An article in The Guardian this morning (reprinted in The Sydney Morning Herald), in which the current solar inactivity is dismissed as irrelevant in the whole “climate change” debate, made my hackles rise:

[Professor Nigel Weiss of Cambridge University] said there was even a chance that Earth might be heading for a low as deep as the historic lows of the 17th century, known as the Maunder minimum. Either side of that trough, Europe shivered through the Little Ice Age, when frost fairs were held on the Thames. [At least The Guardian acknowledges the existence of the LIA, unlike most of the IPCC – Ed]

Should we expect another freeze? Those who claim the rise in temperatures we have seen over the past century are predominantly the result of intense solar activity might argue that we should, but they are in the minority. [Science isn’t about consensus, or who has the greater numbers – Ed]

Most scientists believe humans are the main culprit when it comes to global warming, and Professor Weiss is no exception. [Note the use of “no execption” i.e to the rule – Ed]

Even if we had another, similar low, he said, it would probably only cause temperatures on Earth to drop by the order of a tenth of a degree – peanuts compared to recent rise. So do not pack the sunscreen away just yet.

So a previous solar minimum was enough to cause a mini-Ice Age, but this one will only drop temperatures a tenth of a degree? The logic is baffling.

The Left-wing elite, and their attendant media, have such a high opinion of themselves, and the powers of the human race, that they genuinely believe that they can have an effect on the climate of this planet. They never look beyond their lattés at the reality of earth and its environment within the solar system and the universe. The universe is a hostile and violent place, and earth has, for much of its existence, been far from benign. We are fortunate that we live in an era of relative stability on earth, but as Ian Plimer demonstrates in his book, Heaven and Earth, the planet has gone through some unimaginable times – extinctions, Ice Ages, massive volcanic eruptions, cosmic ray bursts from nearby supernovae – all of which humans have no control over.

And anyway, what’s so special about humanity anyway? We are little more than a scum on the surface – a product of evolution in very fortunate circumstances – and we have no special place in the universe, certainly not one powerful enough to affect a climate controlled by a raging thermonuclear reaction which has been burning on our doorstep for 4.5 billion years. The forces at work in the universe, and the scales involved, are immense, far beyond comprehension even for cosmologists, so it’s hardly surprising that politicians and journalists do not have an inkling.

“Look at the IPCC models,” they cry. The IPCC models hardly take any notice of solar effects, water vapour, cloud etc. They are all too hard, so they’re left out. And the result is that the earth has cooled since 2001, and not a single model predicted it correctly. And then you look at the history of climate change over the past billion years, as recorded in ice cores and other proxies, and there are clear correlations with the activity of the sun, the orbital position of the earth, and even the position of the solar system in the galaxy.

I hope that solar inactivity continues, and that cooling continues. Something like a repeat of the Maunder Minimum might just be enough to shock the liberal elite out of their cosy belief that the earth and its surroundings are benign and pure, and have been defiled only by the evils of humanity.

Where will it end? I’ll be out of a job in a minute! Bring back the climate madness! In two more excellent articles, The Australian brushes up its sceptic credentials, firstly on the science:

The science of climate change continues to evolve and regardless of the outcome of the climate debate, observational data suggests that we may be served well by basing our climate agenda, scientifically and economically, on a broader perspective than that in the IPCC outlined scenarios. Our pollution abatement and energy diversification goals could then be formulated, and likely implemented, with less pain.

And secondly, on the propaganda machine:

Popular acceptance of the widely contested theory that climate catastrophe threatens us because of our clogging the atmosphere with carbon dioxide emissions gains ground with even the most frivolous and deceptive claims for its validity.

Attempts made to attribute the Victorian bushfires to climate change did not take root. But claims that climate change caused the collapse of an Antarctic ice bridge received worldwide and largely uncritical attention. Collapsing is what ice bridges do and have done for countless millennia.

All good stuff! Read them here and here.

For once in a blue moon, a story about something that isn’t as dire as first thought. There were fears (i.e. alarmism) that the methane locked at the bottom of the world’s oceans could be brought to the surface by “global warming”, but apparently, the science isn’t as settled as some (Rudd, Wong, Gore, Hansen etc etc) would have us believe:

The concern has been that as the world gets warmer, some of the clathrates [methane compounds] would escape into the atmosphere and have a dramatic amplifying effect on global warming.

The CSIRO’s Dr David Etheridge says the circumstantial evidence was not good.

“There’s evidence in the long-term past, millions of years ago, that this may have occurred,” he said.

“It is circumstantial evidence only. What we needed to know for the future is whether the warming that we are currently seeing and which will increase in the future will destabilise these clathrates.”
…
“I think this confirms that source of methane, that potential source of methane, is more stable than we previously thought and that gives us some upper bounds to the future releases that we might expect with a warming world.”

A non-alarmist article from the ABC? Heresy – that journo should be burnt at the stake!

Read it here.

As always, a great read!

Thanks to reader David F. Here are some of the Earth Day predictions from 1970. Some of them will sound scarily familiar to those being made today, which will be just as wrong:

“We have about five more years at the outside to do something.”
• Kenneth Watt, ecologist

“Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”
• George Wald, Harvard Biologist

“We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation.”
• Barry Commoner, Washington University biologist

“Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.”
• New York Times editorial, the day after the first Earth Day

Read the rest here.

Eww, put it away, love… (© Sun newspaper)

Global fatsters are causing global warming (no, honestly, it says so on news.com.au so it must be true…). So away we go, let’s bash the lard-arses:

Scientists warned that the increase in big-eaters means more food production – a major cause of CO2 gas emissions warming the planet [note the lack of any qualifying “may be” or “might” or “could” – hey, the science is settled, you denier, you – Ed], according to a report in English newspaper The Sun.

The environmental impact of fat humans is made even worse because they are more likely to travel by car – another major cause of carbon emissions. [“Fat humans” – hilarious!]

Each fat person is said to be responsible for a tonne more of climate-warming carbon dioxide per year than a thin one due to factors including higher food and fuel consumption.

Read it here, or here for the original Sun article [with lots more illustrative photos like the one above – Sun readers don’t have much imagination, so when a story mentions fat people, it is accompanied by copious pictures of, er, fat people. Oh, and, because it’s a story about climate change, a picture of a polar bear. Sadly not this one…]

But calls them “Howard government Kyoto sceptics”, which is perfectly fair comment. Maybe she and the government are realising that it’s just a teensy-weensy bit hypocritical to brand the Opposition as “deniers” when in fact it is the government, the IPCC, Krudd and Wong herself that are the true deniers – denying that the IPCC models have failed to predict the last decade of cooling, denying that the cooling is even happening, and pretending that “it’s all happening faster than we thought” (© Al Gore and James Hansen).

Ever more desperate to keep her ETS ship afloat, despite it being holed many times below the waterline and now listing heavily to starboard, Penny goes on the offensive, blaming the Opposition for its likely failure:

“Wrecking this reform is about much more than Australia’s domestic political debate. Wrecking this reform shortens the odds of not getting a global deal on climate change.”
…
Senator Wong said the emissions trading scheme represented “an opportunity to go to Copenhagen with a responsible position“.

But she refused to countenance any changes to the scheme, despite lack of support from industry and environment groups.

So business as usual there, however.

Read it here.

Seems if you have a name like Penny, there’s no hope. Back in October last year, only a few days after I started this blog, I posted on the new Chief Scientist and was optimistic about things:

Here’s a great opportunity for someone with a genuine scientific approach and significant influence in Government to cut through the usual AGW hysteria and take a dispassionate look at the science, not just the propaganda.

She said at the time:

“I believe that the people of Australia, if they have the choices that confront them clearly articulated in an open atmosphere of dialogue and if that is underpinned with scientific evidence, then I believe that Australians will make the choice that is the best for them and for their children.”

A promising start, I thought. How wrong can you be, for Penny Mark II has revealed herself to be even more away with the Gore-fairies than Penny Mark I:

Professor Sackett has also warned the world only has six years to decrease its emissions to avoid damaging climate change.

“We know that the rate at which we are putting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere is increasing rather than decreasing,” she said.

“We also know that if we want to maintain that level of climate change which we could measure by the increase in global average temperature to 2 degrees then we have six years to reverse the trend from increasing CO2 emissions to decreasing CO2 emissions.

“It’s not long, which is why we need to begin to act now.”

All recycled, political, IPCC-speak. Sadly, Ms Sackett, you are unfit to call yourself a scientist of any kind, let alone the chief one.

Read it here.

That’s because there aren’t any, clearly:

Federal Climate Change Minister Penny Wong has been unable to name a single supporter of her government’s embattled Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS).

This prompted the opposition to claim the scheme would “wander the corridors of Parliament looking in vain for a friend“.

Senator Wong struggled to answer a reporter in Sydney who asked her to name any supporter of the scheme outside her own party.

“This is a reform that was a commitment of the Rudd Labor government, made prior to our election,” was her response.

Too funny! Read it here.

Yet more climate sense, with even a dash of scepticism thrown in. What’s going on? In an opinion piece entitled “Wong is wrong on ETS”, The Australian skewers the utter nonsense that is the ETS:

Climate Change Minister Penny Wong was as intractable as ever yesterday in her insistence that “the time is right” to proceed. But if the Prime Minister does not prevail on her to change her mind, the Senate is likely to vote down the scheme. That would be the responsible course at this time, and one that more pragmatic members of the Rudd Government would welcome. It would enable them to keep faith with those who want action and blame the Opposition and minor parties for the defeat, while avoiding the economic difficulties of pressing ahead.
…
A more prudent course would be to wait and allow the outcome of the [Copenhagen] summit to inform the legislation. Even then, the uncertainties of climate change, including significant expansion of ice in east Antarctica, suggest a cautious approach is warranted.
…
Senator Wong’s likening the scheme to “getting fit” is off course. Starting the ETS during a recession would be akin to starting a fitness plan in the midst of a bad bout of ‘flu.

The Australian is thinking like a proper scientist for once, and actually taking note of what’s happening in the real world, rather than relying blindly on the woefully inadequate computer models of the IPCC, in which Rudd and Wong have put all their faith.

Read it here.