There is really no end to climate madness – in fact, in the face of falling global temperatures, it is getting worse. The Australian government, which is going blindly down ETS Alley towards economic ruin, is being accused of not going far enough, not only by the usual Greens, but now also by 140 global companies (including National Australia Bank and Westpac), who have signed a communiqué calling for “deep and rapid cuts in greenhouse gas emissions” and calling for 50 – 85% cuts by 2050.

The call comes as the government is facing criticism from green groups after reports suggested federal cabinet would soften its position on a 2020 reduction target and its plans for an emissions trading scheme.

The companies say delaying action will increase the costs of stabilising the climate, and reduction targets should be guided by science.

Clearly they mean the “science” of the IPCC, which as we all know, isn’t science at all but political propaganda. And then there’s another poll from the Australian Conservation Foundation (which, as I have posted before, is the organisation in Australia which promotes Al Gore’s despicable Climate Project, whose sole purpose is to disseminate to the unsuspecting public the lies and propaganda contained in An Inconvenient Truth) which claims that two-thirds of its respondents thought that:

Australia should set an example for other countries by committing to strong targets.

As if China and India give a flying fig about what Australia does. I’m still trying to find the wording of the question asked, but I can guarantee that it will be so biased that the only possible response would have been that sought by the ACF.

When not only governments but big businesses start demanding massive cuts in emissions, based on no credible evidence other than that of the corrupt IPCC, one has to wonder whether this bandwagon can ever be stopped.

Read it here.

It’s certainly bad for my health – reading endless scaremongering stories about how climate change causes everything from hurricanes to ingrowing toenails (actually, I think ingrowing toenails are one of the few things left on earth not attributed to climate change). The Australian runs an article by David Shearman and Michael Kidd, both from “Doctors for the Environment Australia”, who inform us that “wherever you live, climate change threatens your health”:

Climate change will bring to Australia an increased burden of heat stress, injury from fire and storm, social disruption and mental illness; in the developing world it will bring famine, water shortage and dislocation of populations with calls to Australia to assist resettlement. The coming disruption of ecological services that provide humanity’s life-support system is likely to have far-reaching health impacts on food and water resources and on the spread of infective disease.

And then they praise the “health benefits” of renewable energy:

It is non-polluting and reduces reliance on fossil fuels, which emit carbon dioxide and many other pollutants responsible for much cardio-respiratory disease. Renewable energy is decreasing in cost and creates many more jobs per equivalent amount of power than does fossil fuel. It can be used as a distributed energy source, a positive for social welfare and health as it distributes employment opportunities to regional and rural centres where the burden of stress, depression and suicide is increasingly prevalent.

Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant, and I have never heard any evidence that it causes cardio-respiratory disease. And stating that renewable energy “creates many more jobs” is the same as saying that it is hopelessly expensive and inefficient. And the article concludes with the usual cri de coeur:

We must act now, for in the words of the French philosopher, Paul Valery, “the future, like everything else, is not what it used to be”.

Read it here.

As always, a great read.

Thanks to Tom Nelson. You may recall that Robyn Williams is the ABC journo who has stated on previous occasions that “the debate is over” (and on whom I have previously commented – see here) and is frothing at the mouth because all us deluded sceptics are not swayed by the power of his arguments. Ad hominem Alert:

I draw two conclusions. The first is that the handful of ‘climate sceptics’ are politically driven and exploit the same trademark clutch of factoids and phrases. They ignore published, peer-reviewed scientific papers containing evidence that shatters their case, vanishingly small as it is.

The noise they make is out of all proportion to their puny numbers, and they protest furiously that all they are doing is trying to save us from unnecessary paralysing angst – rather than inconvenient truth.

The other characteristic of these people is that they lack nuance. After all, everything in science is debatable.

“These people”?! Everything in science is debatable? Except climate change, clearly! What a joke. I lost count of how many ad hominem attacks the article contains. This guy should be sacked from the ABC.

Read it here.

UPDATE: Once again, Andrew Bolt does a great demolition job on Williams here.

Australia is steaming ahead with an economy-crippling ETS, so other countries are now looking to us for tips as to the best way to cripple theirs too, including the US:

Edgard Kagan, the economic counsellor at the US Embassy in Canberra, says US officials are awaiting with interest the Federal Government’s carbon reduction scheme white paper, which is due in just under a fortnight.

“There’s a great deal of interest within the parts of the US Government that deal with climate change issues in what Australia’s doing, because there are tremendous similarities between the US and Australian economies, both in geographic scale and structure of the economy,” he said.

Both countries also have moonbatty watermelon leaders (green on outside, red on inside). And more “tremendous similarities” will follow, as the economies of both countries disappear down the gurgler.

Read it here.

Only kidding of course. But the Australian attempts to put all sceptics in their place by reporting a lecture given by Marvin Geller of Stony Brook University in New York State. Under the patronising headline:

Professor sheds light for climate change sceptics

(as if we sceptics are Neanderthals grovelling around in the fog of ignorance), Geller spouts the usual alarmist stuff. But the good professor’s logic is full of holes, as whilst he states that a very small change in solar radiation cannot possibly affect climate, he then goes on to state that a very small change in CO2 obviously does. He then compares the effect of this harmless trace gas to cyanide… oh dear.

And it’s really all downhill from there: 11 of last 12 years warmest on record (only since 1850 of course), insulting our intelligence by explaining the difference between “weather” and “climate” in terms that would patronise a 12-year-old.

“Many components of the climate system … are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundance of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century.“

Read it here.

Quoth Andrew Bolt. But this time it’s not the koala, but the white possum, which the Courier Mail thunders has been made extinct by “global warming” (shurely “climate change” – Ed):

“If it has died out it will be devastating,” Ms [Sheridan] Morris said.

“It is a big one, and a big one to bang the drum over.

“It is equally as shocking as losing an iconic marine species like a whale or the dugong.”

It’s a big IF of course, and doesn’t tie in with the fact that global temperatures are much the same as they were 30 years ago…

Read it here.

UPDATE: Andrew Bolt skewers the whole thing very nicely here.

Just as Rudd and Wong are starting to realise that drastic cuts in emissions might (surprise, surprise) harm an already weakened economy, the greenie hoards write a bleating letter to the Prime Minister urging him to cut emissions by 40% by 2020 “for the planet’s sake”, reports The Age. As if the planet would even notice a 0.6% reduction in global CO₂ emissions …

“We urge you to stand up to the pressure from the big polluters and adopt a strong emissions reduction target that will keep alive the possibility of a strong international agreement,” the letter says.

“A five to 15 per cent target would represent a profound failure.”

The letter warned the latest science showed climate change was happening faster than previously thought, and deep emission cuts were needed to ward off a greenhouse catastrophe.

Wrong on all counts (but especially wrong on the last).

Read it here.

I think Poznan may well turn into a bit of a competition to see who can come up with the most outrageous scare story. IPCC head Rajendra Pachauri is the reigning champion, and you’ll have to be pretty good to oust him from the top spot.

HALF of humanity could face water shortages by 2050 if the world lets the financial crisis distract it from fighting global warming, a key UN climate change summit of more than 185 countries has been told.
…
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change chairman Rajendra Pachauri told an opening meeting that many people had still not woken up to the risks of climate change if the world failed to act.

He cited projections that the number of people living in river valleys and facing water stress could quadruple from more than 1.1 billion in 1995 to more than 4.3 billion by 2050, that a third of species could face extinction, that the Greenland and west Antarctic ice sheets could melt, triggering massive sea-level rises.

It’s all so last year. But what’s happened to Donald Tusk, Polish Prime Minister? In October, he was standing firm against the EU emissions nonsense (see here), but now appears to be a card-carrying IPCC disciple:

Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk told summit delegates the economic downturn was no excuse not to tackle climate change.

Is this the same Donald Tusk who said the following, in respect of Poland’s dependence on coal?

“We don’t say to the French that they have to close down their nuclear power industry and build windmills, and nobody can tell us the equivalent.”

Who knows. I think they must put something in the water. More of the same tomorrow, no doubt.

Read it here.

I don’t know if I can face another 12 days of scaremongering from Poznan. The Age lives up to its alarmist reputation with a cool-headed and dispassionate account of the first day’s proceedings:

War, hunger, poverty and sickness will stalk humanity if the world fails to tackle climate change, a 12-day UN conference on global warming heard.

A volley of grim warnings sounded out at the start of the marathon talks, a step to a new worldwide treaty to reduce greenhouse gases and help countries exposed to the wrath of an altered climate.
…
“Further expansion in the same style will generate global threats of really great intensity – huge droughts and floods, cyclones with increasingly more destructive power, pandemics of tropical disease, dramatic decline of biodiversity, increasing ocean levels,” said [Polish environment minister Maciej] Nowicki.

All of which overblown claims have little basis in reality, but which are good at grabbing headlines in moonbat papers all over the world, like The Age. And then this absolute gem:

Nowicki’s warning was underscored by Rajendra Pachauri, head of the Nobel-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which provides neutral scientific opinion on global warming and its impacts.

“Neutral scientific opinion” my foot. Propagating religious dogma with a ferocity approximating the Medieval Catholic Church, perhaps…

Read it here.