Slow news day at the ABC: shoot a polar bear


You're killing me with your addition to fossil fuels

You’re killing me with your addiction to fossil fuels

Plucked from the ABC’s library of climate alarmism, here we have yet another ‘polar bears are doomed’ story to add to the millions we have seen already (none of which have, or will, come true).

But so what if none of these apocalyptic prophesies ever come to pass? The ABC, and its nauseating coterie of Greeny-Lefty, inner-city, bike-riding, latte-sipping, sandal-wearing, basket-weaving, yoghurt-knitting, pro-Palestinian, “Fuck Tony Abbott” supporting, Ultimo-squatting trendoids, cares about the climate, and it constantly needs to demonstrate this by publishing this kind of crap.

And just to ram the point home, the article is accompanied by an oh-so-cute photo of a polar bear cub, just so all you evil deniers out there can feel really guilty for putting petrol in your car or using electricity generated from coal:

Scientists are warning polar bears in the Arctic could face starvation by the end of the century if sea ice keeps shrinking.

Sea ice projections for the Canadian Arctic Archipelago show global warming could reduce the icy periods polar bears need to hunt and breed each year.

The Canadian Arctic Archipelago is known as the “last ice area” and was thought to be a long-term safe haven for the polar bear.

But researchers said the findings were an early warning sign for the potential impacts of climate change on other Arctic species too.

Dr Andrew Derocher from Canada’s University of Alberta said the region’s icy conditions were crucial for polar bears, but sea ice projections in the area were not positive.

He said the ice models showed the animals could starve if climate change continued on its current trajectory, as it would not only impact upon the bears, but also their prey.

“We know already that other populations further south and in other areas won’t be doing well … but in this area where we thought the ice would persist well into this century [we’ve started] to see serious difficulties,” he said.

“They have a short window in the spring time where they gorge themselves on the fat of seals. The problem is, if you push them too far, they don’t have enough energy stored.

“It’s clear we’re on a trajectory that will result in many populations of polar bears blinking out.” (source)

De-fund the ABC – now.

ABC wheels out Mungo to prop up Obama


Mungo's minging

Mungo – minging

Mungo MacCallum: the ABC’s go-to lefty* for trashing Abbott, praising Obama and ensuring the bias never lets up. Hilarious.

This is all you need to read of the latest Mungo-gram (you’re welcome):

Barack Obama’s speech to the University of Queensland during the G20 bash was undoubtedly a show-stopper: spell-binding oratory with a powerful message urging the people, particularly the youth, to demand more action on climate change.

After that gem of jaw-dropping hyperbole, the rest of the article is a terrible anticlimax…

*Make sure you have a bucket handy

Blue Mountains fires: ABC plugs climate change angle


"Oh Greg, there's a fire burning inside me." "I think you'll find that climate change made it worse…"

“Oh Greg darling, there’s a fire burning inside me.” “Yes, and it’ll get worse thanks to climate change…”

No doubt getting a few hints from her current squeeze, former Labor Climate Change minister Greg Combet, newsreader Juanita Phillips disappointed this particular viewer tonight by stringing up RFS Chief Shane Fitzsimmons like a kipper and leading him down the murky path to politicising the Blue Mountains bush fires.

Phillips used the interview as an opportunity to ask a barrage of questions about the effect of climate change, which Fitzsimmons was completely unqualified to answer. But don’t forget, in ABC land, being qualified to speak on climate only applies to sceptics, though.

[Read more…]

Dr Karl’s Klimate Krap…


More Klimate Krap

More Klimate Krap

Dr Karl is on a krappy Krusade… to keep the warming scare going.

Rusted-on warmists like Dr Karl have invested so much emotional energy in their substitute religion that when the evidence no longer fits their theory, they just, er,  ignore the evidence. It’s tragic to see a supposed “scientist” in such a confused state of cognitive dissonance:

In general, scientists are a pretty mild and inoffensive bunch. But over the last decade, one specific group of scientists has come in for a lot of criticism. So let’s dive into the topic of ‘the pause in global warming’.

In the USA, the Wall Street Journal wrote, “temperatures have been flat for 15 years – nobody can properly explain it.”

Another newspaper from the same stable, the UK Daily Mail wrote “global warming ‘pause’ may last 20 more years, and Arctic sea ice has already started to recover”. Both of these statements are very reassuring, but unfortunately, very very wrong.

With regard to this ‘pause’, there are two major claims made by those who deny the science of climate change.

The first one is that the climate is actually cooling – not warming. This is incorrect.

The second claim is that after some previous warming, the global climate is now constant, and neither warming nor cooling. In other words, that the climate is in a kind of holding pattern, or haitus. This is also incorrect.

You can read the rest here, but quite frankly, save your time. Rather than accept that something is going on that the models failed to predict, Dr Karl would rather stick his fingers in his ears and shout “La, la, la!” Pretty much like the ABC in general, really…

Media sheds tears for axed carbon tax


It's all too much! Sob!

It’s all too much! Sob!

The inner-city basket-weaving yoghurt-knitting sandalistas that make up the Fairfax and ABC’s environment desks are already writing the eulogies for their beloved tax.

First cab off the rank is the ABC’s Sara Phillips (see ACM here), who attributes the public’s lack of enthusiasm to an ignorant fear of the unknown, stoked up by who else? Tony Abbott:

In the lead-up to last year’s election, Abbott repeatedly told us that the carbon tax would be a wrecking ball through the economy. He told us that electricity prices would be all kinds of terrible as a result of the carbon tax. He told us that the carbon tax wouldn’t bring down Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions. It’s a tax, he said. A Great Big New Tax On Everything.

He was wrong on all of these accounts, of course. But the damage was done.

‘Of course’ he was wrong! You fools! She continues:

But like Shelley’s creation, it was not quite the horrendous beast we feared. The economy continues to defy prediction, quietly growing.

The latest figures from December show that Australia’s emissions have dropped 0.8 per cent, with most of the fall being explained by a 5 per cent drop in emissions from electricity generation.

It grew thanks to putting adults in charge of the shop last September, and the removal of that hopeless bunch of pre-schoolers who had spent six years grinding the country into the ground with their incompetence. But nice try, anyway. Just remind me what difference those emission reductions would have made to the climate again… oh, that’s right, zero.

Fairfax isn’t far behind, with a gushing, tear-stained hymn of praise for the Senate climate warriors of the Left. Be warned, strong stomach required:

Amid ongoing speculation over Christine Milne’s leadership style and future, the Greens leaders’ Senate performance has been passionate, emotional and, most of all, resolute. Senator Milne had a great deal invested in the legislation that created the price on carbon that kicked in on July 1, 2012. Its abolishment [sic] on Thursday was personal.

She has spent much of this week seamlessly switching between offering forceful condemnations of the government’s undoing of the legislation and in promising renewed vigour from her minor party in restoring action to address global warming.

Just moments before the final Senate action that killed the carbon tax 39 votes to 32, Senator Milne appeared very much a political leader determined to keep climate change at the forefront of the political debate.

“This is a critical moment for our nation and there are a number of new senators in this chamber today,” she said.

“Their vote today and the vote of every person in this debate will be the legacy of their political career.”

And with Opposition Leader Bill Shorten committing Labor to campaign on an emissions trading scheme as a central theme of the next federal election, his party’s leader in the Senate, Penny Wong, championed the cause with her usual skill and smooth, calculated passion.

Another standout performer in this debate has been Tasmanian Labor senator Lisa Singh, grasping her new junior environment and climate change portfolio with gusto.

The shadow parliamentary secretary was Labor’s most riveting advocate this week for keeping the price on carbon.

Again, just moments before that argument was lost, Senator Singh delivered a stinging rebuke to the government and those senators who joined with it in repealing the legislation.

“We are sending this country backwards,” she said.

“All for what? For playing politics. Playing politics with Australia’s future; playing politics with the environment; playing politics with our children.

“And it is an outrageous moment in Australia’s history.”

Too much for my stomach… Pass the sick bag.

Hypocrisy of the BBC


BBC: loves Gore, hates Lawson

BBC: loves Gore, hates Lawson

Censorship now rules at the British publicly funded broadcaster, the BBC.

On a current affairs programme in February of this year, Lord (Nigel) Lawson of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) was brought in to debate Sir Brian Hoskins of the (ultra alarmist) Grantham Institute, home of the odious Bob Ward.

Subsequently, a Greens activist (naturally) complained that the BBC was guilty of giving ‘false balance’ to the flat-earthers. Hugh Muir of the Grauniad takes up the story:

It still sends a frisson down the spine of certain producers to give airtime to the former chancellor Lord Lawson so that he can chip away at the widespread scientific agreement over the causes and impact of climate change. The temperature is always a little higher with a heretic in the room. And yet this route towards excitement has its dangers. As the go-to guy in the thinktank of his own creation, the Global Warming Policy Foundation, Lawson was called in February to the studios of the Today programme for debate with Sir Brian Hoskins, a climatologist from Imperial College London.

Things did not go as they should, and the broadcast became the subject of a complaint from Chit Chong, a Green party activist. Reviewing the broadcast, the BBC’s head of editorial complaints, Fraser Steel, took a dim view. “Lord Lawson’s views are not supported by the evidence from computer modelling and scientific research,” Steel says, “and I don’t believe this was made sufficiently clear to the audience … Furthermore the implication was that Lord Lawson’s views on climate change were on an equal footing with those of Sir Brian.”

And they aren’t. Sceptics have their place in the debate, Steel says in his provisional finding, but “it is important to ensure that such views are put into the appropriate context and given due (rather than equal) weight.” Chong is only partially satisfied. He’d like a right of reply and perhaps a balancing programme. And others say “due weight” should mean not having Lawson on at all. Still, Rome wasn’t built in a day.

Furthermore, the Telegraph reports:

Lord Lawson wrote that Fraser Steel, head of the unit, apologised to Mr Chong “for the fact I was allowed to appear on the programme and to make clear this will not happen again”.

In other words, they won’t be inviting Lawson back, effectively censoring his contribution to the debate.

But let’s look at whether the BBC sticks to its own rules, and, guess what? Surprise! The ‘false balance’ argument only applies to sceptics.

A Google search of “Al Gore” and climate on the bbc.co.uk site reveals nearly 12,000 hits, and top result is from just three days ago! Didn’t they get the memo? You can’t have unqualified people speaking about climate! We all know that Al Gore has no science qualifications and therefore has no right to speak on climate change, apart perhaps from having made a ludicrous and inaccurate propaganda video in 2007.

But that doesn’t stop the BBC giving Gore a platform to spout yet more propaganda, unchallenged.

See? It’s not a question of false balance, it’s a question of getting the right message out – the alarmist message. As Lawson rightly says:

“If there is to be a ban on non-scientists discussing climate change issues (which I do not, of course, support), this should in the best BBC tradition be an even-handed one. That is to say, they should also ban non-scientists such as energy secretary Ed Davey, Ed Miliband, Lord Deben (chairman of the government’s climate advisory committee), Lord Stern (former adviser to the government on the economics of climate change and development) and all the others who are regularly invited to appear.”

Let’s have a look at the ABC (the Australian Bolsheviks Collective) here in Australia. Top of the list must be cracked-crystal-ball-wielding Tim Flannery, he of the many and varied dud predictions. A Google search of his name on the ABC web site reveals nearly 7,000 hits with ‘climate’. Just last week, the ABC spruiked Flannery as a ‘climate scientist’ (see image).

Flannery a 'climate scientist'?

Flannery a ‘climate scientist’? [click to enlarge]

He is nothing of the sort, of course. He’s a mammalogist, palaeontologist, environmentalist (whatever that is), and… ta da! … ‘global warming activist’. Thus spake Wikipedia. So it doesn’t matter if you’re not a climate scientist, global warming activist will do just as well.

We can add to our list other favourites of the ABC, Stephan Lewandowsky (psychologist), Clive Hamilton (no idea, but certainly not climate science), Robyn Williams, etc etc. So it’s all fine and dandy for our public broadcaster to drag in unqualified persons to rattle on about climate change, as long as it’s the approved message they’re spouting.

But think about the reverse – if engaging Lawson to debate Hoskins is false balance, how about the BBC get on the phone to Dr Roy Spencer, or Pat Michaels, or Richard Lindzen? They are as distinguished climate scientists as you could hope to get, so that should satisfy the ‘false balance’ conundrum, right?

Er, no. Roy Spencer manages a tad over 300 mentions on bbc.co.uk, and only one in the last 12 months… and a fair amount of those hits may also be reader comments.

Surely Lindzen will do better?

Nope. The learned professor manages just over 200 mentions, and in the last four years, just three…

How about Pat Michaels?

Zero. Nada. Zilch. Zippo.

Clearly the BBC isn’t trying very hard to find any kind of balance on climate, and would rather censor debate in its own Stalinist fashion.

Catalyst’s catastrophism


In cinemas now!

In cinemas now!

Catalyst is supposed to be a science programme, but ends up looking more like a low-budget disaster movie.

Last night’s episode was a case in point:

NARRATION
… But fire is changing. Over the past decade, every forested continent has seen an alarming surge in large, uncontrollable fires. [pause for dramatic effect] Mega-fires.

Prof David Bowman
The sort of metaphoric equivalent of an atomic bomb, that’s what a mega fire is, it’s muscular, it’s mean, it’s big, it’s aggressive.

Prof Tom Swetnam
Really fast burning fires. And their local intensity is just amazing.… these are extraordinary fire events.

NARRATION
So extraordinary, they demolish the very ecosystems that have thrived with fire for millennia.

[Read more…]

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 8,860 other followers

%d bloggers like this: