Climate Council: junk science leads to record levels of alarmism


Only the ABC cares about Flannery any more...

Only the ABC cares about Flannery any more…

The Climate Council is nothing more than an alarmism generating machine. Every year the level of hysteria increases faster than global temperatures, and breaks records with monotonous regularity.

With Tim Flannery and Will Steffen slowly stewing in their own warmist juices, there is no moderating element to reign in the madness, which gets more and more extreme every year.

And, despite being a privately funded organisation, the Climate Council has the ABC as its uncritical media department, providing – for free – all the publicity that it needs. And when I say ‘for free’, I mean paid for by our taxes. [Read more…]

Coalition infighting will see return to bad old days of Labor – including a carbon price


Do we really want this guy as PM? Really??!!

Do we really want this guy as PM? I mean, really?

The Coalition seems to have a healthy self-destruct instinct which it must have inherited from the shambolic disaster that was Rudd-Gillard-Rudd.

But let’s look at the achievements of the Coalition government so far: it has removed the pointless and futile carbon tax, removed the mining tax (which raised no revenue) and has effectively stopped the thousands of illegal immigrants arriving by boat, many of whom were dying needlessly at sea thanks to Labor’s politically-correct multiculti-gone-mad open borders policy.

Tony Abbott and the government should be emphasising the dire state of our debt position, which is costing the economy billions in interest alone each year, and pointing out every single day that it is Labor, the authors of the mess, that are preventing the action necessary to start clearing it up.

But despite the worst Labor government in living memory, a Galaxy poll at the end of January showed 44% thought Bill Shorten would make the better prime minister, compared to 29% for Abbott, and the Coalition trailing Labor 43-57 on a two-party preferred basis.

Can Australian memories be that bad? Are we all suffering from mass dementia? How can people be seriously considering re-electing Labor barely 18 months after turfing them out at the federal election?

How can Coalition backbenchers seriously consider dumping the sitting prime minister, when during Labor’s administration they criticised Labor for the chaos and lack of stability caused by dumping Rudd?

Yes, Abbott has an image and communication problem, and seems incapable of sticking the knife into Labor about the damage it is wreaking on our economy. Yes, there is clearly a governance issue in the PM’s office, and the Chief of Staff is becoming the story, which is never a good look.

Yes, polls are looking bad right now, but that is partly due to the fact that people have become too comfortable with a culture of government hand-outs and benefits. Australia lived beyond its means for the six years of Labor incompetence, and naturally it is difficult when belts have to be tightened. But governments should not chase populism, they should put the interests of the country’s future first, even if that is initially unpopular with the electorate.

Otherwise, in late 2016, we will be plunged back into the nightmare of a Labor government, with hundreds of boats arriving every month, government spending and taxes going through the roof, borrowing escalating, and, most crucially from this blog’s point of view, the return of a pointless, ineffective tax on carbon dioxide, which as we all know, will cause huge damage to our economy, and make no difference whatsoever to the climate.

Journalist feels the wrath of climate jihadists


‘In a few years, self-defence is going to be made a valid defence for patricide, so Rose’s children will have this article to present in their defence at the trial’ – comment on Guardian website

Climate jihadists on the rampage

Climate jihadists on the rampage

The fundamentalists of Islamic State will not permit any deviation from the path of pure faith, no matter how small. They will even attack their own if they believe they are not sufficiently devout. Unless you accept every single tenet of their religion, you are a heretic, and deserve punishment or death.

So it is with the climate jihadists, who require adherents of the global warming faith to subscribe to all facets of the alarmist dogma without question. Failure to do so will result in charges of heresy, followed by threats and ad hominem attacks.

[Read more…]

Merry Christmas from ACM!


Wishing all my readers a very Merry Christmas, and hoping you will all continue the fight against alarmism and political correctness in 2015!

Ocean pH data omission and threats – just another day at Alarmism Central


Models vs real world (click to enlarge)

Models vs real world (click to enlarge)

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.

[Read more…]

Sydney siege: Left wing denial of Islamic threat far worse than climate ‘scepticism’


Nothing to do with Islam…

The shahada – nothing to do with Islam…

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…

[Read more…]

Lima: weak, non-binding ‘agreement’ lays traps for Paris


Grey skies ahead in Paris…

Grey skies ahead in Paris…

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…

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 8,923 other followers

%d bloggers like this: