Wong refuses to budge an inch on ETS timing

It's like banging your head against a very large, very solid brick wall listening to Penny Wong. Nothing, repeat nothing, ever gets through. So we've hardly had a chance to draw breath after UN climate change bigwig Yvo de Boer said that we don't need to legislate the ETS before Copenhagen, and guess what Penny does? That's right, completely ignores it and ploughs on regardless, as she makes clear in this transcript from ABC's The World Today. Sabra Lane doesn't do a bad job of trying to get Ms Wong's icy façade to crack, but it's just no use:

SABRA LANE: Penny Wong, the head of the United Nations' climate change agency Yvo de Boer says it doesn't matter if Australia doesn't have an emissions trading scheme in place by the time of the Copenhagen talks in December.

That blows a pretty big hole in your argument, doesn't it?

PENNY WONG: Well look what Yvo went on to say was that these are matters of domestic policy and domestic issues. What the Government is saying to the Australian people is this - that we want Australia, Australian businesses to know how we will meet the targets we sign up to in Copenhagen. We think that is the responsible thing to do and that is what passing the legislation will provide.

SABRA LANE: But he was specifically asked if it mattered and he said quite honestly, no.

PENNY WONG: The Government's view is and it's a very logical position is that a failure to legislate does weaken our negotiating position.

We have to look at the national interest. We think it is in the national interest to ensure that we have a way of meeting the targets we sign up to and when I as Minister and in Copenhagen, I want Australians to know how we can meet the targets that we will be committing to.

I am utterly sick and tired of listening to the same old nonsense from this arrogant, self-satisfied, self-opinionated, out of touch government.

Read it here.

Alarmists are the new deniers

Back in January, ACM made the comment that those who deny that the planet is cooling will be the new "deniers" in 2009 (see here). Dr Roy Spencer has picked up on that same theme in a new article, branding them "natural climate cycle deniers":

The natural climate cycle deniers have tried their best to eliminate the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age from climate data records by constructing the uncritically acclaimed and infamous “hockey stick” of global temperature variations (or non-variations) over the last one- to two-thousand years.
…
And when the natural cycle deniers demand changes in energy policy, most of them never imagine that they might personally be inconvenienced by those policies. Like Al Gore, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., and Leonardo DiCaprio, they scornfully look down upon the rest of humanity for using up the natural resources that they want for themselves.

And the few who freely choose to live such a life then want to deny others the freedom to choose, by either regulating or legislating everyone else’s behavior to conform to their own behavior.

The natural climate cycle deniers’ supposedly impartial science is funded by government research dollars that would mostly dry up if the fears of manmade global warming were to evaporate. With contempt they point at the few million dollars that Exxon-Mobil spent years ago to support a few scientists who maintained a healthy skepticism about the science, while the scientific establishment continues to spent tens of billions of your tax dollars.

Read it all!

UPDATED: Even UN thinks Rudd's ETS rush is unnecessary

Kevin Rudd's excuses for trying to force through the ETS legislation before Copenhagen are in tatters. Now even the moonbattish UN has stated that there is no urgency for the scheme to be in place before the climate summit:

It won't matter if Australia doesn't have its emissions trading scheme finalised by December's Copenhagen climate change talks, the head of the UN's climate change agency says.

Other nations will only care that the federal government has made a commitment to reduce emissions targets ahead of the summit, Yvo de Boer says.
…
"I think everybody is very happy with what Australia is doing," he told ABC radio.

But when asked whether it mattered if Australia arrived at Copenhagen in December with a scheme in place, he replied: "Quite honestly no."

So there you have it, from the horse's mouth: a commitment is all that's required. Kevin Rudd's blinkered urge to see the ETS enshrined in legislation before December is exposed as nothing but political posturing. Enough is enough, Mr Rudd. Delay the ETS until after Copenhagen. End of story.

Read it here.

UPDATE: See Penny Wong's knee-jerk response here [Can you guess what it is? - Ed]

The Daily Bayonet - GW Hoax Weekly Roundup

A welcome return for the Weekly Roundup - always a great read!

Krudd's address to ALP conference

More of the same from our great leader. Spin, spin and more spin, especially on climate. Don't forget of course, he's preaching to the ALP faithful, so he can say what the hell he likes and get away with it, which, curiously, is precisely what he does...

The climate change sceptics constantly scare-monger about the possible loss of jobs through the transition to a lower carbon economy. ["Possible"? Try "inevitable" - Ed]

But they constantly fail to talk about the new clean energy jobs of the future which will arise from the introduction of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, the renewable energy target and energy efficiency measures in the future. [Ah, yes, of course, the new green economy - a myth - Ed]

Specifically, these fifty thousand positions will be made up of: [Hope you're ready for this...]

• 4000 disadvantaged job seekers participating in the current insulation program [paid for by the taxpayer];
• 6000 local green jobs through the jobs fund;
• 10,000 places in a new National Green Jobs Corps; [WTF? - Ed]
  
• 30,000 trainees and apprentices in priority sectors of the building and construction sectors and other trades, where places will concentrate across the range of “green skills” competencies that will be needed in the future. These will be achieved through a new National Green Skills Agreement and will start building a new skill base in existing industries and cutting-edge industries, and create jobs and opportunities for generations to come. [Can someone please tell me, is this for real or have we moved into some kind of "Chaser"-style parody land? - Ed]

The practical job-ready skills included in this training will include:

• Training electricians in the installation of solar energy [which nobody wants];
• Training plumbers in the installation of water-recycling, plumbing systems; and
• Training workers in the booming home insulation industry and the retro-fitting of buildings to reduce energy consumption. [All paid for by you and me and every other poor taxpayer in the country - Ed]
  

There really is no comment which will do justice to this pitiful nonsense.

Read it here.

UK - Bird charity protests against wind farms

Gordon Brown's lame duck government continues to plough headlong into economic oblivion by crippling the economy with emissions reduction schemes and believing the fairytale that renewable energy is currently a realistic alternative to coal. And now yet another spanner is thrown in the works, as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) lodges formal protests against a new wind farm:

Europe's largest onshore windfarm project has been thrown in severe doubt after the RSPB and official government agencies lodged formal objections to the 150-turbine plan, it emerged today.

The setback adds to the problems facing the government's ambition to install 10,000 new turbines across the UK by 2020 as part of its plan to cut the carbon emissions causing climate change. [This is the lefty/moonbat Guardian, after all, hence the lack of any qualifying "which may be" in that last statement. Science is settled, you denier you - Ed]

The proposed 550MW windfarm, sprawling across the centre of Shetland's main island, would add almost 20% to existing onshore wind capacity. But the objectors say the plans could seriously damage breeding sites for endangered birds, including a rare wader, the whimbrel, which was unexpectedly discovered by the windfarm developer's own environmental survey teams. [Oops! Classic own goal there! Fire that environmental survey team's butt - Ed] Other species at risk include the red throated diver, golden plover and merlin.

The RSPB heavily criticised the proposal from Viking Energy after initially indicating it could support the scheme.

Read it here. (h/t Daily Bayonet)

Ammo for sceptics - hurricanes and tropical cyclones

Next time you hear an alarmist parrot the line: "Global warming is causing more frequent and more intense hurricanes/tropical cyclones" (© Al Gore and thousands of others), point them to the following chart, which shows Northern Hemisphere Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) in May, June and July:
Note how nothing has changed significantly since 1970… And as Anthony Watts points out, note where 2009 is in the scheme of things.

Read it here.

Costello: "vigorous debate" on ETS required

Another blow for Malcolm Turnbull's terminally wounded leadership. Peter Costello has defended Wilson Tuckey in his call for more open debate on the ETS:

"Wilson Tuckey is an enormously successful candidate in elections. He has enormous support in that electorate and he's a highly intelligent person. I have not agreed with everything Wilson has said over the years, and over the years he has said some pretty funny things about me.

"But I'll tell you this, he's a very intelligent man.

"And I'll make this point: that, when you go to Canberra ... you are entitled to put your view in the partyroom. Nothing wrong with putting a view."

Mr Costello said it was best that the views were agreed in the "forums of the Liberal Party" and it was best that "the members support that decision".

"You're there to represent your constituents and to bring a view," he said. "And I think a vigorous debate never hurt any political party."

Read it here.

Another alarmist runs screaming from debate

What is it with alarmists and avoiding debate? Only yesterday it was Gore. This time it's Penny Wong's own "adviser" Will Steffen, who has turned down an invitation by Steve Fielding to attend a briefing for Senators at which Professor Bob Carter will also be speaking.

This is the second time Senator Fielding has sent a letter out to senators about climate change ahead of the vote on the Government's emissions trading scheme on August 13.

Senator Fielding has questioned whether climate change is caused by human activity because he says there is evidence which shows global temperatures are not rising in line with carbon emissions.

He wants senators to attend a briefing by Professor Bob Carter, who is well known for speaking out against the link made between human activity and climate change.

The briefing is scheduled for just one day before the Senate vote.

Senator Fielding says he also asked Professor Will Steffen of the ANU Climate Change Institute to give a briefing, but he declined.

What's wrong, mate? The debate's over, right? Science is in, surely? Should be a walk in the park to make that fool Bob Carter look a right chump in front of a bunch of pollies! Wait, I know what it must be… it's all just too easy for Will. Needs more of a challenge, I reckon…

There's a saying: "Put up, or shut up." Could be usefully employed against the warm-mongers.

Read it here.

Fairfax Fantasy: China will sign up at Copenhagen

And a porcine aviator just passed my window. Anyway, the poor journos at Fairfax have to do something to pass the time, so they write fairy tales. Despite the fact that in the next decade, China will bring on line about 1000 average-sized coal-fired power stations, 34 times Australia's present coal-burning generation capacity, they will apparently still sign a binding emissions treaty in Copenhagen!

THE chief US climate negotiator, Todd Stern, has given his most bullish [bullshit? - Ed] prediction yet of a successful outcome at the forthcoming Copenhagen meeting, saying China is equally keen to achieve a new climate treaty.

Speaking after the first day of a US-China economic and strategic dialogue between the world’s two powerhouse economies, Mr Stern said that ‘‘on the US side, the issue has risen to the top of the US national security set of priorities’’.

‘‘With respect to prospects, you know, we’re slogging ahead … I think we will end up with an agreement.’’

Mr Stern cautioned that the perspectives of the big developing countries such as China and India were still quite different and the issues difficult, which meant an agreement would not be easy.

‘‘But I do think that we will get there, and I think that there is a lot of interest on the Chinese side fundamentally to arrive at a constructive and successful outcome in Copenhagen.’’

Don't bet the house on it.

Read it here.

ETS: Policy not politics

The Australian gives a cool-headed assessment of the current manoeuvrings around the passage of the ETS throught the Senate next month. Whilst The Australian's leader writers appear to be still broadly in support of some kind of emissions trading scheme (which given the unproven science ACM considers is just plain wrong) at least they are demanding that Kevin Rudd address the concerns with the proposed scheme, rather than merely scoring cheap political points:

The Opposition Leader, having decided to deal with the government rather than be trapped into a green election the Coalition would be hard-pressed to win, must now offer effective ideas on the legislation. For its part, the government (after months of rhetoric) must be more precise about the impact of its scheme. While the opposition may be out of wriggle room on this issue (it must ultimately pass the legislation or risk a double-dissolution election), the government must make sure it does not bestow a costly and risky scheme on future generations.

And the first place where the Prime Minister must convince people of the ETS's economic feasibility is at this week's federal Labor conference. The ETS is not universally popular with cabinet ministers, and backbencher Jennie George spoke for other MPs with energy-intensive industries in their electorates when she said she was "mindful" of the scheme's impact. Mr Rudd has been adept at exploiting conservative divisions over the ETS, but the time for politics is past: he must now show a willingness to explain and justify the detail of an ambitious and unproven scheme.

Read it here.

Gore makes time to meet alarmist nobody

But strangely couldn't find time to meet an elected Senator of the Australian parliament. Tim Mahar [who he? - Ed], who hails from the middle of nowhere, was granted an audience with Saint Al at the Asia Pacific Climate Change Conference in Melbourne a couple of weeks ago, whilst Steve Fielding was snubbed. Do you think it might be because Mr Mahar has swallowed Gore's misrepresentations whole, and is a fully paid up member of the church of Global Warming Alarmism [surely "Climate Change Alarmism" - Ed], whereas Steve Fielding might ask a few tricky questions?

Here's a sample of Mr Mahar's arguments:

"Imagine your child had a heart problem and nine out of 10 specialist said she needs surgery immediately or she will be severely disabled and may die. [And there is the glaring flaw in your mawkish argument - the earth is not heading for severe disability or death thanks to a gentle warming from the Little Ice Age, which has, since about 2001, ceased - Ed]

"However one said: 'Let's wait a while and see what happens'."

"What would you do?"

"In fact, it is our children and grandchildren who are most at risk," Mr Mahar said.

Much of the three-day conference involved working with Al Gore on the most recent developments in the science of climate change. [Al doesn't give a fig about the science, he only cares about making big bucks out of carbon credits - Ed]

"It was disturbing to hear just how quickly the climate is changing," he said.

"Extreme events here are droughts and fires, but other totally unprecedented events are happening all over the world [like thousands of records for cold being broken all over the northern hemisphere summer? - Ed].

"We can turn things around but it will require a huge change and urgent action."

No wonder Al was happy to meet this guy.

Read it here.

Coalition backs ETS just as public opinion turns

Nothing is going right for Malcolm Turnbull. It now seems that his decision on the ETS will be timed perfectly to meet an opposing tide of public opinion:

Just as Malcolm Turnbull has turned the Liberal Party towards accepting an ETS before the global climate change conference in Copenhagen in December, there has been a turnaround in public support for delaying finalisation of a carbon emissions trading scheme.

And while most people are still prepared to pay higher costs for petrol, electricity and gas to cut greenhouse gas emissions, support drops away rapidly as the expectations rise of higher costs.

According to the latest Newspoll survey, 45 per cent of voters want the Rudd government to delay finalising its Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme until after the Copenhagen conference compared with 41 per cent who said Australia should not wait to see what other nations were doing.

Eight per cent of respondents to the survey, taken exclusively for The Australian last weekend, oppose an ETS outright, taking the total who oppose the scheme or want it delayed to 53 per cent.

In September last year, 61 per cent wanted Australia to act as soon as possible, no matter what other countries were doing, and only 33 per cent wanted to delay or opposed the scheme outright.

So that's a 20% increase in those opposing the ETS or wanting it delayed, and Turnbull does precisely the opposite. Not surprisingly, his popularity is at rock bottom, and the writing is on the wall for his leadership…

The Opposition Leader's about-face over passing the ETS before Copenhagen and commitments from the big carbon emitters -- the US, China and India -- came as he slipped to his lowest standing against the Prime Minister, a worse position than former leader Brendan Nelson when he was replaced.

Read it here.

Quote of the Day - Tony Abbott

The point I made about an emissions trading scheme is that I don't like it one little bit. I think it's economically suspect and I think the science behind the policy is contentious to say the least.

Read it here (h/t Andrew Bolt)

Rudd wants more "yoof" votes

Hands up who can guess why Kevin Rudd wants to reduce the voting age to 16 or 17? Could it be because the "yoof" of today are all brainwashed by their schools into thinking we have to "tackle climate change"? Or because the "yoof" of today think that pointless gestures such as Earth Hour, heavily supported by the educational establishment, actually makes some discernable difference to the climate? Or because the "yoof" of today are too naïve and inexperienced to see the damage an ETS would do to Australia's economy? Or maybe because the "yoof" of today would therefore all vote Labor?

Read it here.

Richard Lindzen - "Resisting climate hysteria"

In an excellent article in Quadrant, Richard Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, discusses climate alarmism, and possible reasons behind it.

The notion of a static, unchanging climate is foreign to the history of the earth or any other planet with a fluid envelope. The fact that the developed world went into hysterics over changes in global mean temperature anomaly of a few tenths of a degree will astound future generations. Such hysteria simply represents the scientific illiteracy of much of the public, the susceptibility of the public to the substitution of repetition for truth, and the exploitation of these weaknesses by politicians, environmental promoters, and, after 20 years of media drum beating, many others as well.
…
Before disintegrating in a pyrotechnic display of unscrupulous manipulation, ENRON had been one of the most intense lobbyists for Kyoto. It had hoped to become a trading firm dealing in carbon emission rights. This was no small hope. These rights are likely to amount to over a trillion dollars, and the commissions will run into many billions.
…
With all this at stake, one can readily suspect that there might be a sense of urgency provoked by the possibility that warming may have ceased and that the case for such warming as was seen being due in significant measure to man, disintegrating. For those committed to the more venal agendas, the need to act soon, before the public appreciates the situation, is real indeed.

Read it all here.

Rudd plays politics with ETS

Kevin Rudd and his band of cronies are a bunch of small minded politicians with gutter standards and even less dignity, always on the lookout to score cheap points against the opposition. So the ETS, and the undoubted mess the opposition has got itself into, is the perfect stage for Rudd to perform his tawdry brand of politics:

Opposition emissions trading spokesman Andrew Robb said last night that the Prime Minister was insincere after the government launched a series of attacks on the Opposition Leader despite his offer of a compromise.

His comments came as Labor backbencher Jennie George echoed one of Mr Turnbull's "log of claims" by insisting Australian workers had the same protection as American workers in the scheme before the US congress.

On Friday, Mr Turnbull said the opposition was prepared to consider supporting ETS legislation to go to parliament next month, reversing the shadow cabinet's position that the Coalition would not vote for the legislation before the UN climate conference in Copenhagen in December.

But yesterday Finance Minister Lindsay Tanner scoffed at the offer of talks, telling the Ten Network's Meet the Press that Mr Turnbull should propose legislative amendments rather than vague talking points. And he questioned whether Mr Turnbull could guarantee he spoke for his colleagues after encountering opposition to the ETS from Coalition conservatives. Last night, Mr Robb said Mr Tanner's comments, and a similar attack on Mr Turnbull's "platitudes" by Climate Change Minister Penny Wong on Saturday, showed the government was not interested in genuine progress on its plan to begin emissions trading in 2011.

"This is just a smokescreen," Mr Robb said. "They have been playing politics all along on this.

"Kevin Rudd should say, for example, whether he agrees that the jobs of Australian workers should get as much protection under our scheme as American workers would get under the proposed American scheme.

"It's not a difficult question."

Read it here.

Wong - My way or the highway

This is Penny Wong's and her arrogant government's idea of negotiation. Malcolm Turnbull's suggested amendments to the ETS have already been rejected by the government. Clearly they considered them in detail before reaching that decision...

The plan was alive for less than half a day before Climate Change Minister Penny Wong dismissed it as a shopping list of "vague and inconsistent demands".

Senator Wong said the Government would listen to Mr Turnbull only if he had a coherent set of instructions from the joint Coalition party room.

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd similarly gave it the thumbs-down, taunting Mr Turnbull to unify the warring Coalition before putting anything before the Government again.'

Rudd cannot resist cheap political point-scoring, even when we are talking about the most complex piece of legislation since the GST. But at least the Nationals have some principles:

Senator John "Wacca" Williams said he would rather walk away from Canberra with a clear conscience than vote for the legislation in its present form. "Permits could cost the agricultural sector $7 billion. Under that scenario there'd be no farmers and no food."

Senator Williams said the Government was only interested in getting a double dissolution trigger for an early election.

"Politics is what's behind it all, and we shouldn't be playing politics with Australia's future," he said. [Absolutely right - Ed]

The Nationals Senate leader Barnaby Joyce reiterated that he would not support the scheme, and other senior Nationals said they would never vote "for anything that looks remotely like the existing bill".

Read it here.

Opposition propose changes to ETS

Finally, at least the Opposition are focusing pressure on the government by proposing a number of significant changes to the ETS. If the government rejects them all out of hand, we will know what we suspected all along, that they are not interested in the effect it will have on the climate, or the economy. Their response will be interesting, as The Australian writes in an opinion piece:

There are members in the opposition partyroom who would be happy fighting an election on the ETS. But in agreeing to talk, Mr Turnbull has placed the pressure where it should be -- on the government. At long last we are about to have the conversation that should have been running for months, a discussion on the detail of the ETS.

This will be a difficult discussion indeed for the government because the ETS is immensely complex and the risk is that there are many unidentified devils in the detail.
…
There is no case for rushing the ETS through parliament because Mr Turnbull does not want to be unfairly accused of opposing the cap-and-trade approach to carbon emissions or because the government would prefer to avoid being bogged down in debates over the detail. It is up to Mr Rudd to justify the legislation, not as a symbol to satisfy voters who want action on global warming. Rather, he must convince us it will work, without costing jobs and exports. The political manoeuvring this week will not be remembered for long but we will all endure the consequences of a flawed ETS.

Unfortunately, given the Opposition's weak position, they have no choice but to try and negotiate the ETS, rather than do the right thing which is to reject it outright. Remember, the ETS will do nothing, repeat nothing, to alter the climate, local or global. Australia contributes just 1.5% to global emissions and even reducing that to zero overnight (i.e. a 100% reduction) would make no perceptible difference to global temperatures, even if CO2 were the main driver of temperature, which is by no means proven.

What we do know, however, is that the ETS will damage the economy, raise energy prices for consumers, lower standards of living, cut thousands of jobs and make Australia less competitive against economies that have chosen not to hamstring themselves with pointless emissions reductions.

Read it here.

Coalition in disarray on ETS

Senior Coalition figures are at odds about the proper response to the ETS vote next month. Tony Abbott has urged coalition MPs to pass the ETS to avoid a double dissolution:

The one-time leadership opponent to Mr Turnbull has turned into his staunchest public defender and has appealed to Liberal MPs to "allow" the Opposition Leader to exercise his assessment on emissions trading and to save the Coalition "from a fight it can't win".
…
Although Mr Abbott believes an emissions trading scheme won't cut global carbon emissions and that it will cost jobs, the conservative Liberal frontbencher and Howard government minister has called for Liberals to pass the ETS in the Senate and avoid a double-dissolution election.

But at the same time, Nick Minchin has said that the Coalition will block the ETS:

"We don't think parliament should be presented with legislation on this subject until after we know the outcome of Copenhagen," Mr Minchin said.

"We will vote against this legislation in August, as will every other non-government senator."

Interesting times.

Read it here.

Labor resources minister savages "green faith"

Writing in The Australian, Martin Ferguson lays into the "renewable energy" myth that claims that we can power future generations by wind and solar.

Those who oppose the development of Australia's uranium and LNG resources, and low-emission coal technologies, need to answer the following two questions.

Do they want the world's poor to have access to electricity? If so, how do they propose to generate it? The answers would be yes and renewables. Admirable, but impossible today. I have yet to meet anyone who opposes the use of cheap, reliable renewable energy. However, the factors limiting the uptake of renewables remain technical, not political. We must have a rational, science-based pathway to overcome those hurdles. Faith alone will not get us there. (source)

Bob Brown, never at a loss for a hysterical response to anything, is outraged, and clearly inhabits his own little green fantasy land:

"Martin Ferguson is a total, 100 per cent, lackey of the mining industry," Senator Brown said.

"Renewable energy including baseload solar, but in particular energy efficiency, is not only ready to take down off the shelf but it's cheaper and will create more jobs than coal or nuclear."

You're truly mad, Bob.

