Journalism in a bubble, unrelated to what’s happening in the real world, you know, temperatures falling, sea levels falling, cyclone energy at lowest for 30 years etc etc…

THE top government scientist advising on how to adapt the nation to climate change warns that Australia will be forced to abandon some coastal communities in a “planned retreat” because of rising sea levels caused by global warming.

Andrew Ash, who leads the CSIRO’s Climate Adaptation Flagship program, told the Herald that while some vulnerable coastal places could be protected by sea walls and levees, “there are going to be areas where that is not physically possible or it’s not cost-effective to introduce any engineering solution and planned retreat becomes the only option”.

Warning that climate change was accelerating much more quickly than predicted, Dr Ash said state and local governments needed urgently to identify coastal land unsuitable for new residential development because rising sea levels and more frequent big storms would flood them with seawater.

Now back to the real world…

Read it here.

Earth Hour is being criticised from all sides – the Greenies think it’s a pointless political gesture, and the sceptics think it’s, er, a pointless political gesture. Given the choice, The Age will only focus on the first of these, of course:

As the organisers prepare for the switch-off at 8.30pm next Saturday, the event, in its third year and rapidly expanding internationally, is being criticised from both the left and the right.

Clive Hamilton, climate campaigner and author of Scorcher: The Dirty Politics of Climate Change, says that “we are well past the time for feel-good exercises aimed at raising awareness … it’s like the band playing on as the Titanic sinks”. There is a real danger that Earth Hour convinces people that we are making progress on climate change when we are not. And it lets business and government off the hook,” he says.
…
An analysis of the key sponsors of Earth Hour (among them Fairfax Media, owner of The Sunday Age) reveals that most have reported increased emissions in their most recent figures.

That’s because the reality of cutting emissions is nothing like the fairy-tale computer modelling carried out at the Treasury – it costs money and jobs… However, that doesn’t stop WWF from claiming some authority from the participation in Earth Hour:

WWF plans to interpret a huge switch-off as a global poll on climate change, a demand from 1 billion people that politicians take “strong action” at the international forums including the Copenhagen climate-change conference in December.

Read it here.

Another demonstration goes pear-shaped as the port of Newcastle gets one step ahead of the demonstrators (which, to be honest, ain’t that difficult) and cancels all shipping for the day. So the protestors end up blockading, er, nothing.

Writing in The Australian, Terry McCrann opens his article with the exact point I have made directly to Penny Wong – why does the Government refer to the harmless trace gas carbon dioxide as “carbon pollution”? The answer, clearly, is because it helps to massage public opinion into thinking that the “carbon pollution reduction scheme” is there to reduce belching soot from industrial chimneys.

What’s in a name? The lie. For the truth is that it is not a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, but a Carbon Dioxide — pollution or not — reduction scheme.

Just a minor difference? An understandable, even appropriate, abbreviation? No way. The difference is huge and quite deliberate. It’s not even “justified” on the basis of a snappy acronym. CPRS or CDPRS — neither has the vowel necessary for snappiness.

There’s no question the continual harping on “carbon pollution” is intended to send a subliminal impression. We’re getting rid of all those little bits of black stuff floating around in the air. And who can possibly be against that?

He then goes on to expose the utter ridiculousness of the Treasury’s ETS modelling for all to see:

The most ludicrous aspect of [Treasury official David] Gruen’s rationalisation is that cutting emissions is “just like tariff cuts which move the economy towards its true competitive advantage”.

I’ve pointed out that it is in fact the exact opposite; it is like embracing tariff increases. Cutting tariffs removed an artificial cost on the economy; the CPRS will impose an artificial cost on the economy.

The response is that, ah, I don’t understand “externalities”. That you have to properly price the external costs — climate change. I understand them only too well — I suggest, on the evidence, somewhat better than Gruen.
…
We cut our emissions to zero and what happens to the (supposed) cost? Nothing. We still incur it. Cutting our emissions to zero can have no impact on our climate. Irrespective of what the rest of the world does.

Read it here.

Always desperate to plug the green agenda, The Sydney Morning Herald gleefully swallows a WWF report that claims Australia could build a low-carbon economy based on solar, wind and geothermal power for less than half the cost of the Government’s economic stimulus package.

The WWF-commissioned report calculates the price for transforming the nation’s energy base, using technology that exists, would be $28 billion between 2010 and 2050 – less than half the Government’s stimulus handout, but spread over 40 years.

It was prepared by Climate Risk, a corporate analyst that advises the federal and local governments and businesses on climate modelling [and which is making very tasty profits out of climate change hysteria, see here for a list of their services – Ed]

It shows that a transition to renewable power is affordable, but that the proposed carbon trading scheme and renewable energy target could not achieve it. Extra government investment in energy of about $100 million a year from 2010 would be enough to make solar, wind and geothermal power dominant in the electricity and manufacturing sectors by the middle of the century.

Well I’m convinced, or I would have been if this report had any basis in reality. And so is Paul Toni of WWF Australia:

“Earth Hour shows that millions of Australians want this government to act to battle climate change. This report shows they can.”

Earth Hour shows nothing of the sort of course, as most of the participation comes from councils and organisations who fear being branded as non-environmentally aware if they don’t. And to all those councils and organisations who have signed up, Earth Hour isn’t just a jolly little bit of fun once a year, it has a deeply political agenda (dictated by WWF):

This will send a powerful message to our world leaders to support a new climate change agreement at the UN Climate Change Conference being held in Copenhagen in December 2009 (source)

Read it here.

P.S. If you are in the mood for some top quality Fairfax BS, look no further than here.

PP.S. In the interests of full disclosure, Earth Hour is run by WWF, and sponsored by Fairfax (coincidentally)

Minor crisis over, I will be back to blogging tomorrow, but in the mean time, here’s a great article from Andrew Bolt, which explores the issue I discussed here (Mother Nature playing tricks on warmists, a sort of global version of the Gore Effect):

In 1956, US psychologist Leon Festinger became instantly famous for giving us “cognitive dissonance” — the theory that humans couldn’t tolerate two conflicting perceptions. One would have to go.

Ha! It’s taken half a century, but warming believers are now making a monkey of old Festinger.

As proof, here are three recent news items about the latest pilgrimage to the North Pole of three scientists, all hot gospellers of our new faith and all convinced the ice cap is barely there.
…
March 18, 2009, from AFP: Project director and ice team leader Pen Hadow and his colleagues, Martin Hartley and Ann Daniels, are now down to half rations and fighting to survive in brutal sub-zero weather conditions.

Great stuff. Read it here.

… due to unforeseen circumstances. But check out some of the other great blogs in my Blog Roll (at the right).

I hope to be back blogging very soon…

It seems that whenever explorers try to get to the North Pole to measure some aspect of climate change, Mother Nature unleashes her evil streak and dumps on them from a great height. A British team trying to ski to the North Pole to measure how fast the ice is disappearing are being thwarted by bad weather.

Project director and ice team leader Pen Hadow and his colleagues Martin Hartley and Ann Daniels are now down to half rations and fighting to survive in brutal sub-zero weather conditions.

“We’re hungry, the cold is relentless, our sleeping bags are full of ice and, because we’re not moving, the colder we get,” Hadow said Tuesday in a statement from the London headquarters of the Catlin Arctic Survey.
…
During the past 17 days temperatures have consistently dropped below minus 40 degrees Celsius, and have been accompanied by strong winds increasing the chill factor.

But SBS cannot resist playing the “global warming” joker at the end:

Global warming is believed to be the main culprit in the rapidly melting north polar ice cap that is freeing up new sea routes and untapped mineral resources on the ocean bottom.

Setting aside the humorous aspect of this, let’s hope these explorers are rescued safely.

Read it here.

It must be really tough being Penny at the moment. On the one hand, she has to appear to want the ETS legislation to go through the Senate, while at the same time really wanting it to all fall over so she can stamp her foot, scream and shout and say “the Liberals did it! Deniers! Deniers!” and then quietly dropping it so that the Government can get on with more important things, like screwing up its response to the financial crisis…

Climate Change Minister Penny Wong says some critics would prefer no scheme at all if they cannot have their way. [Dead right – Ed]

“What they are actually doing is locking in continued emissions growth,” she told ABC Radio.

The government was being “highly consultative“, having met already with the Australian Greens and independent senators.

“So we are serious about engaging with the Senate about this issue,” Senator Wong said, adding the government was not at the point of negotiating legislation.

i.e. talk to the hand, ‘cos the face ain’t listenin’.

Read it here.

Although this is in The Age, it actually comes from Agence France-Presse (AFP), which has to be the most moonbattish news agency on the planet. It doesn’t excuse The Age, however, which mindlessly regurgitates it all:

Countries around the Arctic must commit to curbing climate change to ensure the survival of the polar bear, Norway’s environment minister said on Tuesday as an international meeting opened on the species’ fate.

Do they honestly think that the emissions of Arctic countries will make any difference to the Arctic climate? If you believe that reducing emissions will stop climate change, it’s the US and China you should be looking to.

With the mercury rising ever higher, as many as two thirds of the 20-25,000 polar bears that roam the Arctic could disappear by the middle of this century, according to a recent estimate from the US Geological Survey.

Rising ever higher – like this you mean?

All of which allows me to post my favourite picture once again:

(Thanks to Theo Spark)

Read it here.