Tim Flannery - apocalyptic nonsense

The "global warming" enviro-head, author of The Weather Makers, and (shamefully) Australian of the Year in 2007, is making nonsensical apocalyptic predictions about how climate change is heading for a global catastrophe in as little as 10 years.

Dr Flannery told an international carbon market conference on the Gold Coast yesterday that emissions trading schemes alone could not save the planet in time.

Telling a carbon market conference that an ETS can't save the planet? So the message would be something like: the world's going to hell in a handbasket, an ETS won't help, but hey, you carbon traders can still cash in on Armageddon (before we all get sautéed, that is) ... sweet.

Dr Flannery said the catastrophe could be a large-scale methane release which would cook the planet or [cause] major ice sheet destabilisation.

All qualified by the words "could be", of course. I suppose he's talking about a methane release caused by the out-of-control global warming that's happened since 2001? No, wait, hang on...

Read it here.

Daily Bayonet - GW Hoax Weekly Round-up

As always, a great read.

Wong calls Opposition "deniers"

Denier Alert: In this post, where I commented on the Nationals dumping their ETS policy, I wondered aloud how long it would take for Rudd, Wong or one of their cronies to squeal "deniers" or "sceptics". My bet was less than 24 hours - it's actually taken six days, but it was as inevitable as the sun coming up in the morning. The Canberra Times reports that "Climate Penny" can't control herself any longer, and goes on the offensive (in more ways than one):

Senator Wong told reporters in Sydney today the calls for delay on emissions trading from the opposition were "the next chapter from the climate change deniers who don't want us to take action on climate change".

"These are the same people who prevented Australia from ratifying the Kyoto protocol, these are the same people who preferred not to act on the long-term challenge of climate change," she said.

"They are now asking for further delay because they are simply climate change deniers."

Notice that she doesn't address the arguments about why the Opposition, in particular the Nationals, oppose the ETS, such as the fact it will have no effect on climate change, and that despite what the Treasury modelling says, it will substantially damage our economy, she wheels out the offensive term "denier" - subtly linking those who deny climate change to those who "deny" the Holocaust - as if that's all she has to do to win the argument. Sorry, Penny, that's just not good enough. If you have sensible arguments against the Nationals' position, let's hear them - otherwise, just keep the offensive remarks to yourself.

The opposition "prevented" Australia ratifying Kyoto because it was a pointless political gesture. The government's proposed ETS is nothing more, and advances an anti-capitalist political agenda.

Malcolm Turnbull has to simply let these personal attacks wash over, and stick to the facts about the ETS: even if Australia reduces emissions to zero overnight, it will make no difference to global climate, until or unless the other major emitters, the US, China and India, join in, which at this point they show little interest in doing. And, all this presupposes that CO2 drives temperature, which despite what the alarmists say, is by no means certain.

Read it here.

We can't think of any other cause, it must be us

This is the depth to which scientific research into climate change has sunk, like a kind of prehistoric civilisation that blames thunderstorms, earthquakes and volcanoes on humanity somehow having "upset the gods". A Canadian study has concluded that we must be causing climate change because nothing else can explain it.

Under the triumphant headline "Study confirms human impact on climate change", The Age reports all this without any discrimination:

"We found that we could only explain the warming that's been observed if we included human-climate influences, particularly greenhouse gases," the study's author, Nathan Gillett, told ABC Radio.

"And we couldn't explain those changes [if there] were just natural influences on climate like volcanoes and changes in the brightness of the sun."

Maybe your models aren't all they're cracked up to be? Did you get them cheap off the IPCC? And to finish off, ACM Idiotic Comment of the Day gong awarded for dumbest alarmist remark:

"In the Arctic, we have the Greenland ice sheet, in the Antarctic, the Antarctic ice sheet.

"If those all melted, that would contribute 70 metres to sea level."

Yawn.

Read it here.

"Stock and Land" - Nationals' Warren Truss ridicules ETS modelling

"Stock and Land?", I hear you ask. Well yes, as it appears to be one of the few media outlets that have the sense to print the views of the Nationals on the ETS modelling (as neither The Age, Sydney Morning Herald nor The Australian appear to have given Warren Truss a single column-inch of space amongst all the leftie propaganda):

The Leader of The Nationals, Warren Truss said Treasury clearly stated this fact: “Stabilisation [of greenhouse gas emissions] is only possible with action by all major emitters”.

“The Treasury modelling confirms that the Rudd Government’s proposal to introduce an ETS in 2010 – ahead of most of the rest of the world and our major trading partners – is folly,” Mr Truss said.

“There seems to be an assumption that big emitters will simply fall into line once Australia and a few other countries act. This is unlikely and we certainly won’t know until well after Labor’s scheme is scheduled to begin.”

Hello, testing, testing... Are you receiving this, Malcolm Turnbull? This should be Coalition policy, not just Nationals policy.

"The Rudd Government seems prepared to rush into this most momentous of decisions based purely upon ideology and a desire to reap new tax revenue,” Mr Truss said.

Give this man a Nobel Prize (and an Oscar for luck).

Read it here.

P.S. Kevin Rudd can't even make a joke when it's staring him right in the face, such is the dullness of his intellect. Speaking on ABC's 7.30 Report, he said:

"My Cabinet colleagues and I have a lot of midnight oil to burn on this and other challenges in the weeks ahead."

I mean, if he'd said that Peter Garrett (who is after all the Environment Minister, God help us) has a lot of Midnight Oil to burn, see, that's funny...

A Tale of Two Headlines

From The Australian:

ETS will slow economic growth and push up inflation, models show

And from The Sydney Morning Herald:

Emissions cuts: 'little economic impact'

You pays your money, you takes your choice...

Read them here and here.

OT - Krudd's a jerk

We all had our suspicions in November 2007 about whether Kevin Rudd was simply an incompetent buffoon in a suit, but we never believed in all our wildest dreams that he would reveal himself to be a bigger idiot than anyone could have suspected. But that is exactly what he has done by leaking a story to The Australian about a conversation he had with George Bush. Andrew Bolt makes hay while the sun shines:

He betrayed Bush by retelling their conversation in ways to make the President seem a donkey, and Rudd the genius who trained him to behave. And Bush has noticed.

Still not satisfied, Rudd then apparently made things up - to take public credit for a decision Bush had already made.

I can't recall a greater breach of confidence, a more studied insult to an ally or a more craven attempt at big-noting from an Australian Prime Minister.

Rudd made Bush seem a "donkey" by briefing that Bush queried to Rudd "What's the G20?" (as if the President of the United States, no matter how you choose to view Bush, wouldn't know that).

In fact, Channel 9's Laurie Oakes last night reported that White House staff deny Bush ever asked Rudd: "What's the G20?" They're on to Rudd.

They sure are. It's tawdry and embarrassing for Australia, and this is the guy we trust to tell us the truth on the economic crisis and the ETS. Let's just hope Rudd's a one-termer.

Read it all here.

Treasury modelling on ETS - garbage in, garbage out

The newspapers are full of this story today, and the fact that the ETS will not harm the economy. From the Sydney Morning Herald:

Climate Change Minister Penny Wong on Wednesday was putting a positive spin on the modelling ahead of its release, saying it shows there is nothing to fear in emissions trading.

Well, she would, wouldn't she (or else her job and her department would disappear in a puff of Nitrogen Trifluoride).

Treasurer Wayne Swan said the data showed emissions trading would not hurt economic growth.

"What the modelling will show is that we can deal with climate change ... without having a dramatic impact on economic growth," he told Macquarie Radio Network.

I bore myself having to repeat this, but an Australian ETS will not deal with climate change, as cutting 10% or 20% from Australia's tiny contribution of 1.5% of global emissions will, in terms of "dealing with climate change" achieve nothing. And the Government is in cloud cuckoo land if it thinks that the rest of the world is going to somehow "follow Australia's lead."

The EU is in a shambles on its emissions reductions, India and China are simply not interested, and the US is far from unified on its approach (apparently only 18% of the US public think that climate change is real, human-caused and harmful - thanks to Watts Up With That).

There are a number of parallels that can be drawn between the results of the Treasury modelling about the effects of an ETS on the Australian economy and the modelling of the future climate by the IPCC.

Any model of a complex system is an approximation, and complies with the usual "GIGO" (garbage in, garbage out) rule. The IPCC, as we all know, have cherry-picked the data they use in their models to advance their own political agenda (think Michael Mann and "hockey sticks"). The results show that we must "act now" to avoid "catastrophic" climate change, and allows the socialist/anti-capitalist agenda of the UN to be advanced.

Similarly, we all know what the Treasury's modelling will say - the ETS will have little effect on the economy and they will trot out the usual desperate argument that if we don't act now, it will cost more later. The government have admitted that the models do not take into account the current financial crisis, although somehow, despite the boffins taking a year to produce this modelling, the government seems able to incorporate a "fudge factor" which will miraculously deal with this, from the ABC:

The modelling was done before the global financial crisis began.

Environment Minister Peter Garrett says it is one element that will help shape the final policy, due to be finalised by the end of the year.

"This provides us with additional information on how we can approach this issue," he said.

Dismissing the global financial crisis as just "one element" is sheer nonsense. It will be no surprise that the modelling will favour the Government's approach. It will have been carefully designed to achieve that result. Treat with caution.

Read the SMH article here, although there are hundreds of others to choose from.

WWF - Marxist environmental group threatens ecological "credit crunch"

More environmental claptrap from the WWF, which wants humanity to live in perfect harmony with Mother Earth, and at the same time put civilisation back into the Dark Ages.

"We are acting ecologically in the same way as financial institutions have been behaving economically -- seeking immediate gratification without due regard to consequences," said the Zoological Society's Jonathan Loh.
...
"Continued ecological deficit spending will have severe economic consequences," argued GFN head Mathis Wackernagel.

"Resource limitations and ecosystem collapses would trigger stagflation with the value of investments plummeting, while food and energy costs skyrocket," he cautioned.

Read it here.

Wong bangs on about the benefits of an ETS

Yawn again. Same ol' same ol':

"We can take action on climate change but also retain a strong economy and in fact we'd anticipate that the modelling will show that there are significant opportunities for Australia if we do take action on climate change," she said.

"What the modelling shows is that Australian industries will remain competitive and there are significant opportunities in us taking action on climate change and doing the economically responsible thing."

Amazes me how she says all this with a straight face.

Read it here (and also check out some of the priceless comments from the unwashed greenie hoards the ABC web site attracts)

Luvvie attends climate film premiere

Yawn. Another greenie film, another luvvie to open it. It's our very own Cate Blanchett again, hot on the heels of her opening the World Metropolis carbon-fest in Sydney last week.

Blanchett stepped out with Australian Conservation Foundation executive director Don Henry for the documentary, Telling The Truth.

Telling The Truth follows seven presenters who have been personally trained by former US vice-president Al Gore as part of his Climate Project Australia.

What other area of science requires personally trained presenters to convince the public of its arguments? The Climate Project is a despicable propaganda machine whose sole purpose is to spread the outright lies Gore tells in AIT. Let's not forget, Al Gore won't debate the issues in that film with anyone. Why not? Answers on a postcard.

As for those poor seven individuals, they'll probably need therapy for the rest of their lives.

Read it here.

P.S. No film (or anything else for that matter) to do with Al Gore should ever have the word "truth" in the title...

ABC - disease not climate change killing frogs

Through gritted teeth, the ABC has to concede that a decline in frog populations is caused by a fungal disease and has nothing to do with "climage change".

More than 50 frog species in the Americas and at least four in Australia have been wiped out.

Initially global warming was thought to help the fungus spread but this has been ruled out.

So I eagerly await the correction from News.com.au regarding this gem published earlier this month and commented on here:

Going, going ... primatologist Dr Jane Goodall with a Splendid Tree Frog at Adelaide Zoo. Adelaide, Berlin, London and San Francisco Zoos are starting a frog insurance program because they are dying out all over the world due to climate change.

How long do you think I'll have to wait?

Read it here.

Cognitive Dissonance at the ABC

The ABC publishes results from an ANU poll and in order to stoke up its PC greenie credentials manages to spin them in the most remarkable way. The first paragraph blares that:

"Australians are deeply concerned about global warming"

and then reveals that:

"two in five people believe global warming [sic] was the most serious threat facing the planet."

So only two in five are deeply concerned apparently, the remainder couldn't give a fig, and are rightly more concerned about other things.

However, Professor Ian McAllister of ANU does make one very pertinent comment in this sea of propaganda:

"There needs to be a much greater debate about the pros and cons of the emissions trading scheme so ordinary voters are more informed about the whole issue," he said.

Yes indeed.

Read it here.

Prince Charles - enviro-loon

Royal Tree Hugger Prince Charles doesn't miss an opportunity to wade into issues about which he knows little, and climate change is one of them.

"But we take our eye off the 'climate crunch' at our peril," he said in a speech at Japan's National Museum of Emerging Science and Innovation.

"While we hope and pray that the underlying strengths of the global economy will once again enable it to bounce back, the effects of climate change will be far from temporary and will, indeed, be irreversible," he said.

So that's irreversible in the sense that countless other climate changes that have taken place over millions of years of earth's history are "irreversible"?

Read it here.

ETS figures show it's all going to be OK

The Age, my favourite paper, gleefully trumpets that "treasury modelling" will reject claims that an ETS will force industries offshore.

It is believed the modelling finds that even if Australia were to cut its emissions sharply — such as the 25% cut from base levels by 2020 proposed by Professor Ross Garnaut — it would not be enough to force the closure of aluminium smelters or cement plants.

Sorry to rain on your parade, but the modelling has been going on since last year, and takes no account of the global economic crisis, so is about as much use as an ashtray on a motorbike. Next.

Read it here.

SMH goes into alarmist/greenie overdrive

The Moonbat Herald is falling over itself with doom and gloom with a bit of sucking up to a radio presenter about his virtuous "green" habits. All deeply nauseating, but here we go anyway.

Firstly, the New South Wales Premier, Nathan Rees, has revealed himself to be an AGW alarmist (as we knew he would) by launching a scathing attack on former Treasurer, Michael Costa:

"Today, the science is in for Sydney," Mr Rees said yesterday as he proclaimed the influence of the climate sceptic and former treasurer Michael Costa at an end in NSW.

"The Costa era of ambiguity around this issue is over. Along with the rest of the NSW public, I recognise that climate change is a reality and that the NSW Government needs to prepare for it," the Premier said. "There is no longer a climate-change sceptic at the centre of government decision-making in this state".

The rest of the NSW public? Don't include me, mate. And no sceptics means no debate, which is just what every alarmist wants. To the poor voters of NSW, get rid of this hopeless government at the next election. Then the SMH goes into full scaremonger mode, under the headline "Beaches will wash away":

By 2050, most of Sydney's 150-odd major beaches will need thousands of tonnes of extra sand delivered by truck to survive in anything like their current condition, experts believe.

The projected sea level rise of up to 40 centimetres in the next four decades, revealed yesterday by the NSW Government, will change the city's coastline.

40 cm in 40 years? Sea levels have been rising at 1 - 2 mm per year since the last Ice Age, and are showing no appreciable signs of acceleration. But, as always, who cares about the facts when we can run an alarmist story that will sell more papers? And finally, Adam Spencer reveals his policitally correct greenie agenda in a sycophantic interview under the laughable headline "Use your legs and save the planet". This guy does the breakfast show on ABC local radio in Sydney, and more worryingly has hosted science programmes as well.

Q. You hold a first-class honours degree in pure mathematics. What doesn't add up to you when it comes to how leaders are dealing with global warming?

A. When I see the intransigence and half-heartedness with which many leaders are approaching this, I think, "Well, what would the figures need to be to get you to pull your finger out, pal?"

With first class honours in mathematics, he should have more of a clue about proper scientific enquiry and scepticism than he demonstrates. But then again, this is the Herald. I couldn't imagine it getting published if he'd said, well, actually, I think there's a bit of a debate to be had here. OK, thanks, we'll leave it there... And there's a "Global Warming" Alert too: didn't that stop in 2001?

Q. What do you get the green guilts about?

A. I'm pretty happy with how my family runs its affairs environmentally. We are on 100 per cent GreenPower.

Read it here, here and here if you can bear it.

Simon Marr - clear off back to the EU

Some particularly offensive remarks from some EU busybody who is Down Under telling us how we should run our lives (let's not forget, the EU are experts at regulating every microsecond of the EU's downtrodden populus, and they don't know how to stop when they go abroad):

He gave the thumbs up to Australia's draft plan for emissions trading, due to start in 2010.

"I think you're going along the right path," said the senior policy officer with the European Commission's environment division.

Phew, relief, that's all we were waiting for - a "thumbs up" from an EU bureaucrat...

Dr Marr dismissed critics who want emissions trading delayed because of the financial crisis, telling them they should look for another planet to live on.

I know - I've got a better idea, you find another planet to live on. Preferably one at the darkest and dingiest end of the galaxy. It's so mind-numbingly tedious when people can't be bothered to come up with cogent responses to "sceptics" and simply launch into clichéd ad hominem attacks.

Dr Marr said that since arriving in Australia he had read some "quite embarrassing" comments in the media from people who did not want to take action on climate change.

Clearly "Dr" Marr has never read The Age, then, or the ABC web site, which every day is full of alarmist and scaremongering claptrap which is far more embarrassing. I mean really, why do we give a flying carbon credit what this guy thinks? The EU is in a complete shambles when it comes to its emissions reduction plans, so the only thing we could learn from them is how to screw it up. Actually, on second thoughts, Dr Marr, keep talking!!

Read it here.

Turnbull hardening against ETS?

Let's hope so. The ABC reports that Malcolm Turnbull has attacked the Government's climate change policy ahead of the release of the economic modelling on the impact of an ETS.

The Opposition says the modelling is months late and does not take into account the turmoil in global financial markets.

Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull says the Government should not be rushing to introduce an emissions trading scheme in 2010.

"It's likely to be economically very damaging and environmentally very ineffective so a lose-lose [situation]," he said.

"It's important to put Australia first to be environmentally effective and economically responsible."

Dead right, and all he needs to do now is drop his agreement to a "carbon" copy of the ETS (excuse the pun), merely delayed by a couple of years, and we'll be making progress. Come on Malcolm, we're all counting on you to put an end to this madness.

Read it here.

A quiet week

There won't be many posts this week as I have other commitments. Stay tuned in the days ahead.

Best wishes,

Simon from Sydney

CSIRO - planning decisions must take account of "climate change"

More regulation, more regulation and yet more regulation, all courtesy of this panacea for those who seek to control our lives even more than they are already, "climate change".

The CSIRO and local councils say the Federal Government must urgently draw up a national plan to stop sea changers building in places which could soon be under water.

I hope he doesn't go on to cite increased storms as another reason, because that argument was blown out years ago:

A combination of a little bit of sea level rise and storm surges can lead to dramatic effects.

Oh well, never mind.

Read it here.

"Lord" Stern - more climate madness

Arse-over-Apex Logic Alert: Screaming Lord Stern (formerly plain old Sir Nicholas) is peddling his own particular brand of logic when he claims that the global economy will face a more severe downturn that the current crisis if it fails to "halt climate change". Halting climate change is like holding back the tide - it can't be done - climate has changed since the dawn of time and will continue to do so until the sun reaches the end of its life and swallows the earth whole (actually, Al Gore's made a movie about that too... see here).

"One thing we should have learned from this experience of the financial crisis is if we ignore risk building in the system, that risk will get much more difficult to manage than if we recognise it and tackle it early," the British economist said.

Yeah, that's right, we've gotta do it NOW! Science, Schmience - who cares? It's gotta be now, I tell you, NOW! Give me your money, sign on the dotted line (credit cards accepted).

He added that failure to act could lead to a temperature rise that would have severe consequences for global stability.

"These kinds of changes will transform the physical geography of the planet. They will transform where people will live," he said at an event for HSBC, a bank where he is a part-time policy adviser.

"You will see movements of billions of people, (and) the result of that will probably be extreme conflict."

That would be like the "temperature rise" we've seen in the last 8 years, would it? Like, Hello! And the most important word in that last sentence: "probably", i.e. based on flawed models with flawed data, and a bit of reckless imagination.

Read it here.

P.S. I'm thinking of appointing Stern UK patron of the ACM blog, as he sums up everything this blog is campaigning against. Climate Penny would be his Australian equivalent, or Ross Garnaut, or Kevin Rudd, or Peter Garrett or Bob Brown or... too much choice.

Climate sense - Carbon tax is just tilting at windmills

Amongst all the scaremongering, bad science, alarmism and just downright nonsense in the media at the moment, to read a sensible article is like a breath of fresh air. The first two paragraphs of this article in The Australian by Gary Johns sum up the position perfectly:

THE one certainty of climate change (anthropogenic or not) is that it is unstoppable. Government advertisements suggest worst-case scenarios but they do not concede that these are no less likely should Australia cut its carbon dioxide output. Whether or not you believe in man-made climate change, it's out of our control.

More significantly, it is out of the control of every political leader. There is no prospect that nations will agree on global action sufficient to reduce the total level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

And that's the point - reducing CO2 in Australia will achieve nothing (other than economic suicide).

Read it all here.

Victoria - "climate change" causes disease

Cliché of the Week Award: Victoria's Department of Human Services has commissioned its investigation into the extent to which Victorians' health will be affected by climate change, amid warnings that it could lead to "heat-related illness", mosquito-borne viruses, food poisoning and depression (I assume the depression comes from reading acres of alarmist nonsense in The Age):

"Severe heatwaves in Europe have caused deaths in recent years, and we are keen to be well prepared for the impacts that climate change may have upon public health and the challenges it may bring," DHS spokesman Bram Alexander said.

"Climate change could have varying impacts on public health in different parts of Victoria. Regions like Mildura may need a different approach to that in South Gippsland."

The investigation was likely to run for several years...

... and cost millions of dollars of Victorian taxpayers' money.

Read it here.

German scaremongers predict "one metre" sea level rise this century

Reported, as unquestioningly as ever, by the Sydney Morning Herald.

Citing UN date on climate change, two senior German scientists say that previous predictions were far too cautious and optimistic.

Earlier estimates predicted a rise of 18cm to 59cm in sea levels this century.

That estimate is woefully understated, according to Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, who heads the Potsdam Institute for Research on Global Warming Effects, and Jochem Marotzke, a leading meteorologist.

As usual, they cite the Arctic ice loss as the evidence, and ignore the facts that (i) Arctic ice has over 30% greater extent this year than at the same time last year, and (ii) despite Arctic ice decreasing over the past years, Antarctic ice has increased significantly over the same periods, and (iii) global temperatures have remained steady since at least 2001 and possibly earlier.

The earlier post "Climate Change Accelerating - hardly" seems an appropriate read.

Read it here.

The reality of Rudd's ETS

In separate stories today, both Victoria and WA feel the potential effects of the ETS. In the West Australian, the State Government has called on the Commonwealth to delay the start of its emissions trading scheme, warning that a 2010 roll-out could force industries overseas resulting in massive job losses.

Treasurer Troy Buswell said yesterday that imposing a “half-baked” scheme could increase overall global emissions because it was likely to force industries to move to places with fewer environmental rules and lower costs.

The Herald Sun on the other hand cites hard figures regarding the effects of an ETS: up to 29,000 jobs lost in Victoria by 2020, and 45,000 by 2030. Victorian Employers' Chamber of Commerce and Industry said:

"The 10 per cent model would amplify a downturn, as industrial production costs and consumer spending respond to higher energy prices pushed up by the rising cost of carbon."

But guess what "Climate" Penny Wong thinks that delaying will just make it harder:

“Delaying now, and then trying to catch up later, will deliver a sharper shock in the years ahead,” he said. “Acting now gives certainty for business at a time when they need certainty.”

Penny is nothing if not predictable. Read it here, and here.

Daily Telegraph treats Climate Institute's poll as gospel

The Daily Telegraph has reported the results of the Climate Institute poll conducted recently, drawing a number of conclusions from its results. The trouble is, the poll was anything but impartial (not surprisingly given by whom the poll was conducted), as you may remember from a previous post that looked carefully at the wording of the questions. But the Telegraph doesn't bother to investigate further, treating the results as gospel:

One interpretation of the Climate Institute survey results is that voters locked into action on global warming ["climate change"? - Ed] believe the Government is dithering. It is all reports - and no action.
...
It [the Government] claimed the title of environmental champion and then seemed to believe half the job was thus complete. That leaves a political door open for the Opposition.

The suggestion being that the Opposition should go further than the government, and be more decisive in its actions. That would be a huge mistake. Polling questions that were impartially phrased would have produced a very different result. The Opposition should resist the implementation of any kind of emissions reductions, even assuming a link between CO2 and "climate change", until or unless the major emitters do likewise.

Read it here.

Sydney Mayor joins alarmist bandwagon

More alarmism from The Australian as it gives dire warnings for our cities.

The world's top 20 megacities use 75 per cent of the world's energy.

If the planet is to be saved from the ravages of greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, the experts agree, cities and the people in them are going to have to change.

Cutting carbon emissions by 15 per cent globally by 2020, or one tonne per capita, would save $US946 billion, one expert said.

That's almost enough, on its own, to make up for Wall Street's recent worst day in history.

Carbon-cutting could involve measures as simple as ditching the car more often and getting on your bike, or walking.

Personally, I don't understand the logic in that argument, i.e. how stifling economies by cutting emissions will save money. Perhaps someone could enlighten me.

Nicky Gavron, an environmental extremist and socialist, and former deputy mayor of London under Ken Livingstone chimes in:

"With a rise in the sea level of just a few metres (caused by global warming), London would cease to function.

"As we suffered, so would other world financial centres.

"Of the 30 largest financial centres in the world, 22 are on coasts or estuaries.

"Whatever you are talking about now (in the financial crisis) would pale into insignificance."

And it seems to have rubbed off on our own Clover Moore, Lord Mayor of Sydney:

"We don't have a choice - we must urgently deal with climate change or there won't be an economy.

"Successful businesses and governments will be the smart, nimble ones who see the opportunity for change and quickly adapt to the new green economy. The others will become dinosaurs.''

Watermelon politics at its best: green on the outside, red on the inside.

Read it here.

Canada Free Press - "The Green Religion"

Thanks to Climate Change Fraud.

An entertaining read for a Sunday, from the Canada Free Press:

Upon closer examination, I realized that - like any other self respecting Religion - the necessary building blocks and quasi-spiritual tenets that ensure its survival are also present in this well entrenched belief system.

There is, for example, Mother Earth, the Religion’s primary object of devotion, sometimes also referred to as Mother Nature. According to garden variety environmentalists, this God must be worshiped and respected. The more hard core adherents believe that it should also be feared, for it is a rather unpredictable deity which indiscriminately indulges its thirst for wholesale revenge; ergo the standard compulsory tithes (or sacrifices) to appease its rather capricious wrath.
...
Ultimately all of these different alliances answer to the one presiding representative of the deity here on earth; his name is Al Gore - the current prime mover of this spiritual revolution of sorts, from whom foundational precepts and oracles emanate on an almost daily basis.

But come to think of it, it is really a misnomer to call this movement a Religion, rather than what it should properly be labeled as: a cult.

Read it here.

Delusional Barroso thinks "global deal possible in 2009"

EU Commission chief Jose Manuel Barroso has plenty of problems in his own backyard with many EU countries understandably reluctant to cripple their economies with emissions reductions which will make virtually no difference to the climate (even if CO2 drives temperature). Add to that the problems of India and China (both of which have indicated that they put other things, like reducing poverty and increasing standards of living and health, ahead of nebulous climate change), and indeed the US, and he is clearly delusional if he believes a global deal possible in 2009.

The Age reports:

A crucial global pact on climate change is possible by next year, European Commission chief Jose Manuel Barroso said in Beijing following two days of talks between Asian and European leaders.

Speaking after two days of ASEM talks in Beijing that were dominated by the global economic turmoil, Barroso urged the world not to neglect the issue of climate change.

"The financial crisis is not a reason and it should not be a pretext to postpone our commitment to the fight against climate change," he said.

"Because we have a financial crisis does not mean that climate change disappears."

Read it here.

AGW alarmists switch focus to other gases

Exit CO2, enter CH4 and NF3, the new darlings of the climate change alarmists. Methane we've had on the radar for a while, but Nitrogen Trifluoride is the new kid on the block. The Sydney Morning Herald reports:

Methane comes from landfills, natural gas, coal mining, animal waste and decaying plants - but it is the decaying plants that worry scientists most. Thousands of years ago, billions of tonnes of methane were created by decaying Arctic plants. It lies frozen in permafrost wetlands trapped in the ocean floor. As the Arctic melts, the worry is that this methane will be freed.

In terms of global methane production (natural and anthropogenic), landfills contribute 7% and by contrast, ruminants contribute 19% and natural wetlands 37%. Also, given that the Arctic ice is over 30% greater than this time last year, that seems unlikely.

In contrast, nitrogen trifluoride has been considered such a small problem that it generally has been ignored. The gas is used as a cleaning agent during the manufacture of liquid crystal display television and computer monitors and for thin-film solar panels.

Earlier efforts to determine how much nitrogen trifluoride is in the air dramatically underestimated the amounts, said Ray Weiss, a geochemistry professor with Scripps Institution of Oceanography in California and lead author on a nitrogen trifluoride paper to be published next month.

The level of nitrogen trifluoride in the air has quadrupled during the past decade, said Weiss, who is also a co-author of the methane paper. Nitrogen trifluoride is one of the more potent gases, thousands of times stronger in trapping heat than carbon dioxide.

Read it here.

Greens Senator stuck in Tuvalu timewarp

Years ago, Tuvalu was one of the symbols of the evils of Western society, spewing endless CO2 into the atmosphere, causing the earth to warm, glaciers to melt and sea levels to rise (© IPCC and Al Gore). Given that Tuvalu was only just above sea level, this would force its inhabitants to evacuate the island. However, as always, the truth is somewhat different. Sea levels have been rising at 1 - 2 mm per year for hundreds of years, with no appreciable acceleration linked to CO2 emissions, and it is generally accepted that Tuvalu is itself sinking due to tectonic influences.

However, none of this prevents a Greens Senator in South Australia, Sarah Hanson-Young, proposing a "new class of visa for climate refugees":

"We cannot deny Australia's complicity in this environmental crisis that is now impacting most dramatically on those whose homeland is more vulnerable to sea level rise," she said.

" As the wealthiest country in the Pacific, Australia can lead the global community on this humanitarian issue.

"Australia must be proactive in establishing a new class of visa for climate change refugees."

Who cares if the story is out of date, as long as it can be used to advance the Greens' agenda.

Read it here.

Nationals dump ETS policy

In a move likely to cause a big stir in Coalition circles, the National Party has dumped its support for an ETS until the rest of the world implements one. The Nationals are now the only party to have the courage to stand up against Rudd & Co's ridiculous "carbon pollution reduction scheme", given that the Liberals only plan to delay its introduction by a couple of years. Senator Ron Boswell said:

"We should not go down this track that is going to hit rural Australia and primary industry the hardest when it's picked up in 2014. We should draw the line in the sand for this party and say that we will only go this far."

Well said. Let's start the timer, and see how long it takes for Rudd, Wong or one of their cronies to squeal "deniers" or "sceptics". My bet is less than 24 hours.

Read it here.

Pachauri - media "not doing enough" to spread alarmism

Thanks to Tom Nelson. The Head of the IPCC has clearly been inhaling too much CO2 recently, when he comments:

“In the last year and a half, there has been a massive explosion of awareness; however, the media has not reported enough about the emergency and depth of action,” said Pachauri, who has led the United Nations panel since 2002.

What planet does Pachauri live on? Doesn't he ever read the papers or listen to the radio or watch TV? Is he so insulated from the real world in his IPCC bubble that he hasn't seen the thousands upon thousands of scare stories and alarmism every week in the media?

Pachauri suggested that major news agencies now rely too much on high-level science reports or large climate-related events for their stories, rather than examples of climate change's ongoing effects. "We need to go beyond the cyclical coverage of climate change and emphasize the day-to-day relevance," he said.

Heaven forbid that news agencies actually read the science reports (media coverage shows that they do nothing of the sort anyway - they just take the sound bite that will sell most papers/attract most listeners or viewers, irrespective of its scientific merit). I'm afraid this guy is well on the way to becoming categorised as an environmental whacko.

Read it here.

Climate change accelerating - hardly

Thanks to Climate Change Skeptic.

There has been a lot of publicity about a recent alarmist WWF report:

WWF's report, Climate Change: Faster, stronger, sooner, has updated all the scientific data and concluded that global warming is accelerating far beyond the IPCC's forecasts.

As an example it says the first tipping point may have already been reached in the Arctic where sea ice is disappearing up to 30 years ahead of IPCC predictions and may be gone completely within five years - something that hasn't occurred for 1m years. This could result in rapid and abrupt climate change rather than the gradual changes forecast by the IPCC.

Climate Change Skeptic takes a cool look at these scaremongering claims, and finds that they are pure fiction:

Whatever the case, there are a lot of good reasons to believe we are not seeing an "acceleration" in global warming. And a lot of very, very good reasons to believe we are not reaching a "tipping point." Tipping point implies that we have entered a regime where the climate is dominated by runaway positive feedback.

Read it here.

Solar panel manufacture releases potent greenhouse gas

From Climate Change Fraud.

This will give the environmentalists something to cogitate on over their breakfasts. It has been disclosed that one of the biggest sources of the new evil trace gas, Nitrogen Trifluoride, is the production of that icon of "clean enegy", the solar panel. So the reduction of CO2 emissions by using renewable energy sources such as solar will actually increase the concentration of a gas that is 17,000 times more potent in its greenhouse effect. Oh, the irony!

Read it here.

We're bored with CO2, let's find another trace gas to scaremonger about...

This time it is Nitrogen Trifluoride, which is apparently 17,000 times more effective at warming the atmosphere than CO2 - which makes CO2 look a bit, well, innocuous, maybe? Fortunately, there isn't much of it in the atmosphere at the moment, 5,400 tons.

"Isn't much" turns out to be the understatement of the year, because given the mass of the atmosphere is 5×10¹⁵ tons, 5400 tons works out to be 0.0000000001% of the total, and at the current growth rate it would take hundreds if not thousands of years to reach even one hundredth of one percent, by which time technology will have found ways to reduce its use. However, scientists are already gearing up to make NF3 the next evil trace gas:

Michael Prather, an atmospheric chemist at the University of California at Irvine, noted nitrogen trifluoride is being used more commonly and predicted that more would be found in the atmosphere.

"It is now shown to be an important greenhouse gas," Mr Prather... said in a statement. "Now we need to get hard numbers on how much is flowing through the system, from production to disposal."

Read it here.

Scientists "frantically, hysterically worried"

Andrew Bolt comments on Tony Jones' world-renowned impartiality in last night's Lateline on ABC, which interviewed three climate scientists and a UN official.

Showing his famed concern for balance, host Tony Jones presents a range of views from this:

PROF. ANN HENDERSON-SELLERS, MACQUARIE UNIVERSITY: A lot of people like myself, and I believe many, many scientists now, who are frantically, hysterically worried.

To this:

PROF. DAVID KAROLY, MELBOURNE UNIVERSITY: The only way that I could see the climate system in 50 years time or 100 years time being cooler than at present is if the earth got hit by an asteroid and basically human civilisation was destroyed.

I think that covers the subject.

UPDATE

I’m unfair to Jones. He did cover the views of the thousands of sceptical scientists:

TONY JONES: Do you think they are flat-earthers, or akin to flat-earthers, people who believe the earth is flat?

RAJENDRA PACHUARI: ...We still have a flat earth society in existence in the world somewhere or the other. So they clearly are looking at the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence, and denying it. So in that sense they are flat-earthers.

What could be fairer?

Read it here.

IPCC's Pachauri spreads alarmism in Sydney

The Head of the IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri, spoke at the World Metropolis Conference in Sydney, where his message was entirely as to be expected, namely "it's not too late to save the planet, but emissions reductions must be even greater than previously thought". He sprinkled his address with plenty of scaremongering and alarmism:

If you look at parts of Africa, by 2020 there will be 75 million to 250 million people living under water stress on account of climate change," he said yesterday. "Are we going to ignore the welfare and, I would say, even the peace and stability of societies that are so vulnerable to the impacts of climate change and say 'No, we can't do it'?"
...
"There are a section of scientists and some analysts that are actually now saying that 450 [ppm] is a bit too high and what we should be targeting is 350."
...
Dr Pachauri warned the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere was already contributing to sea-level rise. If the world's big ice sheets kept melting, "you are talking about well over a metre of sea-level rise and that, to my mind, is going to be disastrous for hundreds of millions of people."

He, too, is guilty of sickening Schadenfreude at the current economic crisis, setting up the hackneyed straw man of "unregulated capitalism", and then knocking it down, exposing the true agenda of the IPCC as a deeply political, anti-capitalist, anti-development front for the UN's environmental extremists:

"I think unbridled capitalism without any regulation, without some control, is something people are not going to accept now."

Where has there ever been capitalism without regulation? A truly idiotic comment which completely ignores the fact that capitalism as an economic model has raised living standards and wealth for billions of people throughough the globe, and to a far greater degree than any other such model (think Communism, for example, flourishing the world over, no, hang on...).

Read it here.

Daily Bayonet - GW Hoax Weekly Round-up

As usual, a great read!

ABC Hobart - Cold snap hits growers (via Tom Nelson)

Thanks to Tom Nelson.

Lucy Greg from Fruit Growers Tasmania says apple and cherry crops in the Derwent and Huon Valleys appear hardest hit.

The owner of a Coal River Valley vineyard says they've lost the entire crop in the Derwent Valley.

Ms Gregg has told the ABC's Country Hour that while the severe frost has affected apple and cherries, frost protection measures have worked.
...
Ross had what's believed to be an October record with the temperature dropping to minus 5.6.

Read it here.

Climate Institute poll - update

The details of the questions asked in the Climate Institute poll are now online. Here they are in full:

Given the turmoil in the financial markets, how much do you agree with the following statements?

A. Government should delay action on climate change
B. It’s even more important to take action on climate change and create new green jobs and industries

Comment: adding the words in bold clearly prejudices respondents to answer B, because creating new green jobs and industries is obviously something that any reasonable person would consider a beneficial thing. However, it has nothing to do with the question.

Which of the following political parties do you think is better at handling climate change?

• ALP
• Coalition
• Both the same
• Don't know

Comment: This seems reasonable, and probably elicits a fairly representative response.

How concerned are you about the following potential effects from climate change?

• Rising sea levels & coastal erosion
• Loss of the great barrier reef
• Less water for cities
• Damage to agriculture
• More frequent and intense bushfires
• More frequent and intense drought

Comment: Unsurprisingly, at least 78% of respondents said, yes, they were concerned about those things. But let's face it, what reasonable person wouldn't be concerned about things like the loss of the barrier reef? But the key point is that the question presupposes that climate change will cause those things, which is by no means the case. The question simply elicits an emotional response, which has nothing to do with people's beliefs regarding climate change.

Read it here (PDF)

Moonbat Herald's cartoonist an alarmist as well

Clearly, to get a job at the SMH, you need to tick the box on the application form that says "I am an AGW alarmist":



The cartoon should be the complete reverse, of course: Rudd diverting all his energy to fighting the pointless battle of "tackling climate change" whilst the global economy waits to snap its jaws.

See the original here.

Rudd's financial modelling of ETS "dead in water"

Because the models have taken no account of the global economic crisis, says the Opposition spokesman Andrew Robb, who believes the Government won't be able to bring in an ETS in 2010:

"It's dead in the water - the modelling - before we're even seen it.

"They're fumbling, they're not certain and all of this willl make people very concerned about major plans to tackle climate change at a time when there's this enormous pressure on jobs and business and economic activity."

More of the same, please, Andrew.

Read it here.

The true cost of climate change - $10bn a year

Ziggy Switkowski says Australia will need to spend the equivalent of Kevin Rudd's $10bn rescue package every year to "tackle climate change".

"In terms of the financial consequences of climate change policies, they are a bit like the $10 billion a year program proposed this year every year from now until the end of the century, big call."

You bet. And he is quite right when he says:

"The US is unconvinced about the science of climate change, and China has been, quite understandably, focused on economic growth and the welfare of its people."

Read it here.

Indoctrination alert: school kids send "climate change" message

No external influence from teachers or environmental groups of course. Pupils at 20 separate schools spontaneously decide to take part in identical protests for action to "tackle climate change".

THOUSANDS of students from 20 schools sent a strong and innovative message about climate change yesterday.
...
“The younger generation wants us to do something.’’ Bendigo Sustainability Group’s Andrea Scott said the signs were a way to enable young people to feel like they can make a difference.

“Our community may be surprised to know the level of concern our youth feel towards climate change,’’ Ms Scott said. It was left up to each school what message they wanted to create.

But it turns out it was anything but spontaneous, with a ragbag collection of sponsors keen to push their own agendas including Mount Alexander Sustainability Groups and Hepburn Renewable Energy Association, both local environmental action groups, and teachers were clearly only too happy to help out.

This kind of indoctrination is simply unacceptable. If my children had been dragged into a political protest by their schools wishing to promote an environmental agenda, I would be hopping mad. I wonder how many parents were consulted (or even informed).

Read it here.

Desperation Alert: Climate change to cause more crime

I thought I'd heard it all... not even close. According to the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, climate change can cause more crime. The report (a bargain at $5.00 for a hard copy):

examines the implications of climate change for Australia's police forces and officers.
...
The report has a number of recommendations including the creation of an information hub and the development of risk assessments of the locations that will be most affected by climate change as part of a multi-agency strategic approach to climate change adaptation.

The kinds of crime they foresee include:

• water theft: individuals stealing water, use of fraudulent water trucks, siphoning from river systems
• violent protests aimed at the government over perceived inadequate policy responses
• natural disasters providing an opportunity for looting
• more "climate refugees" seeking entry to Australia

Read it here.

Climate Institute spins poll results

The Climate Institute has conducted a poll which shows that support for the Government's management of climate change has slumped from 43% when Kevin Rudd ratified Kyoto, to 28% two weeks ago. The Coalition rose from 9% to 14%, but the overwhelming majority (58%) couldn't distinguish between the parties on climate change.

There are probably a number of reasons for this. Firstly, both Labor and the Coalition have virtually carbon copy policies on climate, the only difference being a one or two year delay, proposed by the Coalition, prior to the introduction of an ETS. Secondly, the public are probably becoming far less interested in climate matters given the current financial crisis (which has continued to worsen in the two weeks since the poll was conducted).

However, the Climate Institute manages to put the opposite spin on the results, claiming that the Government aren't doing enough:

“The slump in the Government’s credentials may be driven by a belief that big polluters are not being made to do their ‘fair share’ on climate change and there’s community impatience to see strong government action following the ratification of Kyoto,” Climate Institute CEO John Connor said.
...
“The message for our political leaders is clear - back strong internationally and scientifically credible Australian carbon pollution reduction targets, of at least 25 per cent reduction from 1990 levels, and accelerate the growth of clean energy and energy efficiency.”

That's the great thing about polls - you can spin them to say exactly what you want. Unfortunately, on clicking the link to the "Polling Fact Sheet" which may reveal the wording of the questions asked, the site responds: Not Found.

Read it here.

Letter by 40 scientists - the gory details

Here is the low-down on the bleating letter by 40 scientists to the Government to "press on with tackling climate change" (previously commented on here and here) as reported in Australian Science Alert:

New studies reported by leading climate scientists indicate the Greenland and west Antarctica ice caps would, if atmospheric CO2-equivalent concentrations reached 450 ppm, very likely melt rapidly, raising sea-level on the scale of metres per century.

I guess by "leading climate scientists" he means his mates at the IPCC. He then goes on to quote from a letter by arch-alarmist James Hansen to Kevin Rudd:

Global climate is near critical tipping points that could lead to loss of all summer sea ice in the Arctic with detrimental effects on wildlife, initiation of ice sheet disintegration in West Antarctica and Greenland with progressive, unstoppable global sea level rise, shifting of climatic zones with extermination of many animal and plant species, reduction of freshwater supplies for hundreds of millions of people, and a more intense hydrologic cycle with stronger droughts and forest fires, but also heavier rains and floods, and stronger storms driven by latent heat, including tropical storms, tornados and thunderstorms.

Wow, sounds like something out of the Old Testament - and only marginally less credible as well. The only thing he doesn't mention is plagues of locusts. He finishes with the "End of the World" conclusion:

We must face the challenge and seize the opportunities in dealing with climate change. We face a choice between climatic disasters and directing resources to stabilise the Earth’s climate for future generations. We need to invest in low-carbon technology and we need to do it now.

Read it here (if you must).

Luvvie to open World Metropolis Conference

More news on this. Don't know why, but the movie world seems to generate more than its fair share of people who feel themselves qualified to comment on environmental matters, so it comes as little surprise that Sydney's own Cate Blanchett has agreed to open this CFGF (I'm getting a little tired of typing "carbon-fuelled gab-fest" every other post):

Metropolis Association president Jean-Paul Huchon said the global financial meltdown would dominate talks.

"The message is don't stop thinking about climate change, don't stop thinking about sustainable development, but give the cities the means and the money to fund their... investments," Mr Huchon said.

Wild horses wouldn't keep me away...

Read it here.

Gold-plated alarmism from Bob Brown

We would expect nothing less, of course, but he's really on top form with a string of alarmist comments with no basis in fact which he will inflict on the poor, unsuspecting people of Lismore on 1 November:

Our climate is changing faster than most scientists had predicted and greenhouse emissions are increasing faster than the International Panel on Climate Change’s worst scenarios.
...
If the globe warms more than 2°C above pre-industrial levels, the impacts will be too severe and the risks of runaway climate change too great.
...
We only have a few years to turn around global emissions or 2°C warming will be locked in.

The more evidence that comes to light that "global warming" (which stopped in 2001) has nothing to do with CO2 emissions, the more desperate the alarmists get.

Read it here.

Yet another carbon-fuelled gab-fest

See what I mean (see last post)? In Sydney this time - the World Congress of Metropolis (reported here), at which delegates from 100 global cities will enjoy free hospitality at their respective taxpayers' expense for doing very little for three days. Given the carbon footprint will be about the size of Botany Bay, let's hope they're not discussing climate change, because that would be rank hypocrisy... oops, they are:

It will address issues facing cities around the world including climate change, financing public infrastructure, urban renewal, and social sustainability.

In fact, none other than Dr Rajendra Pachauri himself, the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change, will be here - I sure hope he's paid for his carbon offsets. What do you think?

Read it here.

Carbon-fuelled gab-fest in Tokyo

95% of the world's carbon emissions could be cut at a stroke if politicians could resist the temptation to fly all over the globe to attend pointless "climate talks". The latest one is being held in Tokyo, where mayors or senior officials from the world's largest 36 cities were gathering for two days of talks. First question - what on earth can "mayors" do to address climate change? Second question - who are these mysterious "senior officials"? Sounds like a first rate jolly to me (if you like sashimi, of course).

Tokyo Governor Shintaro Ishihara (a "celebrated novelist") used characteristically poetic language to condemn Russia and the US for disputing rights to the North Pole, noting (incorrectly, as we now know) that the polar ice cap was melting at a record pace (who on earth briefs these people?):

"Such is the ego of human beings. It's such a foolish tale," Ishihara said.

Commenting on climate change, he said:

"It's easy to share a sense of crisis, but if you can't come up with specific measures to deal with this, then the crisis will only get worse," Ishihara said.

It turns out that the meeting of the C40 climate initiative was started by none other than dear old "Red" Ken Livingstone, erstwhile Mayor of London and full-time Communist. Suddenly it all makes sense. It is typical of our Ken to devise as many pointless opportunities to spend taxpayers' money whilst at the same time enjoying all-expenses-paid overseas trips to attend utterly pointless conferences. It's just surprising that so many other apparently sane civic leaders went along with it.

Read it here.

Climate sense from Andrew Bolt

Another great read from Andrew Bolt, who turns the tables on the AGW alarmists' cries that we should "look at the arctic", where ice is up over 30% compared to the same time last year. He also discusses the Canadian election:

Voters last week gave the Left-wing Liberal Party its worst hiding in a century, returning the Conservative Party of Stephen Harper.

What hurt the Liberals was their promise of a Green Shift – a global warming tax on carbon dioxide emitters, with compensation to the poor for the higher power bills.
...
Canada's Prime Minister denounced the Green Shift as a job-killing disaster: forget useless gestures to "save" the planet; save your jobs.

Read it here.

Update on bleating letter from 40 scientists

It turns out that the lead author of this letter is a certain Barrie Pittock, who was a contributor to the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report. So we know his agenda...

Malcolm Fraser supports crazy action on climate change

Former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser is weighing in on the climate debate by supporting a recent letter from 40 scientists (reported here) which urges the Government to blunder on with an ETS regardless of the effects to the economy. Fraser, like most pollies, has no clue about the realities of climate or an ETS, and compares it, like so many others, to an insurance policy:

"Are you going to stop insuring your house against fire because of economic problems?" he asked.

No, because if your house burns down, the insurance will (should) pay up to enable you to build a new one. On the other hand, let's just remind ourselves, if Australia cuts its emissions to zero tomorrow, it will have zero effect on the climate, even if CO2 drives temperature. It will, however, have a catastrophic effect on our economy and our standards of living.

Politicians, even those with as much experience as Malcolm Fraser, can be unbelievably naïve sometimes.

Read it here.

Wong defends the indefensible - $14m on climate ads

Climate Penny has admitted that taxpayers are paying $146,000 a day for adverts peddling warnings about climate change. Senator Eric Abetz has been doing a great job of exposing the Environment Department's outrageous spending on climate change matters.

"No wonder Climate Change Minister Wong refused to reveal the cost of this advertising when the campaign was launched in July," Senator Abetz said.

"This is an astonishing amount of money to be spent given that the Government legislation has not yet been drafted, let alone gone anywhere near enactment."

Wong then went into Pavlov's-Dog mode, and accused Abetz of being a "sceptic". How predictable. It just goes to show how much money is required to sell the lie of climate change to an increasingly suspicious Australian public.

Read it here.

Wong may pull plug on solar rebates

More on this story. Climate Penny has put the frighteners on the solar industry by spectacularly failing to guarantee the solar rebate will continue, after it proved financially crippling.

Senator Wong repeatedly batted away questions about how long the rebate would continue for.

She would not guarantee the rebate would still be in place in January, or for the full financial year.

And even The Age concedes:

The average solar panel installation cost $14,600, not including the rebate, and is a relatively small 1.22 kilowatt system.

In other words, it's a huge outlay for a Climate Token Gesture. Read it here.

Scientists send another bleating letter to Government about climate change

Whenever these desperate climate bores think their precious agenda is losing public interest, they band together and write a letter. Blatant Self-Interest Alert:

More than 40 of Australia's top scientists are urging the Federal Government not to let the world financial crisis stop urgent action on climate change.
...
Professor Barry Brook from Adelaide University says scientists are concerned that global warming seems to be slipping off the global agenda.

"So I think it's disappointing in the sense that right now the interest is not in solving the climate problem in a serious way," he said.

Prof Brook is head of "climate change studies", and his career, along with 99.9% of the other signatories to this letter, is on the line if AGW turns out to be a complete hoax.

Read it here.

Streem - ABC denies "Labor bias"

To paraphrase Mandy Rice Davies, "They would, wouldn't they." To demonstrate to yourself that the ABC is completely biased, in particular on climate change, all you need to do is go to the ABC web site here, get yourself a stiff drink (because believe me, you'll need it) and watch the debate that followed the screening of the film "The Great Global Warming Swindle." The audience was partisan and biased, just as alleged by Senator Eric Abetz:

Figures released by the ABC show 32% are Labor supporters, 24% support the coalition and a further 17% are in favour of The Greens.

All of which means, of course, given the Greens make Labor look positively right wing, that there was 24% for the Coalition and 49% against the Coalition. Seems pretty biased to me. The videos on the site don't show the fact that Tony Jones felt it necessary to issue a "public health warning" prior to the showing of the main film:

I am bound to say The Great Global Warming Swindle does not represent the views of the ABC.

Why on earth would he be "bound" to say that? Should a public service broadcaster have such a blatant editorial agenda? And then, before the debate had even started, he took the opportunity to discredit the film and its director. Reeks of impartiality. You can find it on YouTube if you really want to.

If that's not enough, check out the "Global Warming Links" (black mark for the ABC there, it should read "Climate Change Links" because, as any fule kno, there ain't been no warming since 2001), all of which are parroting IPCC propaganda down to the letter.


"Award winning" science writer Bernie Hobbs (that's the award for Most Patronising Pile of AGW Alarmist Claptrap, 2007)

But it is Bernie Hobbs' article, entitled "The Great Warming Swindle Swindle" - oh witty title, Bernie - which is the worst piece of patronising BS. It just falls over itself in a desperate attempt to ridicule the film and its presenters. Puke Alert if you dare read it:

There's nothing like an accurate, well researched documentary to help make sense of a complex issue like global warming. It's a shame that The Great Global Warming Swindle isn't one.

The Swindle is a one-sided anti-global warming argument put together by a film maker with a name for skewing the facts, and featuring greenhouse skeptics with media profiles that far exceed their scientific publishing records.

Are you seriously suggesting An Inconvenient Truth isn't one-sided? Or that Al Gore isn't the definitive AGW alarmist with a "media profile that far exceeds his scientific publishing record"? It isn't difficult to exceed zero. She then insults viewers by spouting, in the most condescending fashion:

If you didn't have access to the net, or a higher degree in climatology, it'd be all too easy to swallow the straight-forward graphs and expert evidence that The Great Global Warming Swindle bases its case on.

Where's your higher degree in climatology? Nauseating and patronising. The rest of the article is filled with misrepresentations à la AIT, quoting Goddard Institute temperatures (i.e. James Hansen - AGW crackpot), claiming the climate models reflect reality (sorry, but where did the models predict nearly a decade of cooling?) and she tops it all off with this:

Balanced? No. Accurate? No. On the right track? Not even close. What this film's really got going for it is an alarming number of variants on the scientist as balding white guy theme, and the fact that it'll make a great teaching tool in documentary-making classes.

But don't take my word for it - watch the film and then, more importantly, watch the panel discussion airing immediately after it. Only then will you be in a position to do what the film's spruikers say - make up your own mind.

Yes that's right, Bernie - watch the discussion afterwards, as that completely abandons any pretence of fairness or balance. And where in those links is any contrary view expressed? Nowhere - as would be expected from the ever impartial ABC.

With journalists like this on board, don't insult my intelligence by saying the ABC isn't biased when it comes to "climate change" - it's like every other public service broadcaster (the BBC being another good example), with the science desk staffed with Left-wing, environmental extremists.

Read it here.

SMH - Academic freedom: exit, far left

Whilst climate change is the most obvious example of debate being restricted or stifled in order to advance a political agenda, it is by no means the only one. An article in the SMH today exposes the left-wing "radical orthodoxy" that pervades our institutions of higher learning, and which is insidiously indoctrinating our future generations.

Pick any controversial issue today - Work Choices, anti-terror laws, Israel-Palestine, or climate change - and in academia these issues have been decided. There is only one accepted view on each - no debate is allowed.
...
Heaven help anyone on campus, academic or student, who dares to question what [academic] Dr Mervyn Bendle calls a "radical orthodoxy", characterised by "theories associated with neo-Marxism, postmodernism, feminism, radical environmentalism, anti-Americanism, anti-Christianity, and related ideologies".
...
Many Australian educators are activists masquerading as academics, agitating for radical far-left causes well outside, and profoundly hostile to, the values of mainstream Australia.

Read it all here.

Public sector go ape over weather station cuts

The Bureau of Meteorology is converting a number of weather stations to single-person or computerised operation, which seems a reasonable decision, given the fact that a considerable number of stations worldwide are now remotely monitored. However, it unfortunately gives the Community and Public Sector Union the opportunity to wheel out the "climate change" line:

"Climate change is arguably the biggest challenge the Federal Government and decision makers face," the union's national president, Louise Persse, said.

"The decisions our leaders make need to be evidence-based. Now is not the time to be cutting jobs and slashing funding in an area critical to meeting this massive challenge. What we need are the best people working with the best technology to ensure we achieve the best outcomes in the fight against climate change."

Read it here.

Costello - climate change out of spotlight

As we knew it would be, given enough time. Peter Costello is right when he says:

"In November 2007 maybe climate change did look like the great economic issue of the age, but its not looking that way now."

Read it here.

EU emissions deal in tatters

It had to happen (thanks to Tom Nelson). The UK Times Online reports:

Plans for binding European legislation by December were dropped as the EU watered down the carbon dioxide blueprint that it had announced with a fanfare 18 months ago.

The revolt by eight countries, led by Italy and Poland, left the EU’s self-proclaimed mission to shape a global, post-Kyoto agreement on greenhouse gases in disarray.

Italy has joined the "Iron Curtain Revolt" with Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi "furious" at the pressure being applied, saying that the targets would "crucify" Italian industry.

“Our businesses are in absolutely no position at the moment to absorb the costs of the regulations that have been proposed,” Mr Berlusconi said later.

Donald Tusk, the Polish Prime Minister, said: “We don’t say to the French that they have to close down their nuclear power industry and build windmills, and nobody can tell us the equivalent.”

So, Kevin Rudd and Penny Wong, where does this leave your blinkered desire to cripple the Australian economy with an emissions trading scheme? I won't wait up for an answer.

Read it here.

P.S. I can't, however, wait to see how the Moonbat Herald and The Age spin this tomorrow...

Usborne - Indoctrination by stealth

When I was a kid, I was fascinated by the weather (still am), and at school I was reading undergraduate meteorology textbooks during my O-levels. Some of my favourite books were in the Observers series, and the Observer's Book of Weather, by Reginald Lester (see photo), was my favourite of all. It was a clear, concise introduction to the science of weather, and as a youngster I would pore over it for hours on end. There wasn't a politically motivated sentence in it.

How different things are today. I have a copy of a modern book about weather, but it's not just about weather, it's about weather and climate change. It's published by Usborne, who have a reputation for producing excellent books for children. However, this, like many books on the subject available today, is political propaganda aimed at young people, cloaked in the guise of impartial science.

It toes the IPCC line at every turn, and whilst devoting a double page to "Disagreement" humouring those who may not agree with the consensus, it goes on to brand them "sceptics", and under the heading "So who's right?" states:

"At the moment, most experts agree that global warming is happening and it's largely due to humans. As research continues and climate models become more sophisticated, we might see more evidence that this isn't the case.

But even if the sceptics are right and we've done no damage so far, we should still do everything we can to avoid causing any in the future."

I'm sure there are many other books for children on this subject which are far worse than this. Indeed, a quick Amazon search revealed books, aimed specifically at young readers, entitled:

• "Why are the ice caps melting? The dangers of global warming"
• "This is my planet: The Kids' Guide to Global Warming"
• "A Clean Sky: The Global Warming Story"
  

And I would bet a tidy sum that there aren't any books for children that put the alternative view... But it's still very sad that something as uniquely fascinating as the study of the weather has to be tainted by political propaganda.

The book in question is called "The Usborne Internet-Linked Introduction to Weather and Climate Change" - it can be found at Amazon.

Climate news stories decreasing?

It's only anecdotal, but climate change news items appear to have dropped significantly over the past few days, with the number of stories in the news feeds today down by nearly 30% on last week.

This is intriguing, because you would have thought that if "climate change" was really the biggest challenge to mankind in all of human history, as Rudd, Wong, Garnaut etc. lead us to believe it is, the trifling matter of a temporary economic meltdown should have little or no effect on the media's coverage of it. But the reality, however, is that even the mainstream media are finding it hard to justify taking up valuable column-inches on climate stories in the midst of the global financial crisis.

Let's look out for even more desperate soundbites from Wong & Garnaut in the days ahead, as they struggle to keep their pet issue at the forefront!

The Carbon Cycle according to the ABC

Start here...

• Good News: tropical cyclones may be slowing global warming by washing large amounts of CO2-containing vegetation and soil into the sea
• Bad News: its effect is tiny and nowhere near enough to stop climate change, which as we all know, is caused by the evils of humanity spewing "carbon pollution" into the atmosphere (© IPCC and Al Gore)
• Good News: "carbon pollution", as we all know, will cause more tropical cyclones (also © IPCC and Al Gore), so...
  

[Return to start and continue ad infinitum]

If you manage to escape from the clutches of the above infinite loop, you can read it here.

Fiji and Papua New Guinea have better things to do than turn up to pointless "climate" meetings

At least some countries have the sense not to waste valuable time and money attending yet more pointless climate gab-fests. There was head-scratching all around the table at the Samoan climate change conference when Fiji and PNG didn't show. I wonder why? Maybe they have better things to do...

"He [the Director for the secretariat of the Pacific regional Environmental Program] said that they too have not been informed of why the two countries, the biggest in the Pacific Islands, have not turned up and he wouldn't say whether he was disappointed or not, but certainly their absence from this meeting has been the talk of some delegates."

Read it here.

Kangaroo-gate: Fart-free diet for cattle

Another few million bucks down the drain as Victorian scientists try to reduce cattle methane emissions by tinkering with their diet. This all started, you will no doubt recall, because of Ross Garnaut's crazy suggestion that we all should abandon beef and lamb, and eat kangaroo instead, because they produce fewer emissions than sheep and cattle. The farming industry has been forced into self-preservation mode thanks to this nonsense, spending money to defend their industry that could have been much better spent elsewhere.

The DPI's [Victorian Department of Primary Industries] Chris Grainger said in a trial, methane emissions were cut by 12 per cent, by feeding the cattle cotton seed.

"One of the most promising things that we can add to the diet seems to be fat or oil," he said.

Read it here.