Read it here.

UPDATE: The Australian writes in favour of nuclear power in an editorial:

But if environmentalists insist on increasing the cost of coal to compensate for its environmental impact, alternatives are essential. And nuclear energy is the obvious option. Despite the opposition of ageing activists, still arguing as if it was the 1980s when the risk of nuclear war was real, the government is rightly encouraging uranium exports. (Although excluding India because it will not sign the non-proliferation treaty when it has an otherwise solid commitment to peaceful nuclear power makes no sense.) Nor should Canberra rule out ever allowing a nuclear power plant at home. With a permit price for greenhouse emissions the industry, and consumers, can afford, Australia's enormous coal reserves make it impossible to beat as an energy source. But it is more than passing strange that people who hate coal are equally opposed to the only practical low-emission alternative. While it is essential Australia gets the ETS right, we need a broader debate on energy sources. And all who argue that solar and wind power are the universal answer deny powerless people all over the planet a human right we all take for granted: electricity.

Read it here.

Late 20th century warming not primarily man made

A new research paper has been published by local ACM heroes Bob Carter, John McLean and Chris de Freitas which argues that the majority of the late 20th century warming was caused by factors other than man. I guess the pollies will ignore this like they ignore any other research that doesn't obediently suck up to the "consensus" of man-made global warming [surely "climate change" - Ed]. And anyway, the science is settled, right? Debate's over, you denier you.

Nature not man responsible for recent global warming

Three Australasian researchers have shown that natural forces are the dominant influence on climate, in a study just published in the highly-regarded Journal of Geophysical Research. According to this study little or none of the late 20th century global warming and cooling can be attributed to human activity.

The research, by Chris de Freitas, a climate scientist at the University of Auckland in New Zealand, John McLean (Melbourne) and Bob Carter (James Cook University), finds that the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) is a key indicator of global atmospheric temperatures seven months later. As an additional influence, intermittent volcanic activity injects cooling aerosols into the atmosphere and produces significant cooling.

"The surge in global temperatures since 1977 can be attributed to a 1976 climate shift in the Pacific Ocean that made warming El Niño conditions more likely than they were over the previous 30 years and cooling La Niña conditions less likely" says corresponding author de Freitas.

"We have shown that internal global climate-system variability accounts for at least 80% of the observed global climate variation over the past half-century. It may even be more if the period of influence of major volcanoes can be more clearly identified and the corresponding data excluded from the analysis.”

Climate researchers have long been aware that ENSO events influence global temperature, for example causing a high temperature spike in 1998 and a subsequent fall as conditions moved to La Niña. It is also well known that volcanic activity has a cooling influence, and as is well documented by the effects of the 1991 Mount Pinatubo volcanic eruption.

The new paper draws these two strands of climate control together and shows, by demonstrating a strong relationship between the Southern Oscillation and lower-atmospheric temperature, that ENSO has been a major temperature influence since continuous measurement of lower-atmospheric temperature first began in 1958.

According to the three researchers, ENSO-related warming during El Niño conditions is caused by a stronger Hadley Cell circulation moving warm tropical air into the mid-latitudes. During La Niña conditions the Pacific Ocean is cooler and the Walker circulation, west to east in the upper atmosphere along the equator, dominates.

"When climate models failed to retrospectively produce the temperatures since 1950 the modellers added some estimated influences of carbon dioxide to make up the shortfall," says McLean.

And Bob Carter, a vehement opponent of any ETS in Australia sums up the effect of this on policy:

“Our paper confirms what many scientists already know: which is that no scientific justification exists for emissions regulation, and that, irrespective of the severity of the cuts proposed, ETS will exert no measurable effect on future climate.”

But don't expect Rudd, Wong or Turnbull to take the slightest bit of notice.

Read the full abstract here (h/t Climate Depot)

$79 billion

That's the amount the US government has spent on "climate change research" since 1989 … and they still can't prove that CO2 has caused the late 20th century warming:

Despite the billions wasted, audits of the science are left to unpaid volunteers. A dedicated but largely uncoordinated grassroots movement of scientists has sprung up around the globe to test the integrity of “global warming” theory and to compete with a lavishly-funded, highly organized climate monopsony. Major errors have been exposed again and again.

Carbon trading worldwide reached $126 billion in 2008. Banks, which profit most, are calling for more. Experts are predicting the carbon market will reach $2 - $10 trillion in the near future. Hot air will soon be the largest single commodity traded on global exchanges. Meanwhile, in a distracting sideshow, Exxon-Mobil Corp is repeatedly attacked for paying just $23 million to skeptics—less than a thousandth of what the US government spends on alarmists, and less than one five-thousandth of the value of carbon trading in 2008 alone.

The large expenditure designed to prove the non-existent connection between carbon and climate has created a powerful alliance of self-serving vested interests. By pouring so much money into pushing a single, scientifically-baseless agenda, the Government has created not an unbiased investigation but a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Read it and weep.

Electricity generators plead for $20 bn ETS aid

This is the grim reality of an ETS - electricity generators put under huge financial pressure, and the additional costs will be passed on to … whom? That's right, you and me, the consumers, with massive increases in our electricity bills. Until the public start to realise that this ludicrous legislation will hit them in the wallet, the government will be able to carry on regardless …

The government is already offering the generators 130 million free permits worth at least $3.5bn over the first five years of the ETS. However, the generators - which provide more than 20 per cent of Australia's east coast power - claim that will not be enough to stop a looming financial crisis and possible future disruptions to power supplies.

Industry sources told The Australian this week the generators were claiming at least 300 million free permits would be necessary to avoid their asset value falling below debt levels, and some were claiming the industry needed as many as 700 million.

Having heard Penny Wong on ABC News Radio this morning, I wouldn't hold your breath.

Read it here.

Joe Hockey reveals climate ignorance

What is it with politicians? Why are they unable to distinguish between climate change and the causes of climate change? We all agree that climate changes - it has since day one on earth, 4.5 billion years ago. What we don't agree on is the cause. But that hardly subtle distinction is completely lost on most politicians, and Joe Hockey gets it wrong this morning:

"There are going to be people who do not believe that climate change is real," he told ABC Television on Wednesday.

"Well, that is not the majority view of the parliamentary Liberal Party, fullstop."

Read it here.

UPDATE: At least the Nationals are holding out, hardening their opposition to the ETS. As Barnaby Joyce states:

"I firmly believe that the changes that would be required would be so immense that it would no longer be an emissions trading scheme." (source)

Wong rejects call for nuclear power option (again…)

It's an amusing dilemma for the warmenistas - amusing if you're a casual observer, that is, not so funny if you happen to be directly affected by it. On the one hand they want to "save the planet" from the ravages of a harmless trace gas by banning coal and relying on sunbeams and fart power, yet on the other they flatly refuse to consider the only viable alternative to coal fired electricity generation - nuclear power. Even the mining companies are suggesting nuclear, but Penny Wong (surprise, surprise) is not having any of it:

Mining giant Rio Tinto has urged the government to consider nuclear power as a way to meet climate change targets.

Rio Tinto has reportedly told the government there are questions over the viability of renewable energy due to high costs.

That view was given in a response to a government white paper on energy.

"Rio Tinto is entitled to their view," Climate Change Minister Penny Wong said. [That response is the political equivalent of shrugging one's shoulders and muttering "Whatever..." - Ed]

But she said Australia had strong conventional and renewable energy sources, including solar power, wind, wave and geothermal.

"Our focus as a government is on developing those resources," Senator Wong told reporters in Canberra on Wednesday.

We all know that all of those "alternative" sources do not come even close to the energy demands of a Western economy (solar, hopelessly inefficient and only works in daytime; wind, ugly windmills blotting the landscape and only works when it's windy; wave, frighteningly expensive; geothermal, ditto) and if climate change was the greatest challenge to humanity since the dawn of time (© Al Gore), then they would be jumping at the nuclear option. But strangely they're not.

Climate madness.

Read it here.

Liberals heading for train wreck on ETS

Malcolm Turnbull is off on a frolic of his own right now, apparently changing policy on the hoof, which has incensed backbencher Wilson Tuckey, who has branded the leader "inexperienced" and "arrogant".

Mr Tuckey sent an email to all Opposition MPs and Senators criticising Malcolm Turnbull for suggesting the Coalition could back a scheme when the partyroom has declared it will not support any legislation before the United Nations climate summit in Copenhagen at the end of the year.
…
The confidential email sent to all Coalition colleagues has leaked. Mr Tuckey says says he has received support from some, and criticism from others.

"The critics, they've criticised me, giving me all the old platitudes, 'oh you're doing damage to the marginal seat holders'," he said.

"I'll tell you what'll do damage to the marginal seat holders, the Liberal Party prostituting its principles and supporting something they know in its own heart will not either deliver on emission reductions and will do severe damage to the Australian economy."

The Nationals are the only party to openly oppose the ETS, and Barnaby Joyce, as he is so often, is right on the money in his comments this morning:

"I don't think there are any amendments to this emissions trading scheme that will make it palatable.

"Emission trading scheme in essence is a brokers', bureaucrats', bankers' bonanza, it will do nothing to change the climate."

The Liberals are in a right fix. If they vote against the ETS twice, they will trigger a possible double dissolution, and an election they almost certainly will lose. If they support the ETS, they will be voting for the single worst piece of legislation foisted on the Australian public.

Read it here.

Alan Jones: Tide is turning on climate change hysteria

Alan Jones isn't one to mince words, and convincingly lays bare the case against the AGW hysteria.

Enjoy.

$76 million thrown away on pointless "Carbon Trust"

Climate change is great news for governments. It gives them yet more ways to spend your tax dollars, and nobody (except ACM) bats an eyelid, because as we all know, "saving the planet" trumps just about everything. This time it's the establishment of a nebulous Australian Carbon Trust, and even more embarrassing is the fact that a former Howard government minister, Robert Hill, has agreed to chair it:

"This will complement the location of the National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility at Griffith University, helping make Brisbane a hub of activity to tackle climate change in Australia," Mr Rudd said. [Never thought of Brissy as much of a "hub" for anything… - Ed]

The government has set aside $76 million to establish the trust, which will promote ways for households and businesses to tackle climate change.

Would have been easier to burn it, really (although that would release even more CO2...).

Read it here.

India refuses to budge over emissions targets

And by doing so, renders pointless the Rudd government's desperation to get the ETS into law before Copenhagen in order to give a "lead" to the international community. What is the point of Australia (1.5% of global emissions) crippling its economy when India has no intention of doing the same? Looks like there will be even more Aussie businesses migrating to the sub-continent if this madness continues:

During an awkward press conference with [Hillary] Clinton, India's Environment Minister, Jairam Ramesh, stated bluntly that India would not give in to international pressure to cut emissions.

"India's position is clear and categorical that we are simply not in a position to take any legally binding emissions reductions," Mr Ramesh said.
…
Mr Ramesh is reported to have driven home his point at a separate closed-door meeting with Mrs Clinton, saying there was "no case for the pressure that we, who have among the lowest emissions per capita, face to actually reduce emissions".

Read it here.

Carbon trading scheme 'target for scams'

Wow, really? Gosh, never would have worked that out... [er, see here, or here - Ed]

Simon Harrison, a climate change law expert with Australian firm Herbert Geer, says the complex, lucrative scheme is open to rorts.

”The price of carbon fluctuates wildly, which presents a plethora of opportunities to rort the system,” Mr Harrison said.

”Secondly, profits from sales of credits will be reliant upon baselines.

”If a project produces fewer emissions upon completion than its pre-established baseline, the difference can be sold for substantial profit, providing project owners an incentive to exaggerate the baseline to receive more credits than they would otherwise be entitled to.”

He said the Australian Federal Police (AFP) did not have the resources to police the legislation once it starts on July 1, 2011.

Can't you just wait to see the mess we will be in when all this kicks off?

Read it here.

Krudd - King of Inanity

Kevin Rudd has shown himself not to be the sharpest chisel in the toolbox, and to prove it he seems to be doing most of his communication via Twitter. For those of you who are interested, Kev's twittering [sorry, "tweets" - Ed] can be found at http://twitter.com/kevinruddPM, but if you can't wait, here are a few thoughts from the mind of our great leader (these are not made up, in case you wondered):

• Blues played hard. Tough game. Congrats to NSW for last night and to Qld for the series. Fantastic atmosphere at Suncorp. KRudd. [Translation - Sport. Man of the people.]
• Good chat w Obama on climate change. Together w other leaders launched Carbon Capture & Storage Institute. Much to do b4 Copenhagen. KRudd [Translation - I am a very important person.]
• Great to be home. Test draw painful! Got update mid flight. Family well. Dog happy. Cat grumpy. Situation normal. Now back to work. KRudd [Translation - Family man.]
• Starting my blog tomorrow on Climate Change. Like to hear your ideas on practical action. KRudd [Translation - I'm a guy who will take action on climate change, because I don't understand anything except what the IPCC and Penny Wong tell me]

I mean, really, who would possibly want to read such vacuous and inane comments from their Prime Minister? Then there's the blog, of course, which parrots, almost verbatim the usual cracked record nonsense and misrepresentations we hear every day from Penny Wong:

Australia is determined to be on the front foot in global efforts to tackle climate change [Why? - Ed]. We know that our nation is more exposed to the impact of climate change than perhaps any other developed economy. Without strong global and national action, climate change will permanently damage our natural environment and hit our jobs and our economy hard. The Great Barrier Reef – one of Australia’s most iconic natural wonders which generates jobs for around 60,000 people and more than $4.9 billion in tourism revenue – is particularly vulnerable to climate change.

The next step for Australia is to take strong action at home through Parliament passing the [two errors in four words] Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme in August. This scheme will for the first time put a limit on Australia’s [two errors in two words] carbon pollution. By taking action at home in Australia, we can give businesses certainty and give momentum to the international negotiations that are so crucial for our national interest.

ACM's advice is to avoid both at all costs.

Did Gore meet Fielding? Three guesses…

(I'll give you a clue, the answer's "no".) Why not, we ask? As any fule kno, Al loves a good debate about global warming [surely "climate change" - Ed] so why his reluctance to demonstrate easily to the misguided Steve Fielding that the debate's over and the science is settled? Should have been easy, right? Apparently not...

Climate change sceptic [why not just "Senator"? - Ed] Steve Fielding says he is still searching for answers after receiving the brush-off from environmental crusader Al Gore.

Senator Fielding, who holds a crucial vote in the emissions trading debate, had been trying to pin down the former US vice-president to explain one of his key climate change concerns.

But Mr Gore only managed to find time for Prime Minister Kevin Rudd during his flying visit to Australia this week.

Having offered to meet him at any time and fly to wherever he was, Senator Fielding said it was ridiculous the 2007 Nobel Prize winner didn't have five minutes to spare.

"He was aware of how important my vote was ... but obviously he felt more comfortable running to someone - our prime minister - who actually supports and believes in what's he doing," he told Fairfax Radio Network on Friday.

Don't waste your breath next time Senator - the High Priest Gore will only preach to the converted.

Read it here.

Climate models "fundamentally wrong" on CO2

Don't forget that these models are the same ones on which governments around the world are basing their misguided policies on "climate change". And now it appears that there are serious problems with the way in which they model the effect of CO2. A study has found that climate models explain only about half of the heating that occurred during a well-documented period of rapid global warming in Earth's ancient past, known as the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum or PETM:

“In a nutshell, theoretical models cannot explain what we observe in the geological record,” said oceanographer Gerald Dickens, a co-author of the study and professor of Earth science at Rice University. “There appears to be something fundamentally wrong with the way temperature and carbon are linked in climate models.”

During the PETM, for reasons that are still unknown, the amount of carbon in Earth’s atmosphere rose rapidly. For this reason, the PETM, which has been identified in hundreds of sediment core samples worldwide, is probably the best ancient climate analogue for present-day Earth.
...
The conclusion, Dickens said, is that something other than carbon dioxide caused much of the heating during the PETM. “Some feedback loop or other processes that aren’t accounted for in these models — the same ones used by the IPCC for current best estimates of 21st Century warming — caused a substantial portion of the warming that occurred during the PETM.”

Hang on - how many of you have spotted the obvious problem with all this? Yes, that's right. The science is settled - debate's over. Move along. Nothing to see here...

Read it here (h/t Watts Up With That)

Even RealClimate.org admits world cooling

Thanks to Climate Depot:

The recent global cooling has now been happening for so long that the cooling is even admitted by the pro-AGW-propaganda web site which calls itself RealClimate.org.

Here they say:

Excerpt: “We hypothesize that the established pre-1998 trend is the true forced warming signal, and that the climate system effectively overshot this signal in response to the 1997/98 El Niño. This overshoot is in the process of radiatively dissipating, and the climate will return to its earlier defined, greenhouse gas-forced warming signal. If this hypothesis is correct, the era of consistent record-breaking global mean temperatures will not resume until roughly 2020.”

So, even RealClimate (i.e. the Alamo of discredited so-called climate scientists) now admits the fact that the Earth is experiencing global cooling and suggests that global warming will not resume "until roughly 2020." And they are trying to provide excuses for the cooling.

In other words, these global warming propagandists have recognized that their natural climate change denial of the last decade is not sustainable anymore. So, they have abandoned any pretence that global warming exists at the moment, and they are presenting their excuses for why the globe is cooling together with their assertions of when global warming will resume (presumably they will claim with a vengeance).

Simply, nobody can now plausibly deny that the globe is cooling while the emissions and the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide both continue to increase.

Read it here.

Gore and friends create climate of McCarthyism

Bjørn Lomborg writes yet another excellent article in The Australian today, exposing the anti-democratic ways in which climate alarmists wish to push their own agenda, and the pointlessness of emissions reductions schemes:

The Nobel laureate in economics Paul Krugman goes further. After the narrow passage of the Waxman-Markey climate change bill in the US House of Representatives, Krugman said that there was no justification for a vote against it. He called virtually all of the members who voted against it "climate deniers" who were committing "treason against the planet".

Krugman said that the "irresponsibility and immorality" of the representatives' democratic viewpoints were "unforgivable" and a "betrayal". He thus accused almost half of the democratically elected members of the house, from both parties, of treason for holding the views that they do, thereby essentially negating democracy.

Less well-known pundits make similar points, suggesting that people with "incorrect" views on global warming should face Nuremberg-style trials or be tried for crimes against humanity. There is clearly a trend. The climate threat is so great -- and democracies are doing so little about it -- that people conclude that maybe democracy is part of the problem, and that perhaps people ought not be allowed to express heterodox opinions on such an important topic.

And then nails the key point squarely:

Even if every Kyoto-obligated country passed its own, duplicate Waxman-Markey bills -- which is implausible and would incur significantly higher costs -- the global reduction would amount to just 0.22C by the end of this century. The reduction in global temperature would not be measurable in 100 years, yet the cost would be significant and payable now.

Is it really treason against the planet to express some scepticism about whether this is the right way forward? Is it treason to question throwing huge sums of money at a policy that will do virtually no good in 100 years? Is it unreasonable to point out that the inevitable creation of trade barriers that will ensue from Waxman-Markey could eventually cost the world 10 times more than the damage climate change could ever have wrought?

Read it here.

Fielding writes to senators about ETS

Steve Fielding certainly isn't convinced by the woolly thinking of Rudd & Wong on climate change, and is now encouraging other senators to do their own research:

In a letter to senators yesterday, Senator Fielding -- who has recently emerged as parliament's most vocal climate change sceptic -- said carbon emissions had "skyrocketed" over the past 15 years, but temperatures had remained steady.

Senator Fielding said Climate Change Minister Penny Wong and Australia's chief scientist had failed to explain why this was the case.

He said it ran counter to assumptions underpinning the carbon pollution reduction scheme that carbon emissions were the leading cause of global warming.

"Therefore, I ask you to think carefully before voting on the CPRS legislation, a multi-billion-dollar tax that could cripple our economy with little benefit to environment," he wrote.

He has also asked Al Gore for a meeting to discuss the science. All I can say to that is he'll be waiting an awful long time. Gore doesn't "do" science, or debates for that matter. Just propaganda.

Read it here.

Al Gore - just please, please go home

Al Gore is spreading his own special brand of lies and alarmism around Australia at the moment, and the sooner he clears off the better. Check out the blatant untruths in the following, and note that none of those who jump down the throats of sceptics has anything to say about this lot:

"The planet now has a fever," Mr Gore warned today's breakfast gathering [Odd comment, given that "global warming" stopped in 2001 - Ed].

"We have to act [Because I want my money - Ed]."

"It's difficult to ignore the fact that cyclones are getting stronger [wrong, hurricane intensity is at its lowest for decades - Ed], that the fires are getting bigger [wrong again, Victoria had worse fires in the 1800s - Ed], that the sea level is rising [yeah, at the same rate, if not slower, than it has for thousands of years - Ed], that the refugees are beginning to move from places they have long called home [because their islands are sinking, you idiot - Ed]" he said.

Excuse the gratutious ad hom there, but this man talks nothing but unadulterated CRAP.

Two words: GO HOME.

Read it here.

Mark Steyn - 96 months to save the planet!

The excellent Mark Steyn takes apart the latest barking mad announcement from Bonnie Prince Charlie:

It takes a prince, heir to the thrones of Britain and Canada and Australia, Jamaica, Papua New Guinea, and a bunch of other places, to tell it like it is: You pampered consumerists are ruining the joint. In the old days, we didn’t have these kinds of problems. But then Mr. and Mrs. Peasant start remodeling the hovel, adding a rec room and indoor plumbing, replacing the emaciated old nag with a Honda Civic and driving to the mall in it, and next thing you know, instead of just having an extra yard of mead every Boxing Day at the local tavern and adding a couple more pustules to the escutcheon with the local trollop, they begin taking vacations in Florida. When it was just medieval dukes swanking about like that, the planet worked fine: That was “sustainable” consumerism. But now the masses want in. And, once you do that, there goes the global neighborhood.

By contrast, as an example of an exemplary environmentalist, the prince hailed his forebear, King Henry VIII. True, he had a lot of wives, but he did dramatically reduce Anne Boleyn’s carbon footprint.

Brilliant stuff.

Read it all.

Yoof climate conference in Sydney - it's all about "social change"

"The Kids" are the new climate warriors. Funny how when a sceptic with serious credentials publishes a book, the alarmists are all over it like a rash. But when a bunch of kids and pollies get together to whine about climate, nobody bats an eyelid, before we even start on the whole indoctrination aspect of this. And the Fairytale-facts media goes into full slaver mode:

THEY are the new generation of climate warriors. They are smart, politically savvy, idealistic, apparently indefatigable and very young. They have more technology in their mobiles and laptops than NASA had when it sent men to the moon, and they are "beginning to use them for tools, not toys", as one campaigner said.

For the next three days they will be at Power Shift, the Australian Youth Climate Coalition's first major summit.

About 1500 Australians aged 16 to 26 are descending on the University of Western Sydney to learn about organising and to hear speeches from Tim Flannery, senators Nick Xenophon and Christine Milne, the NSW Premier, Nathan Rees, and via video link from Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the United Nations panel on climate change, and the former US vice-president Al Gore, who is training an older generation of climate change campaigners in Melbourne this weekend.

Here's an extract from the web site:

Conference attendees will learn the best practices of climate organising, including campaign and event planning, recruitment, media liaison, public speaking, lobbying, leadership development, coalition-building, campaign strategy and community and campus organising. (source)

What's the very important thing missing from all this? Any discussion of the actual science of climate change. In fact, "science" just one tiny session out of nearly 60, but there are the following sessions (I'm not making these up):

• Graphic design and climate change
• Media training
• Gender and climate change [useful one that - Ed]
• Climate change & Hip Hop workshop [seriously]

This workshop will ask participants to explore an issue around climate change using hip hop. The hip hop debate combines traditional debating with the MC Battle and is an interesting and challenging platform for exploring different sides of an issue. The young ‘Eco Ninjas’ crew from Alstonville High School will be performing their hip hop debate piece at Powershift and will also be assisting with facilitating the workshop. (source)

They're not interested in boring old stuff like science, of course - hey, the debate's over, you denier you. What they are interested in is something quite different, as this session indicates:

Civil disobedience - It’s Role in the Movement
Non violent direct action has played a crucial role in creating social change throughout history. This session will reflect on the history and discuss the future of non-violent direct action in the climate movement.

In other words, non-democratic means to force "social change". This conference has little if anything to do with averting climate change, just imposing "social change" through the back door of environmentalism. It stinks.

Read it here ("Sick Bag Required" Alert - you have been warned...!)

WSJ - King Canute at the G8

The Wall Street Journal expertly pulls apart the climate change hubris at the G8 in an excellent opinion piece. Not only have the G8 moved away from setting emissions targets in favour of setting nebulous climate targets (2˚C temperature rise above pre-industrial levels), but there are so many caveats and exclusions that the end result is basically the square root of sweet FA.

When King Canute of lore wanted to teach his citizens a lesson, he set his throne by the seashore and commanded the tides to roll out. Canute's spirit was back in business this week at the G-8 summit in Italy, where the assembled leaders declared that the world's temperature shall not rise: "We recognize the scientific view that the increase in global average temperature above pre-industrial levels ought not to exceed 2 degrees [Celsius]," or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit, said the summit declaration.

So let it be written, so let it be done.

As for how they will achieve this climate-defying feat, well, the leaders were somewhat less definitive: "we will work . . . to identify a global goal for substantially reducing global emissions by 2050."

Translation: Since the heads of the world's leading economies couldn't agree on an actual policy on climate change, they opted instead to command the clouds, the seas and all of the Earth to cool. Or maybe they were finally admitting that this whole climate business is getting too expensive, so let's just throw out a goal that everyone knows is beyond the reach of kings, much less democratic leaders.

Read it all here.

Quote of the Day - Kevin Rudd

Picked up by a stray microphone at L'Aquila, Rudd's unguarded comment to Danish Prime Minister, Lars Lokke Rasmussen:

Right now I don't think we are on track to get an agreement at Copenhagen.

Read it here.

Pachauri - the quote that got away

I heard this in the middle of the night on ABC News Radio, and I should have written it down, because guess what, it isn't anywhere to be found in the mainstream media. All the stories are talking about how IPCC head Rajendra Pachauri was "cautiously optimistic" about progress at L'Aquila.

But this is the quote nobody wants you to read, which I found as a transcript on a Chinese web site. In it Pachauri refers to the lack of a baseline against which to measure the 80% cut by 2050:

“It’s pretty ridiculous if you ask me, I mean I’m surprised I didn’t see the fallacy that they were introducing in this pledge by not defining the baseline at least. How can you say you will achieve a cut of 'x' amount if you don’t even define what the baseline is, what the benchmark is?”

If anyone can find a reliable source of this quote, please let me know. You can listen to an MP3 of the quote here.

The Daily Bayonet - GW Hoax Weekly Roundup

As always, a great read!

Incomprehensible Rudd-speak baffles climate summit

Always the last refuge of someone who hasn't a clue what they are talking about, speaking in long complicated words which actually mean nothing is Rudd's speciality.

While addressing German press and Chancellor Angela Merkel, Mr Rudd said it was unlikely any progress [on climate change] would emerge from the Major Economies Forum "by way of detailed programmatic specificity".

The line had German translators scrambling for a meaning.

It also has this particular native English speaker scrambling for a meaning as well...

When asked about the Prime Minister's choice of words today, Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull said Mr Rudd would be better to use clear, plain English.

Mr Turnbull admitted he personally had "no idea what (programmatic specificity) means".

"As I understand it, I heard part of his speech was not only incomprehensible in English, but so incomprehensible the German translators were unable to translate," Mr Turnbull said.

Read it here.

Deluded G8 leaders think they can play god…

… and by wrecking western economies with pointless emissions reduction schemes, somehow overcome nature and stop temperatures rising more than 2 degrees C.

The aim, agreed at a G8 summit in the central Italian town of L'Aquila, is to cut overall world emissions by 50 per cent in order to limit global warming to no more than two degrees Celsius, a declaration said.

But the world's largest emitters, including China and India, have backtracked, and are refusing to cut emissions by 50% by 2050.

Major polluting nations meeting at a G8 summit in Italy have dropped a pledge to halve global greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, a European Union official said.

"There is indeed a very strong commitment to identify the global goal for substantially reducing global emissions by 2050, but there is no 50 per cent" mentioned in a draft declaration, the official said on condition of anonymity.

All of which means that anything the developed world does will be even more pointless that we first thought.

Read it here and here.

Rosslyn Beeby - more alarmism

ACM's favourite journo, from the "it's all happening faster than we expected" department, all based on flaky models, of course:

Climate change is occurring faster than predicted across the Snowy Mountains, but little research is being funded by governments and universities to track its impact, scientists say.

CSIRO climate modelling predicts an 8 per cent decline in rain and snowfall across the mountains by 2020, with an average temperature rise of up to 1 degree.

Under this ''worst-case'' trend, temperature would rise by 2.6 degrees by 2050, with a 97 per cent loss of snow cover lasting at least two months.

But studies of snow records by NSW parks scientist Ken Green show average snow depths in some areas are already tracking at, or close to, levels predicted for 2020.

''We've arrived roughly a decade before we were supposed to get there,'' he said.

Yawn. Read it here.

Climate gab-fest kicks off

But don't expect anything important to be decided - these are just talks about talks, after all. Still, it's a nice jolly to Italy in the Northern hemisphere summer, where Rudd can pretend that he's important, rubbing shoulders with leaders of the other 16 countries in the Major Economies Forum. It doesn't change the fact that the whole thing is a pointless waste of effort, and spews more CO2 into the air than any agreement will probably ever save:

The MEF leaders will consider signing an agreement to stop global temperatures rising by more than two degrees Celsius, a level many scientists consider potentially disastrous for the environment.

The MEF, which includes emerging economies of China, India, South Africa, Mexico and Brazil as well as the powerful G8 members, will also be asked to back the "aspirational" goal of halving emissions by 2050.

But after holding talks in Berlin yesterday, Mr Rudd and Ms Merkel said while they hoped the MEF would make progress towards a global goal for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, it would be up to leaders at the United Nations climate change meeting in Copenhagen in December to sign off on a new pact to limit global emissions.

Mr Rudd said it was "highly unlikely" the MEF would come up with a detailed plan to slash emissions by a certain time.

"That is what Copenhagen is about," he said.

So what exactly is all this about? Answers on a postcard... no don't bother.

Read it here.

Climate madness from Oxfam

I wonder if the people that write these reports ever look out the window? Or look at the global temperature record? As is common today in climate science, the output from flaky models replaces empirical observation - it's true: models actually replace reality. And of course, Fairytale-facts prints it all, unquestioningly.

MOST of the gains made by the world's poorest countries over the past half a century will be lost unless action is taken on climate change, Oxfam says.

A report by the international aid agency says up to 375 million people may be affected by climate-related disasters by 2015.

"Climate change is becoming quite rapidly the central issue to do with poverty today", Oxfam Australia's chief, Andrew Hewett, told the Herald. "That also raises deep ethical dilemmas because the people least responsible for this crisis have the least resources to deal with it, and they are also those who are on the front line."

We will have to suffer the endless reports from the G8 summit in the days ahead. All the usual climate clowns will be there - Obama, UK's Gordon Brown, Rudd & Wong - spouting their usual brand of nonsense, including laughably regarding the climate as if a quick twiddle on the 'CO2 dial' will miraculously adjust the temperature, like turning down the electric blanket:

A key issue at both [G8 and major "polluters"] meetings will be whether the US President, Barack Obama, publicly embraces the scientific goal [Scientific? Don't make me laugh - Ed] of keeping the world's temperature from rising above 2 degrees Celsius in order to avoid dangerous climate change.

Note the use of the word "polluters" again, in order to obfuscate and mislead the public (and, clearly, the media). I am all for reducing pollution. CO2 is not pollution. CO2 is plant food. Got it? Barking madness.

Read it here.

Al Gore in Melbourne - 13 July 2009

Those readers in Melbourne are invited by the Climate Sceptics Party to attend a protest against Al Gore's Safe Climate breakfast next Monday.

Press Release - The Climate Sceptics
Monday 6th July, 2009

Those attending the "Safe Climate" 7am breakfast with Al Gore on Monday July 13th will be met by a peaceful educational protest where they will be greeted by signs showing graphs and reasons why CO2 is not the main cause of climate change.

Leon Ashby, president of the new political party "The Climate Sceptics" is organising the event for anyone doubting CO2 is the cause of climate changes to attend and put their voice to say the science is not settled and a proper debate must occur before any country signs up to an emissions trading scheme.

The centenary medal recipient for services to the environment will lead the educational protest calling for Al Gore to admit his movie contained significant factual errors and, since Arctic ice is now back at 1980 levels and the Earth has stopped warming, the idea that rising CO2 causes runaway global warming is false.

Mr Ashby is asking for members of the public who are doubtful that human carbon emissions are causing catastrophic global warming to join the protest with their own placards. Leaflets with 10 questions that Al Gore needs to answer will be handed to those attending the breakfast with Al Gore.

Anyone wanting to attend the protest can visit The Climate Sceptics web site (www.climatesceptics.com.au) for more details or meet on Harbor Esplanade outside Etihad Stadium in Melbourne Docklands at 6.15 am on Monday 13th July.

www.climatesceptics.com.au
contact: info@climatesceptics.com.au
--
Steve Murphy
The Climate Sceptics - advocating open scientific debate.
www.climatesceptics.com.au

Rudd goes on another fossil-fuelled jolly to discuss "climate change"

Another week, another round of pointless climate talks, this time in the earthquake ravaged town of L'Aquila in Italy (you'd have thought they had suffered enough...). Rudd will be spreading his own special brand of "toxic boredom" around, however. I think these poor unfortunates should be warned in advance, and given a secret stash of "No Doz" caffeine tablets:

After a meeting with German Chancellor Angela Merkel on Tuesday, he will stop briefly in Zurich to lobby world soccer body FIFA chief Sepp Blatter on Australia's bid to host the world cup in 2018 or 2020.

Later in the week, Mr Rudd will spend two days in Italy where he will meet Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi in Rome.

Mr Rudd will also visit the Vatican for an audience with Pope Benedict XVI where they are expected to discuss the potential canonisation of Josephite order founder, the Blessed Mary MacKillop.

Rudd and the Pope? Knowing his flair for protocol and dignity (see here for a truly awful video of him with Obama), Rudd will probably slap him on the back and say "G'day mate" and make some kind of cringeworthy attempt at a joke …

Read it here.

Dr Roy Spencer dispels the myth of the "Green economy"

So much is talked about "green jobs" and the "green economy", and how damaging emissions reductions schemes can somehow "create" wealth and employment out of thin air (or as it happens, carbon dioxide), that it is refreshing to see the whole myth so thoroughly debunked:

Given the pain (and public backlash) the EU has experienced from two years’ experience with its Emissions Trading Scheme, why would our politicians ignore that foreign experience, as well as popular sentiment against cap-and-trade here at home, and run full-steam with eyes closed into this regulatory quagmire?

The only answer I can come up with is: more money and more power for government. As a former government employee, I am familiar with the mindset. While the goal of a private sector job is to create wealth, the government employee’s main job is to spend as much of that wealth as possible. A government agency’s foremost goal is self preservation, which means perpetuating a public need for the agency. The idea that our government exists to help enable a better life for its citizens might have been true 100 years ago, but today it is hopelessly naïve.

Read it ALL!

UPDATED: "Denier" alert at ABC

How the media hate "big oil". After yesterday's Quote of the Day, the ABC gleefully trumpets that Exxon Mobil are funding "deniers":

The world's biggest oil company, Exxon Mobil, is reported to be funding the work of climate change deniers.

Company records show Exxon Mobil handed over hundreds of thousands of dollars to lobby groups that question the facts of global warming.
…
The [London School of Economics'] research institute on climate change and the environment says both organisations have published misleading and inaccurate information about climate change.

Well they would say that, wouldn't they? Anything that doesn't meekly submit to the consensus is "misleading and inaccurate" according to climate alarmists. And they also fail to mention that "big oil" hands over millions of dollars to green groups as well, but hey, that's OK, because it's all fine, dandy and politically correct. And they also fail to mention that the alarmist industry has been funded to the tune of about $50 billion by Western governments since 1990. How does that stack up next to a bunch of loose change for "deniers"?

Climate hypocrisy.

Read it here.

UPDATE: Andrew Bolt exposes the hypocrisy here.

New South Wales abandons emissions reduction plans

That doesn't quite fit with the Rudd government's climate policy, does it? Once again, the realities of life seem to get in the way of high minded ideals.

THE Rees Government has dumped key elements of its plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, including promises to force big businesses to use less energy and to set a statewide energy efficiency target.
…
The promise to force big companies to make and implement energy-saving plans was announced by the former premier, Morris Iemma. Yesterday the Government agreed to make this voluntary, after the tribunal recommended the mandatory program be terminated.

The Australian Industry Greenhouse Network, a lobby group for heavy greenhouse gas polluters, told the tribunal it opposed mandatory energy efficiency standards for businesses because they "impose an unnecessary compliance burden on industry" and were not economically efficient.

And pointelss feel-good gestures still dominate:

Funding for switching schools to low-energy lighting will also continue despite the review finding that was "not a cost-effective way of saving energy and reducing greenhouse gas emissions".

Personally, I am sick of CFLs. They flicker, take ages to warm up, cost a fortune, and Australia has no national plan for safe recycling. CFLs get chucked in the dumpster, releasing mercury into the environment (which is a highly toxic heavy metal, rather than a harmless trace gas). In this case, it seems green ideology overcomes reality.

Read it here.

The Daily Bayonet - GW Hoax Weekly Roundup

As always, a great read!

Quote of the Day - Geoscientist Michael Asten

Interviewing geoscientist Michael Asten on Radio National's Counterpoint, Paul Comrie-Thomson couldn't resist plugging the ABC's alarmist agenda by trying to smear Asten as being in the pay of "big oil". I'm glad to report that he got it all back from Asten, with interest:

Paul Comrie-Thomson: Michael Asten, I'm going to ask you a question from left field; are geologists influenced in this debate by their connection to mining and petroleum industries?

Michael Asten: Oh yes, the bogey of being funded by big oil, Paul. The reality is that geologists are exposed from about their second week of first-year studies to the Earth's history of climate change. Climate changes on a daily cycle and dozens of other cycles all the way through to some cosmic cycles a couple of hundred million years long. So geologists are not surprised that we're seeing a change in climate.

Hey, do you think Al Gore may stand to benefit a teensy-weensy little bit from scaring people witless about climate change? No one ever mentions that, of course, but when a scientist gets some loose change from an oil company and it's scandal, outrage, shock horror...

Read the transcript here (the whole thing is an interesting read).