Sanity returns to the London Science Museum


Climate sanity

All I can say is “bravo” to the Science Museum for having the guts to stand up to alarmism, to abandon propaganda and instead champion impartial science (see original story here):

The Science Museum is revising the contents of its new climate science gallery to reflect the wave of scepticism that has engulfed the issue in recent months.

The decision by the 100-year-old London museum reveals how deeply scientific institutions have been shaken by the public’s reaction to revelations of malpractice by climate scientists.

The museum is abandoning its previous practice of trying to persuade visitors of the dangers of global warming. It is instead adopting a neutral position, acknowledging that there are legitimate doubts about the impact of man-made emissions on the climate.

Even the title of the £4 million gallery has been changed to reflect the museum’s more circumspect approach. The museum had intended to call it the Climate Change Gallery, but has decided to change this to Climate Science Gallery to avoid being accused of presuming that emissions would change the temperature.

Chris Rapley, the museum’s director, told The Times that it was taking a different approach after observing how the climate debate had been affected by leaked e-mails and overstatements of the dangers of global warming. He said: “We have come to realise, given the way this subject has become so polarised over the past three to four months, that we need to be respectful and welcoming of all views on it.” [ACM editor falls of chair in shock - Ed]

“You can argue about how much effect the carbon in the atmosphere will have on the system and what we should do about it,” he said. “The role of the museum should be to lay out honestly and fairly what the climate science community has found out about the science.

“There are areas of uncertainty which are perfectly reasonable to raise and we will present those. For example, the extent to which the climate is as sensitive to the CO2-loading that humans have put in or not.”

I almost cannot believe I am reading that. This is all the sceptics are really concerned about. All we want is to see a balanced, honest and fair portrayal of climate science: what we know and what we don’t. ACM is very, very impressed. Now we wait for the inevitable backlash of alarmists crying foul.

Read it here. (h/t Andrew Bolt)

AFL to campaign on climate change


On the climate bandwagon

Coming from the UK, and at the risk of alienating some readers, I am afraid I see nothing to recommend AFL (nor NRL), filled, as they both are, with overpaid, oversexed, overrated bogans. As if to confirm my initial impression, the meat-heads at the AFL are about to lower themselves even further in my estimation by threatening to campaign on climate change:

THE AFL has already campaigned for a raft of social causes, headed by its anti-racial vilification stance, its testing for illicit drugs, respect towards women and measures encouraging responsible drinking and gambling. [And look how far they have got! - Ed]

What could be the next great cause for Andrew Demetriou and the clubs? Demetriou has hinted that it could be one of the most debated issues of our time – climate change.

Demetriou this week said that football had not reached its limit for involvement in social issues [thanks for clarifying that, we all knew that climate change was just a vehicle for social change - Ed], suggesting that the clubs now had a greater interest in climate change. Asked what, if any, issue football might next take on, the AFL boss said: ”I guess there is. Something else will emerge. I think our clubs have got an awareness of issues around climate change and wanting to do the right thing by, you know, helping raise awareness around climate change.

Stick to, you know, footy.

Read it here.

Wind contributing to Arctic sea ice loss


Arctic ice

From The Science is Settled Department: any fule kno that the Arctic is melting solely because of global warming, right? Wrong. A large part of the sea ice loss is due to changes in wind patterns, which even the Guardian acknowledges, despite putting a disclaimer at the start of the article:

[Guardian Standard Alarmist Disclaimer] New research does not question climate change is also melting ice in the Arctic, but finds wind patterns explain steep decline.

Much of the record breaking loss of ice in the Arctic ocean in recent years is down to the region’s swirling winds and is not a direct result of global warming, a new study reveals.

Ice blown out of the region by Arctic winds can explain around one-third of the steep downward trend in sea ice extent in the region since 1979, the scientists say.

The study does not question that global warming is also melting ice in the Arctic, but it could raise doubts about high-profile claims that the region has passed a climate “tipping point” that could see ice loss sharply accelerate in coming years.

The new findings also help to explain the massive loss of Arctic ice seen in the summers of 2007-08, which prompted suggestions that the summertime Arctic Ocean could be ice-free withing a decade. About half of the variation in maximum ice loss each September is down to changes in wind patterns, the study says.

Read it here.

Eating less meat won't help climate


Back on the menu

With apologies to all you gullible greenies who gave up eating meat because you thought it would “save the planet”, it appears that it won’t make any difference after all:

Eating less meat will not reduce global warming and reports that claim it will are distracting society from finding real ways to beat climate change, says a leading air quality expert.

“We certainly can reduce our greenhouse gas production, but not by consuming less meat and milk,” Frank Mitloehner said on Monday as he presented a report on meat-eating and climate change at a conference of the American Chemical Society in California.

Mitloehner, an air quality expert at the University of California-Davis, said blaming cows and pigs for climate change was scientifically inaccurate.

And to top it all, yet more rubbish from the UN:

He also dismissed several reports, including one issued in 2006 by the United Nations, which he said overstate the role that livestock play in global warming.

Read it here.

Electric motor manufacturer says we all need electric cars


No conflict of interest there, clearly

Feathering Your Own Nest Alert: A new report claims that only electric cars, using power generated from renewable sources or fossil fuels with carbon capture, can achieve a 60% emissions cut in Australia by 2050.

So who produced the report? Only one of the largest manufacturers of electric motors on the planet, Siemens.

Read it here.

Stealth indoctrination in the classroom


Stealth indoctrination

The first of a possible series of posts. My son brings home readers from Junior School. This isn’t science or geography or any other specific subject area, just readers. But many of them have little drips (and not so little drips) of stealth indoctrination on climate change. This particular title reads like a propaganda pamphlet for the WWF. Unsubstantiated claims and alarmism are fed to nine-year-olds as fact, which, as all good nine-year-olds do, they soak up and believe unquestioningly. Here’s a few choice quotes from the best page:

Page 21

And my favourite is this:

There is a growing worldwide awareness that animals, plants and the planet are important. (page 23)

Note that neither “humanity” nor “people” feature in that list, which is the mentality of the extreme green – save the whale, f*ck the people. Now for the name and shame, so you can add the appropriate caveats to your son or daughter:

  • Published by Blake Education (www.blake.com.au) in 2003
  • “On the Edge of Extinction”
  • Series entitled “Brainwaves” [Should be "Brainwashing" - Ed]
  • Authors Claire Craig, Sharon Dalgleish, Ian Rohr

More to come, without doubt.

New blog: RCS Audit


Regular ACM commenter Eloi has started a superb site, which has already been blogged by Anthony Watts and Andrew Bolt, looking at the quality of the Australian Bureau of Meteorology Reference Climate Station network – and not a moment too soon. These sites are supposed to be the gold standard by which we measure our nation’s climate, but looking at this photo, it is a crock:

Spot the weather station in the junk…

As Eloi puts it:

This has to be one of the favourites so far – the station is just dumped in a lot along with corrugated iron fences and builders’ rubble. CRN1 status: Fail.

Visit the site at RCS-audit.blogspot.com.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 8,744 other followers

%d bloggers like this: