leaving just 0.16mm/yr of the overall relative rise as representing global sea-level change. Indeed, the rate of rise at Fort Denison, and globally, has been decreasing for the past 50 years.
Let’s cheer, Shoalhaven Shire Council shifted the sea-level-panic-index back a notch, rejecting the worst case IPCC scenario, settling for a slightly less scary one, and importantly, used the local Fort Denison record and ruled out “satellite or model-generated sea-level estimates until their accuracy is guaranteed”.
When councils plan for scenarios that never happen, the pointless insurance can cost some unlucky home owners tens of thousands — in one shire – $40,000 each.
Keep reading →
8.4 out of 10 based on 94 ratings
A group of people calling themselves “leading scientists” think that what the climate really needs is some A-grade namecalling. Specifically, they want the word skeptic for themselves, and want everyone who is unconvinced by their argument to be called a “denier”. I guess they’ve finally realized how uncool it sounds to be an unskeptical scientist. Their reasoning is that they have 48 sciencey type celebrities and they can quote Carl Sagan. Their scientific greats include guys like Bill Nye the Science Guy, James Randi, and Dick Smith.
The headline reads:
End misuse of ‘sceptic’, urge 48 science minds
Me, I think — let’s aim higher, and end the misuse of of the term “scientist”. Real scientists debate the evidence and don’t use namecalling as scientific argument. Denier” is not a scientific term, it’s a form of character assassination from lazy minds who want to avoid discussing the data.
Make no mistake, “denier” is not a descriptive term in a science debate, it’s equal to saying “you have the brain of a rock”. Being in denial of observations to the point where a person in toto becomes labeled a denier, is shorthand for saying that they are so mentally deficient that a conversation is not worth having. Why start? It’s the oldest rhetorical trick in the book — a stone-age political ploy.
Then there’s the point about scientists using accurate English and defined terms. What, specifically, is a climate denier — someone who denies we have a climate? Is that homo sapiens denialist, or is it just someone who denies your political ideology? Could it be an all-purpose, sloppy misuse of English for advertising and promotion purposes? Looks like.
Real scientists would never talk of a consensus of opinions as if it were scientific evidence about the climate, nor would they use an ad hominem argument. Resorting to kindergarten namecalling shows that these “minds” are afraid, quaking, that the public might listen to skeptical scientists and judge their arguments for their content.
In a scientific debate, a “denier” must deny an observation. Yet the namecallers cannot name any observations that skeptical scientists deny. (I’ve been asking for nearly five years). Nor can they provide observational evidence to back up their “extraordinary claims”.
As they point out:
“Real skepticism is summed up by a quote popularised by Carl Sagan, ‘Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”
So who is making the extraordinary claim: Skeptical scientists say “climate models are exaggerating”. Unskeptical scientists say that building windmills in Hokum Downs will prevent floods in Taiwan. Where is the evidence?
Skeptical scientists ask for evidence. Unskeptical scientists call people “deniers”.
Keep reading →
9 out of 10 based on 104 ratings
Pander to the crocodile. Danegeld. The Australian government has offered $200 million for the UN Green Climate Fund. It’s more advertising money for the Green Blob, guaranteed to fund nice jobs that depend on the belief that man-made climate change is real, dangerous and can be solved by the UN. The cluster of dedicated climate-changing lobbyists will grow (slightly) and Australia’s foreign aid budget will shrink. In the end, it won’t make any difference to the global climate, but it will increase the number of press releases pushing the meme, and demanding more money from the public. Shame.
When Green bullies use outrage to push for money, the answer is not to pay them off, but to out-Green them and expose the hypocrisy.
Imagine if the Abbott government stood up to the so-called environmentalists and said: “We’re doing something real to help the poor and the environment — we’re funding programs direct to make sure the funds go where they are needed most. Large conglomerate centralized groups are inefficient, they tend to feed bureaucracy and junkets. We are going to be the first nation to fund an independent science program. For the sake of the environment we going to audit and check the data and results with experts from many branches of science. We are going to foster debate, leave no stone unturned, check every figure and make sure that environmental science is subjected to the absolute best peer review we can find. The world needs climate models that can predict the climate, and Australia will lead the way in auditing them.”
The real environmentalists in this debate are the ones who want BOM data and methods to be fully replicated and publicly available. The real scientists in this debate are the ones trying to understand how the climate really works by looking at the observations instead of studying opinion polls and inventing conspiracies about “fossil fuel funding”.
If the Abbott government spent a mere 10% of the Climate Fund setting up a research and analytical program to replicate BOM adjustments, or to set up independent climate models that used natural forcings to model the climate, then there would finally be a free market in science. When governments picks winners among scientific theories, as it has in climate science, it cripples scientific progress. As I’ve said for years, before we ask for a free market in carbon credits, we need a free market in science. It time we get real and stop expecting unfunded volunteers to compete unassisted with a one-sided industrial science machine. If the science is settled, and the evidence is obvious, true scientists would not be scared of real debate. They would welcome it. We do.
If Abbott spent $20 million funding skeptics there would be outrage. But the louder the outrage the more it proves that the thing that climate activists are most afraid of is for skeptical scientists to be given the same chance to make their case as unskeptical scientists. It’ s obvious what kind of scientist will win.
9.4 out of 10 based on 139 ratings
Does anyone care about actual carbon emissions anymore? (I mean, apart from our coalition government?)
What matters is not whether you emit or suck the CO2. It’s not even about whether you are seen to be doing something. Doing something is irrelevant. It’s about joining the club and obeying the rules. And the rules are complex: Carbon trading is good. Planting trees is bad. Carbon taxes are good, but carbon soil storage is bad. And nuclear, of course, is awful — unless you are a large communist power, in which case, it’s a landmark agreement.
More efficient coal power is bad, even if they reduce emissions, but inefficient wind towers are good, even if they don’t.
If there is a rule underlying the rules, it appears to be that any solution is a good solution if it makes big government bigger. If governments are already as big as they can get (e.g. China) then any solution is a good solution.
We can see the rules at work in the current name and shame campaign. Australia might meet those targets but who cares — it’ s now at the bottom of the Climate Oscars.
Oh no. The pain and humiliation. Australia can’t win the The Climate Change Performance Index – an award that has existed since lunch.
Australia at the bottom of list on climate change action
The Australian
Keep reading →
9.2 out of 10 based on 139 ratings
One more reason not to give funds to the UN, but do enjoy the contortions.
Japan claimed it spent $1b on a particular action against climate change, which made the UN happy. But it turns out that money went to Japanese companies to build coal fired power stations in Indonesia, which makes the UN very unhappy because the UN does not support coal-powered projects, even if they lower CO2 emissions. Coal is evil, after all.
Newsweek: U.N. climate chief Christiana Figueres was apparently unaware of where those funds wound up until it was brought to her attention by the AP. Figueres told the AP that “there is no argument” for supporting coal-powered projects with climate money, and that “unabated coal has no room in the future energy system.”
Watch the anamorphosis as the PR picture turns inside out. Good money becomes bad money. What was UN money becomes not-UN money. What was a CO2 reduction (with a more efficient coal fired power) becomes unsupportable.
The journalists at Reuters had to correct their Newsweek article within hours:
This article was corrected to clarify that the nearly $1 billion were not specifically U.N. funds, but rather Japanese funds that Japan claimed at the U.N. were part of its contribution to a U.N. initiative on climate finance.
So it was UN money and part of the “climate momentum” in 2009, but now that it might embarrass the UN (because coal is evil, after all) it’s called Japanese money.
Despite the update the article still says the money is UN money:
The funding came from a pot of money established by the U.N. in 2009, when wealthy nations pledged to accumulate $30 billion in climate finance over the following three years. At the time, Japan agreed to provide about half that sum.
Is it rorting, cronyism, “success” or all three?
So the UN didn’t have any watchdog or clear directives in place, and they’ve been caught. But against their finest intentions, quite possibly the new coal fired stations are reducing CO2. Though they won’t be changing the climate.
The Japanese defend themselves saying there was never a formal definition of what constitutes “climate finance”, and they’ve broken no law or treaty. According to Associated Press “Japan says these plants burn coal more efficiently and are therefore cleaner than old coal plants.” This is quite likely — the new hotter super-critical coal plants which cut emissions by as much as 15% , but oh the dilemma.
If environmentalists really cared about CO2 emissions, they would love the new coal power. Wind and solar dream of being that environmentally useful. The more we use renewables, the less CO2 they save. In South Australia residents pay 150 times as much for energy that produces almost as much CO2 as would have been made anyway.
Rinse, Repeat, recycle that corruption
Keep reading →
9.2 out of 10 based on 95 ratings
|
JoNova A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).
Jo appreciates your support to help her keep doing what she does. This blog is funded by donations. Thanks!
Follow Jo's Tweets To report "lost" comments or defamatory and offensive remarks, email the moderators at: support.jonova AT proton.me
Statistics
The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX
|
Recent Comments