Obama: delusional optimism over Copenhagen

18 November, 2009 by

Obamessiah

Walks on water as a party trick

Part of President Obama’s Messiah complex is that it brings on delusions which makes him believe that he can single-handedly save the world, or in this case, raise a binding deal at Copenhagen from the dead. This is despite the fact that there is absolutely no hope of such a deal, and they’ve just chucked the 200-page draft treaty in the dumpster. But The Australian swallows it, resurrecting Obama’s vacuous campaign slogan at the same time:

Yes we can: climate hopes revived

CHINA and the US last night resuscitated hopes for a binding deal at next month’s Copenhagen climate change talks after President Barack Obama said the two countries had agreed to aim for a comprehensive accord to take “immediate operational effect”.

…

Mr Obama said after talks with Mr Hu in Beijing that the countries had agreed “to work toward a successful outcome in Copenhagen”.

“Our aim there is . . . not a partial accord or a political declaration, but rather an accord that covers all the issues in the negotiations and one that has immediate operational effect,” he said.

I don’t know what Obama knows that we don’t, but this just isn’t going to happen.

Read it here.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: , ,

UK: Met Office madness – temperatures may rise 10˚C in Northern Europe!

17 November, 2009 by

end_nigh

The next logical step…

They must be putting something in the water down in Exeter, Devon, where the UK Met Office is located, as scare stories are flying out of there by the dozen. The latest contains all the usual apocalyptic ingredients, as reported lovingly and unquestioningly in The Telegraph:

Heatwaves that kill thousands, tropical-style storms and widespread flooding could be regular features of Britain’s climate within a generation if global warming is not checked, according to the Met Office.

The forecast is part of the most comprehensive study into the impacts of climate change ever conducted. It shows the effects of global warming on Europe over the next 50 years and beyond. Unless pollution [?] from greenhouse gases is reduced, temperatures could rise by an average of 7.2F (4C) across the continent, transforming the landscape, agriculture and industries, it found.

In some parts of the far north of Europe, temperatures could rise by up to 18F (10C), melting the permafrost and wiping out endangered animals and bird species.

Southern Europe would become unbearable in the summer, destroying the tourism industry and making it impossible to grow staple crops like durum wheat for pasta in Italy and fruit and vegetables in Spain.

In Britain, floods and extreme storms would become more frequent, pushing up insurance premiums on homes and buildings.

In the summer, temperatures could reach 104F (40C) in London, causing heatwaves like the one in 2003 that killed an estimated 2,000 people.

More flawed models producing more flawed projections. We always knew the hysteria would get worse as the global warming bandwagon derailed, but this is verging on the ridiculous. Next week the Met Office are sending some poor bloke down to London to walk around with a sandwich board saying “The end of the world is nigh.”

Beyond parody.

Read it here.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: ,

More Barrier Reef scaremongering

17 November, 2009 by

Dangerously rapid warming, as you can see

Dangerously rapid warming, as you can see

Whenever things are a bit slow, and the alarmists are a bit desperate, they throw in a story about some cuddly creature becoming extinct, koalas or possums or polar bears, or in default, that great Aussie icon, the Barrier Reef. So here we go again, with the same ol’ same ol’ story rehashed and spun slightly differently:

THE Great Barrier Reef has only a 50 per cent chance of survival if global CO2 emissions are not reduced at least 25 per cent by 2020, a coalition of Australia’s top reef and climate scientists said today.

The 13 scientists said even deeper cuts of up to 90 per cent by 2050 would necessary if the reef was to survive future coral bleaching and coral death caused by rising ocean temperatures.

“We’ve seen the evidence with our own eyes. Climate change is already impacting the Great Barrier Reef,” Terry Hughes, director of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies at James Cook University, said in a briefing to MPs.

Australia is one of the world’s biggest CO2 emitters per capita [What relevance is that? We produce less than 1.5% of global emissions – Ed], but has only pledged to cut its emissions by five per cent from 2000 levels by 2020. The Government said it would go further with a 25 per cent cut, if a tough international climate agreement is reached at UN climate talks in Copenhagen in December, but this is looking increasingly unlikely with legally binding targets now off the agenda.

[Cue violins] “This is our Great Barrier Reef. If Australia doesn’t show leadership by reducing emissions to save the reef, who will?” asked scientist Ken Baldwin.

The reality, of course, is that sea surface temperatures around the GBR have hardly risen at all, the reef has been here for hundreds of thousands of years, and has been through more warmings and coolings that Terry Hughes or Ken Baldwin between them have had hot dinners. And it’s still here. And it will still be here long after Terry Hughes and Ken Baldwin are pushing up the daisies. Why? Because reefs adapt. Unlike humans, who panic and throw trillions of dollars at a solution that won’t work.

Read it here.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: , ,

Julie Bishop mentions the 'N'-word

17 November, 2009 by

The way ahead for Australia

The way ahead for Australia

And about time too. The government is plunging us headfirst into an emissions trading scheme, yet we rely almost entirely on coal and gas for electricity generation (if you discount a bit of hydro and a token solar panel and wind farm here and there). The US, UK, France and many other developed economies, on the other hand, have embraced nuclear power which will make it far less painful for them to cut back on fossil fuel use.

But here in Australia, we’re still stuck in the “Nuclear Power? No thanks” bumper sticker mentality. And in a country desperate to cut emissions and, more to the point, one which has the largest reserves of uranium in the world! It’s just too funny… or it would be if it weren’t so ludicrous.

But Julie Bishop has uttered the dreaded ‘N’-word and will no doubt suffer for it:

Deputy Liberal leader Julie Bishop has also thrown a political hand grenade into the emissions trading debate demanding a “mature” debate on nuclear power.

…

Ms Bishop, the opposition foreign affairs spokesman, said Australia must have a debate about energy security and alternatives.

An opposition spokesman said today she had complained 19 out of 20 G20 economies were pursuing nuclear power. “It is time to have a mature debate,” she said.

Read it here.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: ,

The "Children and Grandchildren" Report #2

17 November, 2009 by

climate_cliche

Episode 2. Fasten your seatbelts.

Al Gore at the Green Buildings Expo – 12 November 2009

Gore exhorted USGBC members to continue their important work and predicted that people would look back at the green building movement as one of the keys to having put the brakes on unmanageable climate change. As importantly, he said that all of us in the movement can look our children and grandchildren in the eye and say that we acted when had to. (source)

Alan Khazei – Democratic candidate for Edward Kennedy’s Senate seat – 13 November 2009

“We’re either gonna deal with climate change or my children and my grandchildren are gonna grow up on a planet where literally they’re trying to breathe, and have clean air and clean water, and survive.” (source)

Doris O. Matsui – US Democratic congresswoman – 13 November 2009

“These bills comprise an energy plan and a jobs plan. By making these investments now, we can regain our competitiveness in the world by producing clean energy here at home. This Congress’ commitment to putting America on a path toward energy independence will allow our children – and our grandchildren – to live in a country that is more sustainable, more economically viable, and more energy-efficient than the country we live in today.” (source)

Stephen Chu – US Energy Secretary – 13 November 2009

Making an emotional appeal, he said: “Climate change is not about today, not about us. It’s about our grandchildren.”

The world-renowned physicist said that it was “universal” in all cultures for parents to want a better future for their children. (source)

US Senator George V. Voinovich – 14 November 2009

There is a heated debate currently underway on Capitol Hill that you should be paying close attention to. The result of this debate will affect Ohio’s economy, your family’s pocketbook, and the quality of life of your children and grandchildren.

No – I’m not referring to health care reform. I’m talking about climate change. (source)

Tony Juniper – UK Guardian – 15 November 2009

While politics is sometimes about compromise and being flexible, unfortunately it is not possible to negotiate with nature. The longer the world delays in putting in place the aggressive emissions reductions needed to avoid dangerous levels of climate change, the more risk we are placing before our children and grandchildren. (source)

Connie Hedegaard – Danish Climate and Energy Minister – November 2009

As the consequences of climate change become more visible, increasing numbers of people have come to recognize that the longer we hesitate, the more expensive the problem becomes. The longer we postpone action, the bigger the bill that we pass on to our sons and daughters and grandchildren will be. (source)

Many more to come!

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With:

Rudd ploughs on regardless

17 November, 2009 by

I know 5 facts about climate change, all of them wrong

I know 5 facts about climate change, all of them wrong

So now we can be 100% certain that forcing the ETS through parliament is nothing more than political vanity on the part of Kevin Rudd and Penny Wong. The circumstances have changed so much in the last few days, and there will be no binding deal at Copenhagen, but that doesn’t deter the great Chairman Rudd (and I have to warn you, there is a stack of tired climate clichés ahead):

On Sunday, Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen told leaders of the 21-nation Asia Pacific Economic Co-operation group, meeting in Singapore, there was little prospect of the Copenhagen meeting producing a formal agreement on reducing carbon emissions.

The leaders, including US President Barack Obama and Chinese President Hu Jintao, decided to scrap a 200-page draft agreement negotiated by their diplomats and instead use the Copenhagen conference to seek a “framework agreement” under which countries would agree to cuts in emissions contingent on others taking similar action.

“Contingent on others taking similar action” – it even spells it out! But even that isn’t plain enough for Rudd:

Yesterday, Mr Rudd made it clear the change of tactics would not have a bearing on his push to create an ETS before the Copenhagen meeting.

[Cliché Alert] “The time has come to act,” Mr Rudd said.

[Cliché Alert] “The clock is ticking for the planet. It is also ticking for this parliament.”

At least one Liberal has the guts to see all this for the sham it is:

However, Liberal senator Mitch Fifield said the weekend events had “completely shot” the argument that the emissions legislation needed to be passed urgently.

“There is absolutely no reason not to wait until we know what happens in Copenhagen and, for that matter, to know what happens in the US,” Senator Fifield told Sky News.

Message to Malcolm Turnbull and the Opposition: there is absolutely no reason for this legislation to be passed before Copenhagen. For god’s sake VOTE IT DOWN.

Read it here.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: , ,

UK Climate Madness: Individual carbon rations proposed

16 November, 2009 by

That's it for the year. Don't breathe it all at once.

That's it for the year. Don't breathe it all at once.

Not an April Fool, by the way, and I guess it had to come sooner or later. The Brits have hamstrung themselves by legislating to cut CO2 emissions by a whopping 80% by 2050 [And based on 1990 levels! How could they be so stupid? Oh, hang on, so are we – Ed], but without working out first how to do it. So in desperation, the wacky schemes are coming thick and fast. Now each Brit will have a carbon allowance, and when they’ve used it up, they’ll have to buy more:

Lord Smith of Finsbury believes that implementing individual carbon allowances for every person will be the most effective way of meeting the targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

It would involve people being issued with a unique number which they would hand over when purchasing products that contribute to their carbon footprint, such as fuel, airline tickets and electricity.

Like with a bank account, a statement would be sent out each month to help people keep track of what they are using.

If their “carbon account” hits zero, they would have to pay to get more credits.

Those who are frugal with their carbon usage will be able to sell their unused credits and make a profit.

Lord Smith will call for the scheme to be part of a “Green New Deal” to be introduced within 20 years when he addresses the agency’s annual conference on Monday.

An Environment Agency spokesman said only those with “extravagant lifestyles” would be affected by the carbon allowances.

And in New Labour speak, “extravagant lifestyles” means anyone not on the poverty line. I guess the next step will be oxygen credits. You are allocated a cylinder of O2 at the beginning of each year, which you have to drag around with you. If you use it up before December 31, say, by breathing a bit too heavily, then you’ll have to buy top-ups, maybe at the gas station with your 20 litres of unleaded, at a price to be determined by the market. Anyone caught breathing the oxygen in the atmosphere and not out of a tank will be sent to jail.

I can just see it: we’ll have the situation where the poorest in society will have loads of carbon credit cards, all maxed out, and then dodgy debt companies will spring up advertising on daytime TV, offering to “consolidate your carbon loans into one gargantuan one with an easy to manage monthly payment (which you still won’t be able to afford)”.

Carbon lunacy.

Read it here.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: ,

Clive Hamilton: offensive article equates "climate deniers" to Holocaust deniers

16 November, 2009 by

clive_hamilton

Clive Hamilton: offensive nonsense

People of Higgins: this is the Greens candidate for your electorate. Read the following, frankly astonishing, extract carefully, and then decide whether these are the words of a responsible politician, or a hysterical alarmist who has lost all touch with reality, and more importantly, decency:

If the David Irvings of the world were to succeed, and the public rejected the mountain of evidence for the Holocaust, then the consequences would be a rewriting of history and a probable increase in anti-Semitism.

If the climate deniers were to succeed, and stopped the world responding to the mountain of evidence for human-induced global warming, then hundreds of millions of mostly impoverished people around the world would die from the effects of climate change.

They will die from famine, flood and disease caused by our unwillingness to act. The Stern report provides some sobering estimates: an additional 30-200 million people at risk of hunger with warming of only 2-3°C; an additional 250-500 million at risk if temperatures rise above 3°C; some 70-80 million more Africans exposed to malaria; and an additional 1.5 billion exposed to dengue fever.

Instead of dishonouring the deaths of six million in the past, climate deniers risk the lives of hundreds of millions in the future. Holocaust deniers are not responsible for the Holocaust, but climate deniers, if they were to succeed, would share responsibility for the enormous suffering caused by global warming.

It is a ghastly calculus, yet it is worth making because the hundreds of millions of dead are not abstractions, mere chimera until they happen. We know with a high degree of certainty that if we do nothing they will die.

…

If, like me, you adopt a virtue or duty ethic, but one tempered by consideration of the consequences of an act, climate deniers are less immoral than Holocaust deniers, although they are undoubtedly more dangerous.

However, as the casualties from a warming world mount over the next decades, the denialism of those who continue to reject the scientific evidence will come to be seen as more and more iniquitous. So the answer to the question of whether climate denialism is morally worse than Holocaust denialism is no, at least, not yet.

Not yet?! When someone rants like this, and makes deeply offensive comparisons with Holocaust denial, you know for sure they’ve lost the argument (and the plot).

Read it here.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: , ,

Copenhagen deal "impossible"

16 November, 2009 by

Maldives: nothing to do with climate change - it's sinking

Maldives: nothing to do with climate change - it's sinking

More from the UK Telegraph which reports that Copenhagen will, like most other climate talks, be a damp squib:

The UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in December has been billed as the world’s last chance to stop global warming. But negotiations soon broke down because the US refused to sign up to targets on cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

The deadlock has forced world leaders at a summit in Singapore to step in and admit that any deal this year will be little more than a “political agreement”.

However they insisted that a legally-binding treaty will be thrashed out by the end of 2010 and even suggested a timetable and deadline to ensure negotiations stay on track.

The new “two-step” plan, put forward by the Danes, increases pressure on President Obama to attend the talks in Copenhagen and reassure the world that the US is serious about tackling climate change.

It also gives the world a chance to rescue the Copenhagen summit from certain failure by giving lawyers more time to work on a hugely complex international deal.

So remind me, why is Australia desperate to get a legally binding ETS in place before Copenhagen, when other countries will only be subjecting themselves to a political agreement?

Read it here.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: , ,

Climate threat to Italian pasta

16 November, 2009 by

Thanks to climate change, this won't be happening again

Thanks to climate change, scenes like this will be a thing of the past

Add it to the list of things caused by “climate change” – the disappearance of Italian pasta (no joke). Embarrassingly, this is from the UK Meteorological Office, which now has a reputation for crazy predictions which always fail to eventuate:

SCIENTISTS will this week warn that Italy may be forced to import the basic ingredients for pasta, its national food, because climate change will make it impossible to grow durum wheat.

In a report to be released by Britain’s Met Office today, scientists predict that Italy’s durum yields will start to decline from 2020 and the crop will almost disappear from the country later this century.

The report will say: “Projected climate changes in this region, in particular rising temperature and decreasing rainfall, may seriously compromise wheat yields.”

…

It reinforces earlier research suggesting climate change may leave France unable to produce many of its leading wines, including champagne.

Oh well, we’ll all have to drink Aussie sparkling wines instead!

Read it here.

UPDATE: More on the Met Office report: “World has only ten years to control global warming, warns Met Office.”

Ten, five, twenty, a hundred – pick a number.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: ,
«Previous Page
Next Page»