CANdo – Conservative Action Network

Conservative Action Network

In the words of Senator Cory Bernardi, the driving force behind the new organisation, “a cross between the US Tea Party and GetUp!”.

CANdo is Australia’s grassroots Conservative Action Network.

CANdo is committed to bringing conservatives together who share a vision that limited government, lower taxes, free enterprise and traditional values will build a stronger Australia.

By joining CANdo you are linking with fellow conservatives to share information, engage in discussion and inspire action.

There is a Climate Coalition group within CANdo for issues concerning climate change.

Visit CANdo here and sign up!

IPCC: Pachauri stays, credibility goes

Subtracts credibility

As Shub Niggurath puts it:

“Here is an organization that cannot tackle its own internal issues, but yet expects the whole world to take advice from it for solving a supposed global problem.”

But I for one am not complaining that Pachauri is staying on – as I have said before, every day he remains in charge subtracts credibility from the IPCC, and that can only be a good thing. The recent meeting in Busan has deferred a number of key issues for later discussion:

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has adopted new guidelines on dealing with scientific uncertainties following criticism of its 2007 report.

But the panel’s meeting in South Korea closed with many other reforms proposed in a recent review being passed to committees for further consideration.

Chairman Rajendra Pachauri confirmed his intention to stay in post until the next assessment is published in 2014.

In its recent review of the IPCC, the InterAcademy Council (IAC) – an umbrella group for the world’s science academies – highlighted a case in the 2007 assessment where studies projecting rapidly declining crop yields in Africa were given more weight than they merited, in the absence of supporting evidence.

The revised guidance emphasises that in future, authors must assess both the quality of research available and uncertainties within that research.

It urges authors to be careful of “group-think”, but maintains that it “may be appropriate to describe findings for which the evidence and understanding are overwhelming as statements of fact without using uncertainty qualifiers”.

Enhanced guidance on the use of “grey literature” – material not published in peer-reviewed scientific journals – has also been drawn up, and will be finalised by chairs of the IPCC’s working groups in the coming months

I can bet you that all the grey literature they use will plug the alarmist cause. There won’t be any that challenges the consensus, will there?

Read the rest here.

UPDATE: Must read – Donna Laframboise’s summary of the madness here.

Climate sense from The Australian

Which, let’s face it, is the only broadsheet in the country which demonstrates any kind of balance in the climate debate. The Fairfax press has already made up its mind on climate, suppresses any dissenting views, and spews one-sided alarmist propaganda on a daily basis. Two excellent opinion pieces and an editorial in The Australian today. Firstly, Bjorn Lomborg (the warmist/skeptic) warns against rapid action, which is precisely what Greg Combet advocated earlier in the week:

CLIMATE committees across the world are mistakenly putting the cart before the horse.

ADVOCATES of drastic cuts in carbon dioxide emissions now speak a lot less than they once did about climate change. Climate campaigners changed their approach after the collapse of the Copenhagen climate change summit last December, and the revelation of mistakes in the UN climate panel’s work, as well as in response to growing public scepticism and declining interest.

Although some activists still rely on scare tactics – witness the launch of an advertisement depicting the bombing of anybody who is hesitant to embrace carbon cuts – many activists now spend more time highlighting the “benefits” of their policy prescription. They no longer dwell on impending climate doom but on the economic windfall that will result from embracing the “green” economy. (source)

Then, Des Moore makes the blindingly obvious point that the science isn’t settled:

THE Royal Society’s report coincides with dissidence at the American Physical Society.

THE Royal Society’s September report, Climate Change: A Summary of the Science, has brought into the open the widening difference of views about how the science of climate change should be assessed. It comes after a prominent resignation from the American Physical Society (the top body of US physicists) for the refusal of the society’s executive to undertake a similar review despite requests from a large number of members.

In Australia, too, an examination of the Inter-Academy Council’s review of the processes and procedures of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concludes that, although the council’s chairman claims the IPCC’s findings stand, the review itself exposes serious flaws in the panel’s information and analysis. The examination by this group, which is a follow-up to its recent publication in the British journal Energy & Environment, is now being widely distributed in Australia.

All three assessments reflect the revelations provided by the exchanges between scientists actively involved in climate research – now known as Climategate – that some research results appear to have been falsified. These reports have spread widely in science circles in Australia. However, apart from The Australian, there has been almost no reference to these revelations in the Australian media. The Age, which had not bothered to cover the Royal Society’s report, was quick to report that the Royal Society’s vice-president John Pethica (who chaired the report committee) had rejected suggestions that the society had changed its position on climate change. (source)

And finally, an editorial savages The Age for its hopelessly compromised and biased reporting on climate:

ON a subject as important as our climate, reasoned, informed public debate is the key to finding the consensus that must underpin an effective policy response.

Interest groups that attempt to keep the public in the dark by suppressing alternative views have succeeded only in eroding the credibility of their own arguments.

So it is puzzling that a supposedly liberal broadsheet newspaper, The Age, not only failed to cover the Royal Society’s revision of its Guide to the Science of Climate Change but took a swipe at those who did. The story, which The Age ignored when it broke in this and major British newspapers on October 2, was significant because the Royal Society is regarded as the world’s most authoritative scientific body. It was clear from our report and commentary that the society was not dismissing climate change — far from it. The need for co-ordinated global action is no less pressing. But the Royal Society guide undercuts many of the exaggerated claims of looming ecological disaster, spun in order to scare the public into supporting various political positions. (source)

Read them all!

Settled science: warming effect of CO2 cut by 65%

We know all there is to know

Once again, here we have an example of settled science, where no new discoveries about the climate are ever made these days and everything was set in stone ages ago. No, wait…

The warming effect of evil [harmless] carbon dioxide has been significantly overstated, and it is almost impossible to determine the “climate sensitivity”:

[…] the report is clear – CO2 does not account for even a majority of the warming seen over the past century. If other species [of atmospheric substance] accounted for 65% of historical warming that leaves only 35% for carbon dioxide. This, strangely enough, is in line with calculations based strictly on known atmospheric physics, calculations not biased by the IPCC’s hypothetical and bastardized “feedbacks.”

Of course, the real reason for the feedbacks was to allow almost all global warming to be attributed to CO2. This, in turn, would open the door for radical social and economic policies, allowing them to be enacted in the name of saving the world from global warming. The plain truth is that even climate scientists know that the IPCC case was a political witch’s brew concocted by UN bureaucrats, NGOs, grant money hungry scientists and fringe activists.

Now, after three decades of sturm und drang over climate policy, the truth has emerged – scientists have no idea of how Earth’s climate will change in the future because they don’t know why it changed in the past. Furthermore, it will take decades of additional study to gain a useful understand climate change. To do this, climate scientists will need further funding. Too bad the climate science community squandered any public trust it may have had by trying to frighten people with a lie. [my emphasis]

Read it here.

In other news:

  • Jo Nova eviscerates Robyn Williams, the ABC’s non-science journalist, who has forgotten what proper science is, doesn’t have a single sceptical brain cell in his head, but is pretty good on alarmism, pseudo-science, mudslinging and propaganda.
  • The government’s unofficial alarmist in chief, Will Steffen, who also doesn’t have a single sceptical brain cell, tells a conference in Hobart that sea levels are rising “at the top end of estimates”. Not sure how 3mm per year works out to be 1m by 2100. But hey, it’s just detail, and it sure makes a good story.

UK: Wind farm hell

Replace “wind” with “solar” and you have the carbon-priced future in Australia, except Australia doesn’t have a nuclear power backup for when it all goes horribly wrong. A truly enlightening, and shocking, video entitled “Europe’s Ill Wind” lifts the lid on the European wind farm fiasco. Thanks to the almost incomprehensible idiocy of politicians like Chris Huhne and Ed Miliband, the UK is heading towards deep Green oblivion. Last person to leave, please turn out the lights … no wait, they’ll be out already.

[hana-flv-player video=""
autoload="true" autoplay="false"
loop="false" autorewind="true"

Also, pay a visit to the web site: Europe’s Ill Wind, and leave a comment to show your support.

