My blog has moved! Redirecting...

You should be automatically redirected. If not, visit and update your bookmarks.

Australian Climate Madness

Tuesday, June 30, 2009

Climate cat-astrophe

Too many cats, or too few? You've gotta love "climate change" - it's so versatile!

(h/t Andrew Bolt)

Flannery and Greens fall out over ETS

"I'm greener than you!"
"No you ain't!"
"Yes I am!"
"No you ain't!"

Fight, fight, fight! I love it when the warm-mongers start beating the sh*t out of each other - saves us realists the bother!
Greenpeace has taken aim at leading climate scientist Tim Flannery, saying his backing of the government's planned emissions trading scheme is unhelpful.

Professor Flannery told ABC television on Monday the Australian Greens should vote for the scheme because "a first step is better than nothing".

Greenpeace spokesman Steve Campbell says that view is disappointing and unhelpful.

"Doing something in this case is worse than doing nothing," he said.

Read it here.

Federal police in dark about climate role

One of the pernicious things about the ETS is the sticky tentacles it will extend into every area of life, even those areas over which no influence was ever intended. Take the role of the AFP for example. As we reported here ("Forget the Keystone Cops, here come the Carbon Cops"), the ETS bill will include an enforcement role for the AFP in relation to "climate crimes" - your guess is as good as mine as to what these would be, but given that there are huge amounts of money involved, you can bet that the whole scheme will be ripe for scamming and fraud.

And Penny Wong is being uncharactaristically reticent about revealing the AFP's role in all of this (and, more importantly, whether resources will be increased to cover the additional workload):
Australian Federal Police Association chief executive Jim Torr says companies who fail to comply with the ETS would be committing a crime against the Commonwealth and it would fall to the AFP to investigate.

"Someone who cheats on the scheme will gain the competitive advantage against the majority of organisations, and I'm particularly talking about larger carbon emitters where the scale of the crime would make it profitable," he said.

Mr Torr says they have approached Minister for Climate Change Penny Wong but her office will not release the details of any enforcement mechanisms in the legislation.

"This is going to become a bigger issue as the years go by, it could become the AFP's number one crime type as years go by that we investigate," he said.

He says more resources would be needed to carry out the investigations.

Can you believe it? Climate crime becoming the number one crime type? All because we introduce a totally pointless piece of legislation that will have repercussions well beyond what the government could ever imagine. Just one of thousands of reasons (apart from the main one, of course - it won't work) why the ETS is simply bad law.

Read it here.

Climate madness from Tim Flannery

As you would expect, Tim "Flannel" Flannery is given a really rough ride on ABC's Lateline by fellow alarmist Tony Jones, but old Flannelly does manage to give us a good laugh or two - and reveals a few unpleasant truths as well. Here are a few quotes:
TONY JONES: It's not only industry, it's certain key politicians. Senator Steve Fielding had a very important potential vote in the Senate, is now being described by the 'Wall Street Journal' as something like a prophet, which is quite unusual to see, and beyond that, there's a view that Australia is emerging as a sort of epicentre of the new scientific scepticism.

TIM FLANNERY: Australia's climate dinosaurs are a lot bigger and uglier than the climate dinosaurs elsewhere, that's for sure. And it is depressing, because it's just so counter-productive. And, you know, the amount of time industry will waste disputing the science and not getting on with the job of adjusting to the future and a new energy economy in this country is just dismaying.

The usual story - mind closed to any possibility of the science not being 100% correct. And then this, which is nothing short of astonishing:
TONY JONES: Let me ask you on another issue altogether. New laws are now being used to penalise protesters who stop or impede production at coal-fired power plants and smelters and so on. Do you think those protesters should be protected in some way? [Protected in some way? Why on earth would a presenter at ABC suggest that those committing criminal acts should somehow be immune from prosecution? - Ed]

TIM FLANNERY: Absolutely. I find this completely outrageous to see state governments who are doing next to nothing to secure the future of younger people in Australia, penalising those who care with absolutely punitive measures now, making them pay for their protests. It is just extraordinary and I find it just utterly immoral and despicable.

So we can add Flannery to the ever growing list of hysterics who think that the rule of law doesn't apply to those trying to "save the planet". And then it just gets worse:
TONY JONES: We've just seen NASA scientist Jim Hanson, I think you know him pretty well, arrested along with an actress outside a coal-fired power station in Virginia, something he describes as a "death factory". Have you considered yourself that kind of direction action?

TIM FLANNERY: Look, I have. I think we've all got a job to do, and my job has over the last couple of years has been working with business and the more progressive end of the business spectrum. I have considered those sort of actions, but there's probably a lot of young people who've got a lot more at stake than I have who are gonna get angrier over time and who are gonna demand action, and they're probably the ones who are gonna carry the day in that area.

Just read that last sentence again, and think what it means - sounds almost like encouragement. Flannery is a disgrace - and so is Tony Jones and the ABC.

Read it here.

Monday, June 29, 2009

Suppressing the inconvenient facts about climate change

Two examples of censorship in the climate debate, as reported in The Australian. You would have thought the case for AGW was so strong, so impenetrable, that any dissenting view could be heard, reviewed and easily rejected. Not the case. Dissenting views have to be banned, for fear that they may derail the global warming gravy train.

Firstly, the US Environmental Protection Agency suppresses an internal report that was sceptical of claims about global warming:
Less than two weeks before the agency formally submitted its pro-regulation recommendation to the White House, an EPA centre director quashed a 98-page report that warned against making hasty "decisions based on a scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain most of the available data". The EPA official, Al McGartland, said in an e-mail message to a staff researcher on March 17: "The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward ... and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision." The email correspondence raises questions about political interference in what was supposed to be a independent review process inside a federal agency.

After reviewing the scientific literature that the EPA is relying on, [report author Alan] Carlin said, he concluded that it was at least three years out of date and did not reflect the latest research. "Global temperatures are roughly where they were in the mid-20th century. They're not going up, and if anything they're going down."

And then a noted polar bear expert was excluded from the Polar Bear Specialist Group, despite having researched polar bears in Canada and around the Arctic circle for 30 years.
The (PBSG) chairman, Andy Derocher explained in an email that (Mitchell's) rejection had nothing to do with his expertise on polar bears: "It was the position you've taken on global warming that brought opposition." Taylor was told that his views running "counter to human-induced climate change are extremely unhelpful". His signing of the Manhattan Declaration -- a statement by 500 scientists that the causes of climate change are not CO2 but natural, such as changes in the radiation of the sun and ocean currents -- was "inconsistent with the position taken by the PBSG".

Funny that. Censorship is usually associated with oppressive regimes (think China, North Korea, Iran etc). Isn't it curious that the global warming alarmist fraternity practise it as well?

Read it here.

Sunday, June 28, 2009

Rudd blows US vote out of proportion

(Of course - what did you expect?) Omitting the rather crucial point that the Waxman-Markey [Malarkey, more like - Ed] bill won't become law until it passes the Senate, which is about as likely as the Greenland Ice Sheet melting next week, Rudd cannot resist the temptation to trumpet the US vote as something "important."
Mr Rudd says the world is moving to tackle climate change and the Coalition needs to get on board.

"To those who are delaying action in the Australian Parliament, look at what's happening in the United States," he said.

"Rather than voting not to vote, which is what the Liberals have done here, let's get on with the business of acting and getting things done."

In other word, come on guys, let's be as dumb as the Yanks. At least Tony Abbott has his head screwed on:
"We're not going to support an ETS which costs Australian jobs without providing any definite and guaranteed environmental benefit. Why would we do that?"

Why indeed.

Read it here.

Recommended books

Two excellent new books to cheer the sceptic's soul, Heaven + Earth - Global Warming: The Missing Science by Professor Ian Plimer and Air Con by Ian Wishart. These two publications approach the global warming debate from different directions, but end up complementing each other very well.

Ian Plimer's book is a thorough look at the science of global warming. As a geologist, Professor Plimer is perfectly placed to put the current climate change debate in the context of the history of the planet. It documents billions of years of climate change on earth, and puts into perspective the claims that somehow we are, just by coincidence, living at a time of "perfect climate".

Professor Plimer takes us on a journey through the planet, with chapters entitled History, The Sun, Earth, Ice, Water and Air, describing in exceptional detail the interrelationships between these factors and the planet's climate. It also puts humanity's place in the scheme of things into stark perspective. The human race has a very high opinion of itself sometimes - for example, its ability to control climate by tinkering with a harmless trace gas - and reading this book disabuses us of that notion - we are but a tiny irrelevance in the universal scale of things. An important lesson that politicians should learn.

The book, as its subtitle indicates, is focused on the science, and will deserve a second (and probably third) read. There is a wealth of information to digest - but it is well worth it.

By contrast, Ian Wishart's book Air Con is a little more approachable for the non-scientific reader, and whilst including enough essential science to gain a good understanding of the issues, concentrates more on the political aspects of the global warming debate, including how the global warming industry has tried (unsuccessfully) to shut down any criticism of the consensus, and exposes the scientific skulduggery that often goes on to perpetuate global warming alarmism.

One of my favorite sections quotes headlines from 1895 ("Geologists think the world may be frozen up again") through the 1930s ("Chicago is in the front rank of thousands of cities throughout the world which have been affected by a mysterious trend toward warmer climate in the last two decades") to 1975 ("Cold winters herald dawn of new Ice Age"), showing the yo-yo-ing backwards and forwards from fears of global cooling, to global warming and back again. If nothing else, such headlines demonstrate that humanity has a tendency always to think that the present time is the most important and crucial time in history, and that action on something must be taken "now". It's a shame we still haven't learned from past mistakes.

ACM highly recommends both books as essential reading for those who wish to gain a more detailed understanding of the climate change debate.

Heaven + Earth can be ordered here.

Air Con can be ordered here.

Thanks to Ian Wishart for providing a copy of Air Con for review.

Saturday, June 27, 2009

US: Clueless democrats pass Waxman-Markey bill

Breaking news. As clueless on climate as the Kruddites in Australia. At least it won't pass the Senate.

Read it here.

UPDATE: Senator James Inhofe puts it into perspective:
“It doesn’t matter,” he declared flatly, “because we’ll kill it in the Senate anyway.”

Asked if he was confident that would be the case, Oklahoma’s senior senator said he was “absolutely certain.” He noted that it would take 60 votes to break an anticipated Republican filibuster over cap and trade and predicted the most the Democrats can muster is about 34.

As Tom Nelson puts it:
Enjoy today, alarmists, because it's all downhill from here.

Wall Street Journal applauds Plimer and Fielding

Steve Fielding's trip to the US, followed by his refusal to accept "the consensus" and vote through the Australian ETS has been noted in the Wall Street Journal as the US congress prepares to vote on their equivalent cap 'n' tax [surely cap 'n' trade? - Ed] legislation, the Waxman-Markey bill. Ian Plimer's book Heaven + Earth is also given the thumbs up:
Steve Fielding recently asked the Obama administration to reassure him on the science of man-made global warming. When the administration proved unhelpful, Mr. Fielding decided to vote against climate-change legislation.

If you haven't heard of this politician, it's because he's a member of the Australian Senate. As the U.S. House of Representatives prepares to pass a climate-change bill, the Australian Parliament is preparing to kill its own country's carbon-emissions scheme. Why? A growing number of Australian politicians, scientists and citizens once again doubt the science of human-caused global warming.

Among the many reasons President Barack Obama and the Democratic majority are so intent on quickly jamming a cap-and-trade system through Congress is because the global warming tide is again shifting. It turns out Al Gore and the United Nations (with an assist from the media), did a little too vociferous a job smearing anyone who disagreed with them as "deniers." The backlash has brought the scientific debate roaring back to life in Australia, Europe, Japan and even, if less reported, the U.S.

Read it here.

Friday, June 26, 2009

Waxman-Markey "cap-n-trade" vote nears in US

It'll be a close run thing, with the Washington Post predicting a close win for the bill. However, it stands even less chance of getting through the senate (sounds a bit like home, really!).
The House could vote today on a measure to cap U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, with Democratic leaders predicting a tight victory for a behemoth bill that has grown more complex with each compromise.

The heart of the bill, which now runs to 1,201 pages, is a plan to reduce emissions to 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020. To do that, it would create a cap-and-trade system, in which polluters would be required to accrue buyable, sellable credits for all the greenhouse gases they produce.
Republicans and some business interests have said the bill would add huge new costs and drive jobs to countries where emissions are still unregulated and free. The GOP byword for the bill has been "cap and tax."

Sounds about right…

Read it here.

Climate clowns do battle

Kevin Rudd and Bill Clinton talk climate, reports The Australian. Oh, to be a fly on the wall - can you imagine all the misunderstandings, inanities, IPCC-speak and suchlike flying back and forth? Talk about the blind leading the blind…
Mr Clinton is a supporter of Mr Rudd's Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute plans through his philanthropic organisation, the Clinton Foundation.

Mr Rudd discussed the institute and climate issues with President Barack Obama earlier this week.

That must have been enlightening, given that Obama can't tell the difference between carbon and carbon dioxide - bit like Penny Wong really.

Read it here.

The Daily Bayonet - GW Hoax Weekly Roundup

As always, a great read!

Thursday, June 25, 2009

Download Steve Fielding's paper on climate change

Steve Fielding has posted the document prepared following his meeting with Penny Wong recently. It won't make happy reading for Rudd, Wong or the alarmist media. We can expect many heads to pop at the ABC and Fairfax in the next few days.

It's in Word format and can be downloaded here.

As Sen. Fielding points out on his blog:
The Rudd Government is yet to prove that man made carbon dioxide emissions are the main driver behind climate change.

In their response to my three questions they shifted the goal posts and rephrased my questions to suit their agenda.

They were unable to debunk a graph used by the IPCC which shows average global temperatures remaining steady over the last 15 years while carbon dioxide emissions have increased.

I have no doubt that we must wait until Copenhagen.

Any move by Australia to act before the big polluters and economies would be committing economic suicide.

Thousand of Australian jobs could be lost, electricity prices could sky rocket. All for nothing if the big economies do nothing.

Once again, bravo and thank you, for doing what the Opposition should have done months ago.

Terry McCrann - "Obama adds his stupid lies to Kevin and Penny's"

President Obama:
"At a time of great fiscal challenges, this legislation is paid for by the polluters who currently emit the dangerous carbon emissions that contaminate the water we drink and pollute the air we breathe."

Terry McCrann doesn't waste a minute in skewering this … this … CRAP! Forgive me dear reader, but there is no other word for it. Just as Rudd and Wong deliberately confuse the element carbon (particulate carbon, such as soot) with the harmless gas carbon dioxide in order to fool the public, Obama is now doing the same.
EARTH to Barack Obama: Carbon dioxide is not the new asbestos. It's not even the old asbestos.

Kevin Rudd and Penny Wong's totally false and deliberately misleading "Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme" is nothing less than a disgraceful fraud which the media to its utter and almost total shame has allowed them to get away with.

But it almost pales in comparison with what Barack Obama had to say at his press conference yesterday. The relevant quote is [above].

That a political leader could say something so stupid and so fundamentally false almost defies comprehension. Although depressingly, perhaps not, given the Kevin and Penny falsehoods.

It's important to understand that this wasn't an off-the-cuff comment. It came in Obama's prepared comments. That the emissions "contaminate the water we drink and pollute the air we breathe."

Which is worse. That the President of the US doesn't understand that he is talking about carbon dioxide. What we all breathe out, and which far from polluting the air, is the tree and plant food.

And which nobody, not even the most hysterical climate changer has suggested until Obama yesterday that rising CO2 levels will cause any direct asbestos-type damage. Yes, it might fry the planet, but if so, the trees will die happy and never healthier.

We live in interesting times, where the leader of the free world can mislead his own electorate and the rest of the world with such falsehoods.

Read it here.

Wednesday, June 24, 2009

BREAKING: Steve Fielding rejects AGW consensus

In a great victory for common sense, Senator Steve Fielding has rejected the consensus on AGW, namely that anthropogenic CO2 is causing dangerous warming of the planet.
After talks with the government and top scientists, Senator Fielding, whose vote could be crucial in passing the Federal Government's plan to put a price on carbon emissions, has released a document setting out his position.

"Global temperature isn't rising," it says.

Senator Fielding says he would not risk job losses on "unconvincing green science" to set up a carbon emissions trading scheme (ETS).

Senator Fielding's stance appears to torpedo the chance of the scheme passing as the Government would need his support, as well as that of the Greens and independent Nick Xenophon.

Bravo, Senator, for having the courage to stand up to the blinkered dogma of the Rudd government, Penny Wong and the climate change religion, something the Opposition didn't have the guts to do.

Read it here.

Bob Carter - ETS is single worst piece of legislation foisted on Australian public

Professor Bob Carter was speaking in Bendigo last night at a climate science meeting, as the Bendigo Advertiser reports:
He said Australians were being conned, as the bill was aimed at carbon dioxide rather than carbon, and carbon dioxide was not a pollutant.

Professor Carter said the public should have access to balanced views on climate change.

Twenty years of intensive research and great expenditure had produced no compelling evidence that humans have had a significant effect on climate.

"I have been described as a sceptic. I am not a sceptic, I am a scientist, and all good scientists should be sceptical.

"I would rather be described as a climate agnostic."

"If the bill is implemented, carbon dioxide emission will be reduced but the cost will be $3000 a head each year in taxes for every Australian.

"And the temperature change will be 0.001C by the year 2100."

Read it here.

James Hansen arrested for civil disobedience

(h/t Watts Up With That). We always knew Hansen was a crazy alarmist, having given evidence in favour of the Kingsnorth demonstrators [vandals - Ed] in the UK. But now he has gone too far, and finds himself in the care of State troopers in West Virginia:

More than two dozen people — including actress Daryl Hannah and NASA climate scientist James Hansen — were arrested Tuesday in the latest protest in a growing civil disobedience campaign against mountaintop removal in Southern West Virginia. Full AP story here.

Hansen said: "I am not a politician; I am a scientist and a citizen."

As Anthony Watts rightly states:
No Jimbo, you are an activist and an advocate for a cause.

Note to NASA: Now can you fire this guy?

Well said!

Read it here.

Climate ball is up in the air

Another interesting article in The Australian, currently the only paper that has the guts to put forward any views contrary to the alarmist hysteria (aka "the consensus") from the Fairfax press. Michael Asten, professorial fellow at Monash University's school of geosciences, squares up Steve Fielding against Penny Wong:
IT is surprising to see the slow response of Climate Change Minister Penny Wong in fielding a team to counter the arguments assembled by Family First senator Steve Fielding's team of experts and presented on this page last week. At this stage we don't know whether the questions are too hard or she has opted for the regal approach of lofty silence. As a mere scientist, I'll join my colleague Neville Nicholls, whose letter was published in The Australian on Saturday, and step in where others have declined to tread.
A crucial issue remains for our two teams to debate when they meet after the next siren. Even though a computer model incorporating CO2 variations and feedback mechanisms gives results consistent with temperature change of the past 50 years, that does not prove the link between CO2 and temperature change, especially if the link fails to be consistent with similar temperature changes in historic times. Are there alternative physical or chemical phenomena not yet incorporated into our climate models? Peter Schwerdtfeger offered one important phenomenon, the role of micro-particulate matter (air pollution), in these pages yesterday (see here).

The highly complex interaction of solar activity, solar magnetic field, solar wind, cosmic rays and cloud formation is another. For examples, see studies by scientists from the Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research and the Swiss Institute of Applied Physics and Climate Change Research, published this year in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics. The former study, which uses sunspot records instead of tree rings as basic data, observes: "Interestingly, the amplitude of the present period of global warming does not significantly differ from the other episodes of relative warming that occurred in earlier centuries." It appears that a Dutch referee is affirming team Fielding's goal.

Read it here.

Tuesday, June 23, 2009

Senate vote on ETS delayed until August

Despite "climate change" being the greatest threat to humanity since the dawn of time (© Al Gore, IPCC etc etc), the Senate decided to debate other "more pressing" bills [what could be "more pressing" than saving the planet?? - Ed] before the ETS this week, making it almost certain that it won't be debated before at all before the winter break, which starts next week. The government were also hoping to clear the first hurdle for a possible double dissolution - now that won't happen until August either.

Penny Wong is livid, of course:
"They have been filibustering, wasting time, using every tactic they can to delay debate on this Bill,'' Senator Wong said.

Add to that the possibility of a leadership battle for the Liberals, given Turnbull's ill-advised attempt to skewer Rudd and Swann in the Ute-gate saga, with any new leader being far less sympathetic to the whole idea of an ETS than Turnbull.

Another few nails driven firmly into the ETS's coffin...

Read it here.

Reason clouded by carbon obsession

You can't tax the sun, or clouds, or the variations in the earth's orbit, or volcanic eruptions, or water vapour, or a myriad other possible causes of climate change … but you can tax CO2 emissions (or at least you can try). Interesting, isn't it, that the alarmists would have you believe that the sole driver of "climate change" is the one thing that can be taxed and regulated. Coincidence? You decide.

Peter Schwerdtfeger, emeritus professor of meteorology at Flinders University in Adelaide, is an AGW believer, and yet even he has doubts about the role of CO2.
ALTHOUGH there are many doubters of man-made climate change, I am not yet one of them. But I remain unconvinced that carbon dioxide is the sole bete noire. Two decades ago, I pored over the spectral properties of the infra-red radiation of this gas, which is essential to plant life, and found that it was almost completely overshadowed by the radiative properties of water vapour, which is vital to all forms of life on earth.

Repeatedly in science we are reminded that happenings in nature can rarely be ascribed to a single phenomenon. For example, sea levels on our coasts are dependent on winds and astronomical forces as well as atmospheric pressure and, on a different time scale, the temperature profile of the ocean. Now, with complete abandon, a vociferous body of claimants is insisting that CO2 alone is the root of climatic evil.

He also considers there may be far more serious effects from burning of fossil fuels - namely the particulates released:
Detailed studies led by internationally acclaimed cloud physicist Daniel Rosenfeld of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem have revealed that the minute water vapour droplets that form around some carbon particles are so small as to be almost incapable of being subsequently coalesced into larger precipitable drops. In short, the particulates prevent rainfall.

Rosenfeld's research group has shown that humans are changing the climate in a much more direct way than through the release of CO2. Rather, pollution is seriously inhibiting rain over mountains in semi-arid regions, a phenomenon with dire consequences for water resources in the Middle East and many other parts of the world, including China and Australia.

Whether all this is true or not is to an extent irrelevant. The point is that because the alarmists are so focussed on CO2, proper scientific research into other aspects of the atmosphere and climate is being ignored. As soon as dogma overtakes free-thinking scientific enquiry, we're back to the Dark Ages.

Read it here.

Monday, June 22, 2009

Quote of the Day - Barnaby Joyce

Speaking on the upcoming vote in the Senate on the ETS:
"I want this debate to go for as long as possible. Call that a filibuster, call it what you want, call it you're aunt Mary, I will debate this thing until there is not a breath left in me."

Read it here (h/t Tom Nelson).

Fielding "not convinced"

Hardly surprising, given that the government cannot answer three simple questions about the climate science behind the ETS.
Senator Fielding says meetings with Climate Change Minister Penny Wong and chief scientist Penny Sackett have not convinced him of the science of climate change.

"I'm still open for them to have other information but from what I've seen it's not a convincing argument," he said.

"I don't know how any parliamentarian could actually vote for this legislation given that they would have trouble trying to answer a question that the Minister and the chief scientist have had trouble answering themselves."

Senator Fielding says Australia should not act until after the United Nations conference on Climate Change in Copenhagen in December.

"It is absolutely crazy for Australia to go it alone; we should definitely wait until Copenhagen," he said.

"You've got China, you've got India; we've got to wait til Copenhagen. We need to see what the rest of the world are going to do, and then Australia can respond. Because frankly, going alone is suicide."

Dead right.

Read it here.

Tom Switzer - Greenhouse gas battle is slowly losing steam

The former adviser to Brendan Nelson has written an excellent piece in the Australian Financial Review comparing the likely fate of emissions trading legislation both here and in the US:
When Kevin Rudd and Barack Obama were elected to power, Australia and the United States were expected to implement overdue and concrete measures to slash the greenhouse gases that cause global warming.

But a curious thing is happening on the road to the UN post-Kyoto global conference later this year: the legislation to implement an emissions trading scheme (ETS) – the chosen policy that would change the way we use energy – is likely to collapse in both Canberra and Washington.

And the reason for the opposition among politicians and commentators is the same in both Australia and the US: that any serious action to reduce each nation’s carbon footprint would be futile without the support of the developing, big polluting nations, most notably China and India, at the Copenhagen conference.

It was not Adelaide University’s Ian Plimer, but Harvard University’s Martin Feldstein who argued in the Washington Post this month that we “should wait until there is a global agreement on CO2 that includes China and India before [we] commit... to costly reductions.”

It was not Liberal frontbencher Andrew Robb, but leading Republican Congressman James Sensenbrenner who argued in the Wall Street Journal we “cannot reduce the growth of greenhouse gases in the earth’s atmosphere without the developing nations cutting their emissions as well.”

And it was not National Party Senator Barnaby Joyce, but Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels who warned in last week’s GOP radio and Internet address that, under an ETS, “our farmers and livestock producers would see their costs skyrocket and our coal miners would be looking for new work.”

Public opinion in the US is also shifting dramatically: according to Gallup, 41 per cent of Americans think climate change is exaggerated (the highest percentage in more than a decade of polling) and among eight environmental concerns, climate change ranked last. Amid the financial crisis, protecting jobs now takes priority over combating global warming.

Just last week, President Obama's No. 2 special envoy for climate change Jonathan Pershing said the US may miss the December deadline for committing to reduce its emissions, making it impossible for US negotiators to set a target for any successor deal to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol in Copenhagen. Simply put, the US will follow its national interest as well as the electoral mood on global warming.

To the extent that such views prevail, they contradict the notion that Obama’s America will lead the world to a post-Kyoto low carbon future. In Australia, the federal Opposition’s support for a carbon pollution reduction scheme is conditional on not just the support of developing nations to cut emissions but also the passage of a US law that sets specific carbon targets. Ditto the governments of Canada and New Zealand.

The Chinese government expects developed nations to not only cut their emissions by at least 40 per cent from 1990 levels by 2020, but donate up to 1 per cent of annual GDP to help poorer nations cope with climate change. The demands won’t be met.

The Australian Government has downgraded target rates to as low as 5 per cent from 2000 levels by 2020 and proposes to hand out free permits to big polluters.

Europe has pledged to cut emissions by 20 per cent from 1990 levels by 2020. But, despite having already implemented an ETS, it has failed to meet its mandatory carbon targets under the Kyoto protocol and it has fattened polluters’ profits without protecting consumers from higher energy prices.

In the US, the Waxman-Markey bill - named after two leading Democrat congressmen active on climate change – proposes a cut by 17 per cent from 2005 levels by 2020 as well as a host of subsidies and special exemptions, including at least 85 per cent free permits to big polluters. The legislation has just passed a key congressional committee, and it will probably clear the House of Representatives during the northern summer.

But the bill faces a roadblock in the Senate, where 60 votes are required to overcome a filibuster. Most of the 40 Republicans as well as several Democrats from states that rely heavily on coal and whose energy costs would rise under an ETS are likely to oppose. Which means the climate bill will probably crash to defeat just as a similar bill did last year.

The point here is that different nations have different interests, and none is willing to make a serious cut without an equal commitment from others. It’s easy to understand why: if one nation adopts an ETS and its trading competitors do not, the former’s exports would cop a carbon cost not borne by its competitor. What may make sense for a developed country in Europe, moreover, does not work for a developing one in Asia eager to grow its economy and lift its people out of poverty.

Put another way, if every advanced country drastically slashes carbon emissions, cuts would be wiped out by emissions from China, already the world’s largest polluter, and India, coming up fast. Even before the global recession, neither nation was prepared to accept mandatory cuts, lest it hinder economic development.

Source: AFR - 18 June 2009

Bob Carter - why can't the government answer three simple questions?

Bob Carter was one of Steve Fielding's advisers in the recent meeting with Penny Wong (see here), and he has written about the experience:
Scientific legerdemain, and an apparent inability to discuss the important climate change issue in simple terms that the public can understand, are not adequate responses to the crisp questions that Senator Fielding posed to the Minister and has yet to receive clear answers to.

It was reported in the Business Age last July that the Ministry of Climate Change’s Green Paper on climate change, which was issued as a prelude to carbon dioxide taxation legislation, contained seven scientific errors and oversimplifications in the first sentence of its opening section.

Almost 12 months on, our experience confirms that the balance of the scientific advice Minister Wong is receiving is quite simply inadequate to justify the exorbitantly costly upheaval of our society’s energy usage that is intended to be driven by the government’s emissions trading legislation.

All Australians owe Senator Fielding a vote of thanks for having had the political courage to ask in parliament where the climate Empress’s clothes have gone. Together with the Family First Senator, and the public, we await with interest any further answers to his questions that Minister Wong’s advisors may yet provide.

Read it here.

Saturday, June 20, 2009

The Age (of alarmism)

It's Saturday, so it must be Fairy-tale Facts™ alarmism day (actually this is from Friday, but I've had a rather busy week, so blogging has taken a back seat - back to normal next week I hope!). No surprise that The Age comes up with some more incredible fantasy about ocean temperatures, screaming:
"Rising ocean temperatures near worst-case predictions"

followed by acres of doom and gloom-mongering:
The ocean is warming about 50 per cent faster than reported two years ago, according to an update of the latest climate science.

A report compiling research presented at a science congress in Copenhagen in March says recent observations are near the worst-case predictions of the 2007 report by the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

In the case of sea-level rise, it is happening at an even greater rate than projected - largely due to rising ocean temperatures causing thermal expansion of seawater.

Guess who one of the report's authors is? None other than head shrink at the Penny Wong Memorial Climate Re-programming Facility, Will Steffen, who notes that the top 700 metres of water had warmed just 0.1˚C in a half a century:
"While that looks like a modest figure [nothing is ever how it looks in the alarmists' worldview - Ed], that would correspond to something like 15 to 20 times more heat going into the ocean than has gone into the atmosphere," Professor Steffen said.

Where do they get all this from? The ocean heat content is falling, sea-surface temperatures are also falling, and the network of buoys measuring sea level show it stable or falling as a result. The article (and the report) is nothing but pure alarmist fantasy, most likely from selective, cherry-picked data.

But hey, who cares about the facts? We're Fairytale-Facts™!

Read it here.

Friday, June 19, 2009

The Daily Bayonet - GW Hoax Weekly Roundup

As always, a great read!

Thursday, June 18, 2009

Climate madness from Obama

Just to show that we don't have a monopoly on "climate cluelessness" here in Australia, Obama's latest climate report is panned, with just a small sample of the reactions:
  • "This is not a work of science but an embarrassing episode for the authors and NOAA."
  • "I disagree strongly with the hurricane-related conclusions of this report."
  • Report "misrepresents the science" - "ignores relevant work in peer-reviewed literature."
Read it here.

Quote of the Day - Kevin Rudd

Speaking about the Liberal plan to delay the ETS:
This is one of the more reckless acts in which the Liberal Party has engaged in recent times.

But nothing compared to Labor's reckless act of blindly forcing through an ETS, which will cripple the Australian economy and do nothing for the climate.

Read it here.

Tuesday, June 16, 2009

Steve Fielding to be re-admitted to State facility

That's the "Penny Wong Memorial Climate Re-Programming Facility" of the Peoples Republic of Kruddistan. One visit was clearly not enough, so back he'll go, for another encounter with the high-voltage electrodes applied to delicate parts of the body. And he'll keep going back until he admits that anthropogenic CO2 causes "global warming" [er, surely, "climate change"? - Ed]:
Climate change minister Penny Wong's office is due to present Senator Fielding with more evidence in a bid to convince him that rising carbon levels are warming the planet. [Science isn't about persuasion, or consensus. It's about developing hypotheses, using those hypotheses to make predictions, and then seeing whether they match empirical evidence. If they don't, they get chucked, unless we're talking about AGW - Ed]

"No-one disagrees in climate change. What is in disagreement is it is carbon emissions by man that are driving up global temperatures," he said.

This whole spectacle is utterly ludicrous - elected politicians in a democracy are not permitted to hold "heretical" views about an area of science that has become more like a religion.

And Bob Brown (never at a loss for an overreaction) is apparently "dumbfounded":
"Poor guy. He's just caught there with not believing ... or whether he thinks it's all make believe and somebody's pulling strings and nothing's true at all," he said.

Any idea what that outburst means? Maybe Bob could try saying that again, this time in sentences that actually make sense, perhaps...

Read it here.

Headline of the day

I'm rather busy this week, and will only be able to post a few items, but this headline in The Sydney Moonbat Herald made me smile, again regarding Steve Fielding's "re-programming" meeting:
Senator hears a science lesson on climate.

The clear implication from this being that only Wong and her alarmist cohorts know anything about the climate, and anyone daring to dissent is merely uneducated, and needs "teaching a lesson". Another classic from Fairy-tale Facts™.

Read it here.

Monday, June 15, 2009

Quote of the Day

After Steve Fielding's "re-programming" meeting with Pennies Wong and Sackett today, the best quote came from Prof. Will Steffen from ANU:
A lot of the arguments I've seen put forward ... wouldn't get through a PhD student at ANU.

Well, certainly not with an alarmist like Steffen making the decisions...

Read it here.

Sunday, June 14, 2009

Fairytale Facts - Climate madness from The Age

Six outright lies in two paragraphs this morning from the Fairfax media organisation, which deluded readers of The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald will swallow whole. The article, by "national climate justice coordinator" (sounds like something that would be more at home in East Germany before the Wall came down) with Friends of the Earth, Damien Lawson, is probably one of the most hysterical pieces ever (and that's saying something), and I'm only talking about the first ten lines! I knew that the warmists would get desperate, as they see the planet failing to live up to the dire predictions of the flawed climate models of the IPCC...

So, here we go:
We are in a climate emergency, which demands emergency action [1]. The speed and severity of global warming is exceeding even the worst predictions [2], leading many to suggest that greenhouse gas levels are already too high [3].

In Australia, the evidence includes record heat, more severe fires, drought, declining agriculture and a threat to national treasures such as the Great Barrier Reef [4]. Yet they are only the beginning of the catastrophe unless we urgently drive down carbon pollution [5] and prevent feedback loops causing runaway climate change [6].

I suppose I have to waste another five minutes of my life doing this:
  • [1]: Untrue. What makes today's climate the perfect climate? There is no "emergency" as the climate has been far warmer (and cooler) in the past, and nothing is happening today that exceeds what has happened by natural causes in the past.
  • [2]: Untrue. The climate is cooling, and has been since 2000. It is tracking below the lowest IPCC estimate.
  • [3]: Untrue. What makes today's levels of CO2 so special? It has been far higher for much of the history of the planet (without "runaway global warming").
  • [4]: Untrue. There are no proven links between any of those events and "climate change".
  • [5]: Untrue. "Driving down carbon pollution" in Australia will do nothing for the climate, even if CO2 were a driver of temperature.
  • [6]: Untrue. There is no evidence of such feedbacks having ever occurred in the past, and no evidence of any previous "runaway climate change", despite huge levels of CO2 up to thousands of PPM.

This is disgraceful journalism, and shame on Fairfax for printing it. It shows how the media don't give a fig about what is really happening to our climate, and only care about selling papers with mindless alarmism.

Read it here.

Saturday, June 13, 2009

The hidden agenda of climate change

If you want to understand the true agenda behind "climate change", just check out this picture on the ABC web site (high-res image here) of today's demonstration in Sydney, and look closely at the organisations represented. Here are some of those I could spot (I'm sure other photos would reveal more):
  • Socialist Youth Organisation
  • Socialist Alliance
  • Socialist Alternative
OK. Here comes the tricky question: what's the common feature of those organisations (I've given you a hint)…?

The reality is that these climate change protesters care less about the environment than imposing a socialist world order. You have been warned.

Read the story here.

P.S. And (how could I not have noticed first off), they're all wearing RED!!...
Then raise the scarlet standard high.
Within its shade we'll live and die,
Though cowards flinch and traitors sneer,
We'll keep the red flag flying here.

Tiny climate change protest in Sydney

Tiny given that this is the greatest threat to humanity since the dawn of time (© IPCC, Al Gore & James Hansen). The Sydney Moonbat Herald gushes with breathless admiration for the valiant climate warriors (i.e. the great unwashed):
Families, young children and elderly men and women were part of the 2000-strong rally, with protesters dressed in red, carrying banners and chanting loudly as they marched.

And we were then treated to some nauseating BS [outright falsehoods? - Ed] from NSW Greens MP Lee Rhiannon, a barking mad enviro-fundamentalist who clearly lives on another planet:
"The world is on red alert, urgent action is needed to rein in runaway climate change now," Ms Rhiannon said. [Yeah, 'cos clearly climate change is "runaway", see here - Ed]

"The Prime Minister needs to recognise that baby steps is not what is needed, we need the giant leap to a zero emissions future. [Zero emissions, there's a challenge. Everyone stop breathing right now, that cow over there, stop farting, and excuse me Mr Enormous Undersea Volcano, would you mind awfully not erupting and gushing billions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere, as it really isn't very nice - Ed]

"We know that achieving that is not going to come with the carbon pollution reduction scheme - that's a scam." [Yep, but not for the reasons you think, dear - Ed]

And the last word is given to "the kids", whom we are depriving of a future by our evil emission of greenhouse gasses (cue violin music):
One young child wrote: "Mr Rudd, save our world".

Ha! Some hope, from a prime minister so desperate to "connect" with the working classes that he uses fake Ocker phrases like "fair shake of the sauce bottle". Sick bags at the ready, and all together now...

Read it here.

UPDATED: Climate talks move at "glacial pace"

Don't know whether the Financial Times intended the pun there, but anyway. More indications that the chances of an agreement in Copenhagen are disappearing faster than the Wilkins Ice Shelf:
Time is running out for climate change talks, with another meeting of world governments ending on Friday, this time in Bonn, with little progress towards a new agreement on greenhouse gases.
There are at least two more important UN meetings planned before a crunch conference in Copenhagen in December. There, officials will attempt to hammer out an accord to replace the Kyoto protocol, whose main provisions expire in 2012.
China has reinforced the sense of discord by calling on developed countries to cut their emissions by 40 per cent by 2020 – far more than any plan to do – and to give 0.5 per cent to 1 per cent of their gross domestic product in assistance to the developing world.

The lack of progress so far on the big issues – the extent to which rich countries will cut emissions, the commitments poor countries will make and how these will be funded – was underlined this week when Japan unveiled a plan to cut its emissions by 8 per cent from 1990 levels by 2020 – a level only 2 per cent below Tokyo's commitment under the 1997 Kyoto protocol.

More pointless gab-fests to come in the months ahead - oh joy.

Read it here.

UPDATE: The UN climate chief appears to be suffering from a touch of the old "cognitive dissonances" as reported in the ever-optimistic Brisbane Times:
Yvo de Boer, the top UN climate change official, said he was confident of reaching an ambitious agreement in Copenhagen, though it will lack details that will require further work [And there's the big get-out clause - Ed].

The latest round showed that governments "are committed to reaching an agreement, and this is a big achievement", he told reporters.

He's a kinda "glass half full" guy, ain't he?

Read it here.

Climate sense from Miranda Devine

One of the very few journalists who actually supports the line Steve Fielding is taking on the climate debate, in contrast to the distasteful mudslinging that has been going on this past week.
Fielding, who has an MBA from Monash University as well as an engineering degree from RMIT, is confident enough in his analytical ability not to be intimidated by overbearing experts into outsourcing policy to them.

Swamped with emails from the public encouraging him in his quest for answers, he says he is motivated by "trying to do what's right by Australian workers and families, [which] is enough inspiration to get this decision right".

Of course, he has been pilloried for being diligent enough to do the job he was elected to do.

He has been derided by people without any training in mathematics or scientific disciplines, who regard science, probably, as they do their computers - as a little black box to be understood only by an elite council of infallible gurus who are incapable of impure motives. Who is the gullible one?

Read it here.

Friday, June 12, 2009

UPDATED: Weather isn't climate, but…

From Weatherzone:
Victoria is experiencing its best start to the snow season in a decade.

There is 56 centimetres of snow at Mt Buller and about 40 centimetres at Mt Hotham, Falls Creek and Lake Mountain.

Snow reporter, Maureen Gearon, says there will be eight lifts open at Mt Buller this weekend and six lifts will be operating at other resorts.

"These are the earliest and heaviest snow falls we've had since 2000," she said.

"[While] 2007 and 2003 were great ... this is just spectacular, so we're sitting around, average base of about 50 centimetres around most of the resorts." (source)

UPDATE: Looks like the ACT is pretty nippy as well:
Canberra shivered through one of its coldest days on record on Friday with the high reaching just four degrees by 5pm, eight below average and potentially their coldest day in 43 years.

South of the city Tuggerong was even colder, reaching only three degrees, which could be their coldest day on record although the site has only been recording since 1996.

The surprise cold snap is the result of a very cold night followed by a cloudy day.

"After dropping to minus two degrees early in the morning a persistent layer of fog and low cloud completely blocked out the sun and prevented the temperature from rising like it normally would" said meteorologist Martin Palmer.

"But we can't confirm the coldest day in 43 years until 9am tomorrow because a meteorological day is 9am to 9am" said Palmer. (source)

Article: Science, belief and rational debate

A very worthwhile read (h/t Jennifer Marohasy):
Scientists often model systems to predict what effects might be expected if variables change in a certain way. In the absence of anything resembling evidence for the causative effect of global warming, computer modelling was enthusiastically embraced to project likely changes on the basis of the understanding of how climate worked. So far, so good, but the output from these models, rather than being seen as indications of what might happen if the hypothesis was right, have taken the place of experimental observation.

So, in a circular argument, the models which are based on a particular hypothesis (the greenhouse effect with positive feedback) are taken to "prove" the hypothesis because they reproduce the pattern of twentieth century temperature change. Similarly, the projections for future temperature rise (which, we should remember, cover a large range) are regularly quoted as what will happen if carbon dioxide emissions are not drastically cut back.

Large numbers of people have been sufficiently convinced by the arguments to take it as read that the greenhouse gas hypothesis is essentially correct and that disaster will occur unless radical cuts are made in emissions. They have moved beyond the stage of questioning to simply not listening to anyone who raises doubts. But, what is worse, they are putting their faith in a hypothesis unsupported by anything more than circumstantial evidence. Because no-one can do more than point to observations, no new evidence is going to be produced which – as in the story of peptic ulcers – will provide direct, irrefutable corroboration of an alternative theory.

Read it all here.

Forget the Keystone Cops, here come the Carbon Cops

No joke. The Australian Federal Police will be forced to become "carbon cops" to police a range of "climate offences" under Penny Wong's new world order, diverting resources away from what the AFP should be doing, namely keeping Australia and its citizens safe from real crime, like drug trafficking, people smuggling, fraud, money laundering and organised crime. But clearly those things are less important than "saving the planet":
The Herald Sun can reveal Australian Federal Police agents will have to prosecute a new range of climate offences.

But they are yet to be offered extra resources, stretching the thin blue line to breaking point.

"The Government is effectively saying to us, 'Ignore other crime types'," Australian Federal Police Association chief Jim Torr said.

The group had been trying for months, without success, to discuss the issue with Climate Change Minister Penny Wong, he said.
Ms Wong's office said AFP agents would be expected to enter premises and request paperwork to monitor firms' emissions reductions. They would act on the 30-strong Australian Climate Change Regulatory Authority's orders.

With a hint of understatement, the Opposition responds, with Andrew Robb calling the scheme

Read it here.

The Daily Bayonet - GW Hoax Weekly Roundup

As always, a great read!

Thursday, June 11, 2009

Government uses dirty tricks to try to force through ETS

We've had emotional blackmail from Penny Wong, and now political shenanigans in order to force through the pointless, and almost universally loathed, ETS. The government is in hot water for trying to link another piece of legislation to the ETS to get it through by the back door.
The Coalition's environment spokesman, Greg Hunt, says the Government is jeopardising a deal on renewable energy to score political points.

"We want to do the right thing. We are extremely sympathetic on renewable energy legislation. It would be a disgrace if this Government held up renewable energy projects for naked political gamesmanship," Mr Hunt said.

Greens Senator Christine Milne says the Government is resorting to trickery to get its emissions trading scheme through.

"They are now sinking to low levels in order to wedge the Coalition on climate change policy, saying they have to pass both the renewable energy target and the CPRS or neither, because they have interlinked the two policy positions," Senator Milne said.

ACM agrees with Christine Milne for the first (and probably the last) time.

Read it here.

Fielding makes heads pop at the Sydney Morning Herald

The enviro-headbangers at the SMH are unable to comprehend how anyone isn't taken in 100% by the misrepresentations and political posturing of the IPCC (like Fairfax has been), and goes into full slime mode, in an article entitled "Senator blows hot and cold on science":
THE Family First senator Steve Fielding has challenged the work of thousands of the world's top scientists, saying he is not convinced by the work done by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. [Note no mention of the "thousands of top scientists" who disagree with the consensus - and I'm surprised they missed the chance to call it "the Nobel Prize-winning" IPCC - Ed]
Senator Fielding's newfound scepticism is a result of his trip to the US to listen to the Heartland Institute of Chicago, an organisation that is funded by the fossil-fuel industry. The organisation also believes public health campaigns against smoking are based on "junk science". [Note how the SMH attempts to smear the organisation, and avoids actually addressing Senator Fielding's arguments. Typical alarmist tactics. It's also amazing that no-one ever complains about the billions of dollars that flow from the green lobby to perpetuate climate alarmism, way more than has ever come from the "fossil fuel industry" - Ed]

One can almost hear the heads popping!

Read it here.

Wednesday, June 10, 2009

The quiet sun

Given Steve Fielding's heresy about solar activity being a possible cause of climate change, it's an interesting coincidence that global temperatures are dropping (if you look at the satellite record, and ignore "urbanisation-measuring" surface stations on which other records, like GISS, are based) at the same time as the sun is the quietest it has been for a century. Could they possibly be related?

Watch here (from April 2009).

See also here.

UPDATED: More desperate emotional blackmail from Wong

No discussion of the science, you will note. Just thinly veiled threats if the crossbenchers don't play ball. Note to Steve Fielding: DO NOT SUCCUMB TO THIS KIND OF BLACKMAIL.
Crossbench senators thinking about voting down Labor's climate change legislation should consider how they'll explain the decision to their constituents, Climate Change Minister Penny Wong says.
"Every senator is going to have to front up to their electorate and tell people if they vote no, why they voted to ensure Australia's emissions keep rising, voted to ensure our carbon pollution keeps increasing, voted to ensure we continue to contribute to climate change," she told ABC TV on Wednesday.

I'm amazed she didn't go on to say "for the sake of our children, and our children's children, and our children's children's children... etc etc." For what it's worth, here's what I would say, if I were explaining it to my constituents:
The theory of anthropogenic global warming is flawed. CO2 emissions are rising, yet temperatures are falling and have been for nearly a decade. The climate system is clearly affected by factors which the IPCC models, on which the Rudd government's policy is based, do not include. Until or unless there is irrefutable proof that man-made CO2 emissions are directly causing dangerous climate change, I am not prepared to bankrupt our economy, and substantially lower the standard of living of all Australians, including you, based on flawed models which do not reflect reality.

Read it here.

UPDATE: Here's Penny Wong's latest "cracked-record" pronouncement on the theory of climate change:
Senator Wong has told ABC 2's News Breakfast there is no doubt human activity is driving climate change. [Yeah, "no doubt" if you live in a hermetically sealed bubble, keep your hands over your ears and shout "la, la, la" all day, which I'm beginning to think you probably do, or maybe it's because you're trying to force through this legislation irrespective of the science... I wonder - Ed]

"We've had 13 of the 14 hottest years in history in the last 15 years," she said. [Weasel Word Alert: "In history". What does that mean, Penny? Do you mean since the earth cooled, 4.5 billion years ago, or do you mean since 1851, when records began and the earth was emerging from the cold period known as the Little Ice Age, which, oddly, coincided with a minimum in solar activity, known as the Dalton Minimum? It's actually a porkie whichever, since the 1930s were warmer - Ed]

"Solar flares does not explain the phenomenon that we are seeing." [Simple as that - Ed]

Gee, I'm convinced. Read it here.

More climate hypocrisy from Krudd & Co

Kevin Rudd and his government are full of empty promises. A while ago, it was changing Parliament House to 100% green power (failed - too expensive), and now it's the fact that MPs' cars that have a decidedly brown feel about them. And really, who can blame them, when the only viable hybrid car is the butt-ugly Prius. The Honda Insight, one of the latest hybrids, was described by Jeremy Clarkson as:
"Terrible. Biblically terrible. Possibly the worst new car money can buy. It’s the first car I’ve ever considered crashing into a tree, on purpose, so I didn’t have to drive it any more (source)."

Doesn't exactly encourage me to take one for a test drive... And of course you'd have to drive a Prius for 70,000 years to save the same amount of CO2 produced in one day by a reasonable sized power station. All that aside, however, there is a strong smell of hypocrisy about the lack of use of hybrids in government, given their green posturing elsewhere:
Only a tiny proportion of the Commonwealth fleet of 8000 vehicles are hybrids or use LPG. There are almost as many eight-cylinder cars (160) as hybrids (172), which form just 2 per cent of the fleet.
Opposition frontbencher Michael Ronaldson blasted the situation: "Mr Rudd talks a lot about protecting the environment, but when it comes to fixing up his own back yard he is missing in action. In those few departments which actually have them, Prius vehicles are just there for show."

One rule for the rulers and one rule for the ruled. In any case, none of this matters, since CO2 emissions aren't driving global temperature anyway, so hybrid cars are little more than empty feel-good gestures.

Read it here.

Climate sense from Andrew Bolt

Another excellent article about Steve Fielding's approach to the climate debate, and well worth the read:
STEVE Fielding has had a conversion that could blow apart the great global warming scare.

No wonder the Rudd Government is scrambling and the ABC is already sliming the Family First senator. You see, Fielding has suddenly realised that global warming may not be caused by humans after all.

What has startled him out of merely accepting we’re heating the world to hell with our carbon dioxide emissions is one fact in particular.

While our emissions are increasing fast each year, satellite measurements show the world’s temperatures have still not risen above the 1998 record, and have actually fallen since 2002.

Of course, all this has been pointed out before. I’ve asked both Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and Climate Change Minister Penny Wong - to their faces - to explain why the world isn’t still warming as it should if their global warming theories are right.

Neither has given me an answer. Nor have they answered similar challenges from the few sceptics in Parliament who have dared to reveal themselves - notably the Nationals’ Barnaby Joyce and the Liberals’ Dennis Jensen.

Read it all here.

Tuesday, June 9, 2009

UPDATED: Climate nonsense from Greg Combet

What an extraordinary headline: "Combet won't guarantee Fielding's access to scientists." Why, you ask? Because "the science is in," you evil denier you. Regular readers will know that I abhor ad hominems, but really, Combet is an utter dipstick. And these guys run the country - heaven help us all.
"We don't discuss these things through the media, with all due respect. We'll sit down with Senator Fielding and go through the issues," he told The World Today.

Mr Combet says the Government remains determined to get the legislation passed despite Senator Fielding's doubts. [Yawn, yawn, yawn, and yawn again. How many more times do we have to listen to Rudd, Wong and now Combet banging on about how this pointless ETS "is going through whatever happens"? Please spare me - Ed]

"One thing that we are determined about, that shouldn't be underestimated, is to get this carbon pollution reduction scheme [two errors in four words again - Ed] through because we do accept the science," he said.

"The science is in on this issue from the Government's standpoint. Global warming is a reality."

Guess which scientist they will put forward to "answer" Steve Fielding's questions? None other than the über-alarmist Chief Scientist Penny Sackett, who chimes into the debate with a classic quote:
"What we're seeing now is an unprecedented change and its primary cause is due to greenhouse gas emissions."

We are really in cloud cuckoo land when the Chief Scientist approaches a scientific issue with such a closed-brain attitude and spouts misleading comments such as this. She is unworthy to call herself a scientist of any sort. Do I really have to put this graph up again...? I think I do. Please tell me where the unprecedented change is, when global temperatures are just 0.04˚C (four one hundredths of a degree) above the average from 1979-1998:

I sincerely hope that the public are slowly beginning to see how utterly untenable the government's attitude to this legislation, and now towards Steve Fielding, is becoming. The more they try to force it through, the harder it will become...

Read it here.

UPDATE: Penny Sackett claims:
"the reason global warming is tracking along the upper prediction of the IPCC is because the greenhouse gases that humans emit have not been abated at all".

Kinda like this:

Is it too much to call Sackett's statement an outright lie? Link to audio here (MP3). (h/t Tom Nelson)

Now Penny Wong wants to "change Fielding's mind"

So threatened are the warmists by dissent. No-one is allowed to hold a contrary view, under fear of ridicule or punishment, and anyone that does is obviously deranged and needs to be "re-educated". Maybe the next step will be the introduction of the "Climate Police", like the Stasi, snooping around and bugging people's homes to listen out for any dissenting views, and carting those responsible off to special facilities where they will be brainwashed into believing the true Word. It's worse than East Germany before the Wall came down.
FAMILY First senator Steve Fielding has been offered a briefing from top scientists in a bid to change his view that climate change may not be caused by human activity.

Climate Change and Water Minister Penny Wong made the offer yesterday after Senator Fielding returned from a conference in the United States, saying he was not satisfied with the science behind the widely held view that global warming was a result of an increase in carbon dioxide levels caused by human activity.
"The Government's approach to climate change is guided by the consensus science and we are able to provide a briefing on this to Senator Fielding," Senator Wong said. "We are happy to facilitate a meeting between Senator Fielding and Australian Government scientists if requested."

Read it here.

P.S. The moonbat papers are also falling over themselves to discredit Fielding, and those from whom he sought advice. Forgive me if I can't be bothered to blog them - it's just too depressing. All the usual stuff is trotted out, and you can read it here and here.

Monday, June 8, 2009

Jo Nova on Steve Fielding

An excellent article on Steve Fielding's trip to the US:
Astonishingly (for a politician) he stands out from the crowd for simply saying the obvious. He wants to “hear from both sides of the debate.”

A simple statement like this should not be remarkable—but it’s so rare. Steve Fielding assumed the mainstream thinking was right, but is now doing what anyone who hasn’t looked at the debate in detail ought to be doing. Some research. It’s a rare occasion when you can see the good side of democracy and free speech in action. He paid for himself to fly to the far side of the world to attend Heartland’s 3rd conference on Climate Change to hear from scientists who are not convinced carbon has a large role to play in our climate.

Read it here.

Alarmists waste no time in trying to ridicule Fielding

As you would expect, the threat of Steve Fielding challenging the received wisdom of the IPCC and Gore is too great for climate scientists in Australia, safely on the climate change funding gravy train, and heavily invested in the "consensus". So out with the usual scaremongering and distraction:
  • "We understand that there was probably some warming earlier last century, due to changes of emissions from the sun, but no evidence that the recent warming is due to that." (Graeme Pearman) [Evidence please? None to be seen - Ed]
  • "It's absolutely rubbish." (Pearman again) [There's reasoned argument for you - Ed]
  • "[He] seeks to get his information from a group of climate change deniers, an organisation that's receiving sufficient funding from the fossil fuel industry." (Yawn and yawn again: David "Asteroid hitting earth only solution to GW" Karoly) [Ad hominem - Ed]
  • "He seeks to accept their scientific misinformation more than he accepts peer-reviewed scientific publications." (Karoly again) [Oops, and another. By the way, there are plenty of peer-reviewed publications which disagree with the consensus - Ed]
  • "We really don't have time to wait - we have to get on with it. That doesn't really mean that we're absolutely sure about everything that is projected in climate change," he said. (Karoly again, and yawn again - methinks the lady doth protest too much)
That last comment sums it up again - we really don't know if the science is right or wrong, but we're going ahead anyway, because (as always) we must act now!!

Read it here.

UPDATE: To Graeme Pearman, I suggest you read this: "NASA Study acknowledges Solar Cycle, Not Man, Responsible for Past Warming"

Steve Fielding writes in The Australian

Until recently I, like most Australians, simply accepted without question the notion that global warming was a result of increased carbon emissions. However, after speaking to a cross-section of noted scientists, including Ian Plimer, a professor at the University of Adelaide and author of Heaven and Earth, I quickly began to understand that the science on this issue was by no means conclusive. At the conference I attended on Tuesday hosted by the Heartland Institute, I heard views that challenged the Rudd government's set of "facts". Views that could not be dismissed as mere conspiracy theories, but that were derived using proper scientific analysis. The idea that climate change is a result of the variation in solar activity and not related to the increase of CO2 into the atmosphere is not something I can remember ever being discussed in the media. The question of whether global warming is a new phenomenon or something that is just part of the naturally occurring 1500-year climate cycle was never raised in any of the discussions I have had with the Rudd government. Has the government considered these questions, or has it just accepted the one scientific explanation for climate change at face value?

These are the sorts of questions that I believe need to be answered before any emissions trading scheme can be properly considered.

Well said.

Read it here.

Fairytale Facts - "global warming" will cause more heatwaves, deaths

A little Queen's Birthday alarmism from The Age, to get your day off to a good start.
CLIMATE change is causing heatwave records to be smashed in ways that would have been considered fantasy just a few years ago, a leading climate scientist has warned [It's still fantasy: Fairfax fantasy, that is - Ed].

Monash University's Neville Nicholls [lead author of the Summary for Policymakers for IPCC WG1 assessment - so that says it all - Ed] said the increase in the number and severity of extremely hot summer days in Victoria was unprecedented, making it impossible to estimate accurately the impact it would have on people's health. The State Government recently estimated 374 Victorians may have died because of extreme heat in the final week of January.
"Climate change is happening now and will happen all through the rest of our lifetimes," he told a State Government conference on adapting to climate change. [Unbelievably misleading comment from a "professor" of climate. Climate change has happened since the dawn of time and will continue happening until the sun swells up and swallows the earth whole in about 4.5 billion years - Ed]

As usual, the article refers to "records" four times, without ever pointing out that official "records" only go back to 1851, and in that year, even though the planet was emerging from the Little Ice Age, the temperature in Melbourne reached 47.2. And as for everything being faster, badder, bigger than our worst fears:

Read it here.

Sunday, June 7, 2009

Quote of the Day

Batten down the hatches, get out your thermal underwear and dust off the snow chains for the car. Al Gore is visiting Australia next week, and will no doubt bring the infamous "Gore Effect" with him. The Goracle will be here to launch a new organisation, Safe Climate Australia, founded by "concerned scientists and business and community leaders." The article, in The Sunday Age, says that one of the group's founding members, Ian Dunlop, said that "Safe Climate Australia was not a new advocacy group, rather an apolitical organisation that wanted to produce a practical plan."
"The problem is that the scientific debate and the political debate are like two ships passing in the night, there's no connection between them," Mr Dunlop said.

So true, so very true. But unfortunately not in the way you mean.

Read it here.

Saturday, June 6, 2009

Idiotic Comment of the Day

A letter in the Australian Magazine wins today's ICOTD gong:
There isn't a lot of certainty in our world, but one thing even more certain than the sun coming up tomorrow is that we have come close to destroying our own planet. Thank God, Buddha, or whoever, for a gutsy woman like Penny Wong, who stands tall among the leaders of this country.

Peter Hollis

Not entirely surprising, given the poor fellow's probably been fed on a diet of undiluted alarmism, thanks to the work of Fairytale-fax's Brisbane Times. He should maybe learn about the history of the planet over the past 4 billion years to realise that the time we're living in is nothing special, and is in fact remarkably benign compared to some of the climate upheavals of the past, rather than thinking a gentle warming is "destroying our planet". Tragic.

Senator Steve Fielding asks all the right questions

Namely, all the questions that our so-called "leaders" should be asking - in particular, Rudd, Wong and Combet, all of whom are blinded by the glittering Nobel Prize glow emanating from the IPCC. From the same Age article:
Senator Fielding said he wants the science "cleared up" before he decides how to vote. [That's not possible, but at least he may realise there is sufficient doubt about the causes of climate change that regulating a harmless trace gas and taxing our economy out of existence is madness - Ed] He supports a Coalition push to delay [the] vote until after an international climate summit in Copenhagen in December.

He said he was open-minded on climate science, but "there seemed to be merit" in claims that global warming had stopped and solar activity had a greater influence on temperature.

A majority of climate scientists say the long-term warming trend due to greenhouse emissions is clear: that six of the warmest years since industrialisation were between 1998 and 2006 [Yep, that old chestnut again - we are, sorry, were, in a period of warming after the Little Ice Age so it is natural that later years are warmer [duh], and it was warmer still in the Medieval and Roman warm periods, and "since industrialisation" is a blink of an eye in geological terms - Ed].

"I now need the science to be resolved," Senator Fielding said. "I would be derelict in my duties and I think I'd be letting down the Australian people if I didn't properly research the issues and relied on one side of the debate."


Read it here.