Wishing all my readers a very Merry Christmas, and hoping you will all continue the fight against alarmism and political correctness in 2015!
Why do these quotes sound so drearily familiar?
“It is inappropriate for you to question the motives or quality of our science.”
“You will not last long in your career.”
“I hope you will refrain from contacting me again.”
Because they are the typical response of a climate scientist desperate to avoid sharing data [or avoid being caught out – Ed]. Sounds like the kind of tone you would get from Michael ‘Hockey Stick’ Mann, or our friend from CRU, Phil Jones, who once famously said:
“Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”
Anyway, it seems once again, with so much in the alarmism industry, that getting the right ‘message’ across is more important than letting the data speak for itself. So the latest ‘-gate’ emerges, catchily entitled NOAAgate.
UPDATE: Tony Abbott has this evening explained that there is a raised level of terrorist ‘chatter’ (non-Islamic, of course) after the Lindt cafe siege (which was also Nothing To Do With Islam™). Probably those damn Methodists planning a jumble mart… More likely, Islamic State are planning a ‘spectacular’ for some infidel celebration like Christmas or New Year…
The scenes of terror played out live on television last week were a horrifying foretaste of what the West can expect if it continues down its path of appeasement and wilful blindness.
A terrorist, armed with a shotgun, takes fifteen people hostage in a popular cafe in Martin Place in the heart of Sydney. The initial reaction of the Left was no doubt to hope that it was a Right-wing extremist, since as any fool knows, the majority of terrorism today is carried out by Right-wing extremists, like Anders Breivik and Timothy McVeigh and, er, you know, all the others…
As predicted in my post exposing the well-worn path taken by climate talks, we have reached steps 10, 11 and 12:
- A hastily cobbled-together ‘agreement’ (which will have no binding effect, and which will kick any hard decisions further down the road) will be announced in order to save face;
- The media and the Greens will publicly hail this sham agreement as a successful outcome, whilst secretly acknowledging that it is yet another embarrassing failure;
- Everyone disappears back home (belching thousands more tonnes of CO2), and the whole thing is forgotten until the next ‘last chance’ comes around.
All to be expected. Whilst some sections of the moonbat media are celebrating the ‘last minute success’, even the Sydney Morning Herald acknowledges that there are difficult times ahead:
The main aim of the Lima conference – to agree to provide detailed information about commitments countries will make before the climate change conference in Paris in 2015 to enable others to scrutinise these pledges – was achieved. Further, a draft of elements of the Paris agreement was agreed to.
But major issues of dispute have been deferred until next year in Paris. The intractable issue of the division or differentiation between developing and developed countries and how much each should do is unresolved.
This binary division was central to the United Nations Framework Convention struck in 1992 but is no longer as relevant in 2014 ; countries now range along a spectrum of economic development.
Yet this binary division flows through to most aspects of the Lima agreement and so fundamental is this binary division to some developing countries’ view of world affairs that it cannot easily be excised.
Another problem is a competition between two rival models for what a new global climate agreement should look like. One is the old-style top-down legally binding agreement in which countries negotiate the international rules and the targets and other commitments each should meet.
The other is model in which countries determine their own commitments, targets and the scope of those pledges. Through the provision of detailed information about those pledges it is expected that there will be an incentive for countries to ensure that these voluntary contributions reflect a fair share of the international effort but also reflect differences between rich and poor countries. Whether this actually occurs remains to be seen but the existing model has not had much success.
At the end of the day, negotiators faced a problem in Lima – countries had their gaze set on the main prize in Paris but were unable or unwilling to agree on how to get there. This will only heighten the stakes and expectations for next year in France.
Until next year, then…
Cue the environmentalist alarm-mongers:
Frustrated climate campaigners have claimed that the world was on course for an unsustainable four-degree rise in temperatures, as two weeks of negotiations for a climate change agreement headed for an unsatisfying conclusion.
The proposals, still under discussion on Saturday, a day after the talks were scheduled to end, were too weak to keep global warming to the agreed limit of two degrees above preindustrial levels, setting the world on course to a climate disaster, according to developing countries at the summit.
“We are on a path to three or four degrees with this outcome,” said Tasneem Essop, international climate strategist for WWF [i.e. rent-seeking organisation with vested interest riding the climate bandwagon – Ed].
She said the final draft text, a five-page document put forward for approval on Saturday, offered little assurance of cutting emissions fast enough and deeply enough to curb warming. “We are really unhappy about the weakening of the text. This gives us no level of comfort that we will be able to close the emissions gap to get emissions to peak before 2020,” she said. Saleemul Huq, a senior fellow at the International Institute for Environment and Development [ditto – Ed], put it even more succinctly: “It sucks. It is taking us backwards.” (source)
And there’s more good news:
This year’s Fossil of the Year Award, goes to Australia who take the Colossal Fossil award for collecting more Fossil awards than any other country here at COP20. From the get-go Australia signalled they were not coming here to make progress towards a comprehensive international climate agreement. This was pretty clear when they sent a climate sceptic Trade Minister Andrew Robb along to “chaperone” Foreign Minister Julie Bishop into a negotiating dead-end. The delegation in Lima has been dragging down loss & damage, flip-flopping on climate finance, and making bizarre comments that reveal a warped perspective on climate action. Shape up Australia, you are making Canada look good! (source)
Great sabotage from Bishop and Robb – respect!
No surprise that the latest climate talks are heading exactly the same way as all the rest:
“The latest text which countries are working on has been stripped down to its bare bones to accommodate the whims of the lowest common denominator,” said Christian Aid’s Mohamed Adow. “Right now we are facing the prospect of being no further forward than we were when we left last year’s meeting in Warsaw.” (source)
Oh well, never mind. Everyone had a great time in an exotic location getting pissed… all at the taxpayers’ expense.
Fort Denison, an old penal colony in the middle of Sydney Harbour, has one of the oldest tide gauges around, having been located there for 128 years. During this period, the sea level has risen just 6.5 cm, or about two and a half inches.
Despite these trivial sea level rise over the past century and a bit, moonbat councils on the east coast of Australia are still tying up waterfront properties in miles of green tape, justified by predictions of massive sea level rises by climate alarmists, and property values have plummeted as a result:
In mid-2010, the Eurobodalla council, south of Shoalhaven, introduced a unique interim sea level rise policy that shackled more than a quarter of all properties in the shire to restrictive development controls. Predictably, there was an immediate shire-wide decline in property values.
In three years, individual Eurobodalla properties lost about $40,000 in value. With 22,000 properties in the shire, this represents a capital loss of $880m at a rate of $293m a year. This steady loss of rateable value means householders will face higher rate increases.
If similar policies were implemented along the entire east coast there would be annual property capital losses of billions of dollars.
So it is not surprising that NSW and Queensland governments are reconsidering their coastal management policies.
Queensland Deputy Premier Jeff Seeney recently notified Moreton Bay Regional Council of his intention to direct it to amend its draft planning scheme “to remove any assumption about a theoretical projected sea level rise due to climate change from all and any provisions of the scheme”. Seeney said his intention was to use a statewide coastal mapping scheme “that will remove the ‘one size fits all’ approach that incorporates a mandatory 0.8m addition to historical data”.
At last, a responsible government has recognised that global average sea-level change is no more relevant to coastal management than average global temperatures are to the design of residential heating and cooling systems — local weather and local sea-level change is what matters. (source)
A bit of Aussie climate sanity for once.