Bravo! Minchin, Bernardi savage climate alarmism

Nick Minchin

As this deluded Labor government rushes to commit economic suicide by putting a price on carbon [dioxide] next year, Nick Minchin and Cory Bernardi are virtually the only politicians in this twisted, politically correct world brave enough to call out the climate scam for what it is. As the Sydney Morning Herald reports:

THE Liberal senator Nick Minchin has told the organiser of a policy conference how ”appalled” he was that one of its themes referred to Australia’s ”necessary transition to a low-carbon future”.

In a letter to the head of the Global Foundation, Steve Howard, Senator Minchin said the theme – discussed at the foundation’s Australian Unlimited conference in June – sounded like something produced by ”an extreme green group”.

”Your language does not even make any sense. What do you mean by ‘a low carbon future’? Do you mean carbon dioxide and if you do why don’t you say so?” Senator Minchin wrote. He was ”shocked” to see the report referring to carbon dioxide as ”pollution … which you must know is a gross misrepresentation of a clear odourless gas vital to life on Earth”.

But you have to realise, calling it “carbon pollution” is all part of the media/government ploy to mislead the unsuspecting public. Bernardi on the other hand has the guts to question the science, and isn’t afraid of the inevitable “denier” response from the government:

On his blog yesterday Senator Bernardi, who is Mr Abbott’s parliamentary secretary, wrote that Australia should be having an inquiry into whether there were any ”scientific facts” to back the ”climate change alarm”, rather than talking about policy solutions for the ‘‘non-problem of anthropogenic carbon dioxide”.

”Thousands of people are making billions of dollars out of a pseudoscientific racket that has conned millions of people around the world. We cannot allow it to continue any longer,” he wrote.

After all the climate nonsense spouted by Gillard, Combet and their ilk, it’s like a breath of fresh air.

Read it here.

Cancun heading for a train wreck

Climate talks

Could it be worse than Copenhagen? Very possibly, says the UK Telegraph, under the headline ‘Global warming summit heads for failure amid snub by world leaders':

World leaders have snubbed the next round of international climate change negotiations in Mexico next month amid fears the talks will collapse.

The last United Nations summit on global warming in Copenhagen, at the end of last year, ended in failure and recrimination. More than 100 heads of state turned up hoping to be part of a deal that would “save the world” [ha, ha, my aching sides], but failed to get any legal agreement to stop rising temperatures [or should we say, more accurately: "to redistribute global wealth by forcing developed countries to shut down their economies and pay climate debt to the developing world in order to cut emissions of carbon dioxide which might, but probably won't, stop rising temperatures, which are in all likelihood part of the planet's natural climate cycles..."].

This year, they are declining even to attend, instead sending environment ministers and playing down the talks as much as possible.

The process is dogged by a disagreement over the best way to limit the growth in greenhouse gases, which are blamed by scientists for rising temperatures. Environmentalists believe the best approach is a binding treaty that will force all countries to cut carbon emissions. But at the last major meeting before the Cancun summit, held in China last week, delegates were still in dispute.

So, Julia and Greg, just explain to me again why Australia is rushing headlong into a unilateral price on carbon when the rest of the world has no intention of following suit. I’d love to hear the answers.

Read it here.

ACM Poll Results

Poll results

Thanks to all of you who voted in the ACM poll. The results are as follows:

  • 60.5% – full post text on home page (as currently)
  • 39.5% – excerpt from post on home page with link to full article

So for the time being, things will remain unchanged, with each post in full on the home page.

Simon, ACM

NZ: temperature records thrown under a bus


New Zealand’s National Institute for Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) has denied any responsibility for the “official” New Zealand temperature record (NZTR). This staggering admission comes as part of NIWA’s defence to a legal action for judicial review brought by the New Zealand Climate Science Education Trust. The action sought orders:

  1. to set aside NIWA’s decisions to rely upon its Seven Station Series (7SS) and Eleven Station Series (11SS), and to find the current NZTR to be invalid;
  2. to prevent NIWA from using the current NZTR (or information originally derived from it) for the purpose of advice to any governmental authority or to the public; and
  3. to require NIWA to produce a full and accurate NZTR.

Richard Treadgold explains [caveat: I cannot find the NIWA statement of defence online, so haven't been able to verify the conclusions in the following report. I am trying to obtain a copy]:

Three weeks ago NIWA released their Statement of Defence in response to the NZ Climate Science Coalition’s Statement of Claim regarding an Application for a Judicial Review. You have to be a lawyer (which I’m not) to see the ramifications and it’s taking a while to work through it, but these are my first reactions and I can’t hold them back any longer.

Most of this will upset NIWA’s supporters. If you’re a NIWA supporter, go find a buddy to hug before reading on. This will rock your world.

Because NIWA formally denies all responsibility for the national temperature record (NZTR).

They’re not defending the temperature record or the mistakes in it, they’re virtually saying: “You’re right, the dataset could be shonky, so we’re washing our hands of it.” Which gives us no confidence in the “science” they might have applied to it. What the hell’s going on? I actually hope their lawyers know a cunning trick to get them out of this, and it’s not what it seems. Because it’s my NIWA too!

But it gets worse.

NIWA has formally stated that, in their opinion, they are not required to use the best available information nor to apply the best scientific practices and techniques available at any given time. They don’t think that forms any part of their statutory obligation to pursue “excellence”.

And that little bombshell just does my head in. For how can they pursue excellence without using the best techniques?

NIWA denies there is any such thing as an “official” NZ Temperature Record, although they’re happy to create an acronym for it (NZTR). The famous “Seven-station series” (7SS) is completely unofficial and strictly for internal research purposes. Nobody else should rely on it.

Read the rest here.

But the science is settled, isn't it?

"Poorly studied"

Our ignorant, spin-laden Australian government, via its climate mouthpiece Greg Combet, continues to push the line, “the science on climate is settled”, because they don’t wish to engage with the possibility that it isn’t. They have all their eggs in the IPCC basket, despite the fact that most of those eggs are cracked, rotten and leaking through the bottom, and they aren’t interested in anything else. They simply want to move on, pander to their redistributive instincts and impose an emissions trading scheme or carbon tax which, even if the science were settled, wouldn’t make an iota of difference to the climate, but would “spread the wealth around”, as someone once said.

So it’s ironic when a story breaks that shows so clearly that the science is not settled. Something as fundamental as the effect of the sun on climate during solar cycles is still uncertain, let alone complex feedbacks, clouds, precipitation etc, etc. As the New Scientist (gasp) reports:

IF NEW satellite data can be trusted, changes in solar activity warmed the Earth when they should have cooled it.

Joanna Haigh of Imperial College London studied satellite measurements of solar radiation between 2004 and 2007, when overall solar activity was in decline. The sun puts out less energy when its activity is low, but different types of radiation vary to different degrees. Until now, this had been poorly studied. ["Poorly studied", notice. Because, thanks to massive government and big green investment, all the research has been directed towards finding the tenuous link between anthropogenic CO2 and climate instead.]

Haigh’s measurements showed that visible radiation increased between 2004 and 2007, when it was expected to decrease, and ultraviolet radiation dropped four times as much as predicted.

Haigh then plugged her data into an atmospheric model to calculate how the patterns affected energy filtering through the atmosphere. Previous studies have shown that Earth is normally cooler during solar minima.Yet the model suggested that more solar energy reached the planet’s surface during the period, warming it by about 0.05 °C (Nature, DOI: 10.1038/nature09426).

The effect is slight, but it could call into question our understanding of the sun’s subtle effects on climate.

But don’t forget, this is New Scientist, so…

Or could it? Stefan Brönnimann of the University of Bern in Switzerland says Haigh’s study shows the importance of looking at radiation changes in detail but cautions that her the results could be a one-off. He points out that the sun’s most recent cycle is known to have been atypical.

Whatever. But to continue to repeat ad nauseam that the science is settled is nonsensical. Take note, Julia and Greg.

Read it here.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 8,707 other followers

%d bloggers like this: