Just don't tell me the debate's over…
This is such a cracker that it gets an entire report all to itself:
Nancy Knowlton – Marine Science expert at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History
“The decisions we are making today not only affect tomorrow because carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere for decades and sometimes centuries; it affects not only ourselves, our children and grandchildren but literally our grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren,” Knowlton said. (source)
Can anyone beat that?
Climate sense at last…
From The Australian:
Flanked by 17 Coalition supporters, including Deputy Senate leader Eric Abetz, a dozen Liberals and five Nationals MPs, Senator Minchin threw down a challenge to Mr Turnbull, launching a powerful attack on climate change science.
“The Senate overwhelmingly rejected this abomination in August – it should do so again,” Senator Minchin said.
“The Coalition has maintained from day one that this legislation should not be voted upon before we know the outcome of the Copenhagen conference.
“Until we know that other major economies are making firm commitments to enact domestic emissions trading schemes Australia should not act alone.”
Senator Minchin’s supporters also included Victorians Scott Ryan and Mitch Fifield, WA’s Alan Eggleston, Michaela Cash and Mathias Cormann, and SA’s Cory Bernardi, Alan Ferguson, David Bushby and Chris Back.
Senator Cormann told The Australian Online it was a show of support for Senator Minchin.
“It was a show of support for a great leader who gave a great speech,” he said.
“I am saying we should not finalise this until after Copenhagen. Obviously I hope the partyroom will agree to that.”
Senator Minchin said it was pure “vanity” for the Prime Minister to demand the legislation to pass before Copenhagen conference, particularly when the scheme would not start until mid 2011.
“The government’s cynical political agenda is quite naked. It is using the threat of a double dissolution to blackmail the Senate into supporting this radical legislation,” Senator Minchin said.
“It is literally crazy to be committing to an emissions trading scheme before we see the outcome of the discussions at Copenhagen. It is also frankly idiotic for this country to legislate and emissions trading scheme before the US Congress does so.”
His comments follow a warning from WA Liberal MP Denis Jensen that a third of the party – 30 MPs – could cross the floor if Malcolm Turnbull strikes a deal with Labor.
Read it here.
Black Saturday
The events of Black Saturday and the loss of life that resulted were a national tragedy. Like every other Australian, I owe an eternal debt of gratitude to the work of our nation’s firefighters, who carry out heroic work on a daily basis.
However, it can be rather too easy to look for blame, and to jump to the conclusion that such horrific events arose directly because of “climate change”. The United Firefighters of Australia union appears to have succumbed to this temptation, and is engaging in a misguided protest in Canberra today to urge Senators to “take action on climate change”:
The union made a similar call for action in the wake of February’s devastating Victorian bushfires and Peter Marshall has today repeated the call as parts of South Australia are now declared catastrophic code-red areas.
With only five parliamentary sitting days left to pass the scheme, Mr Marshall has warned that without efforts to combat climate change, bushfires across the country will increase in frequency and intensity.
“We are not scientists but we are the people on the front line,” he said.
“If there is not action put in place now, Federal Government’s research says that places such as Canberra by 2050, the type of fires we’ve seen here in 2002 will happen on an eight-year basis.
“We are asking you very clearly, stop making this a political football, put in place the action that’s required to secure the future because by 2020 we are going to see a frequency like we’ve not seen before.”
Unfortunately, there are so many assumptions and flawed steps in the logic of this approach, namely:
As with everything else connected with climate change, trying to stop it is pointless, and adaptation is the only sensible approach. In this case, that means putting pragmatism above bush environmentalism, removing draconian council bylaws which prohibit or restrict property owners from clearing bushland on their land, and for state governments to clear and manage state owned bushland in a way which will prepare for such events in the future.
Read it here.
Political indoctrination?
It’s becoming more and more common. Climate propaganda, often sanctioned by the government, is aimed at children, who, being more trusting and less experienced in the realities of life, are less able to distinguish facts from indoctrination. They soak it all up, take it home and badger their parents with it, and the government’s job is done. So here we have another Indoctrination Alert as children at Cranbourne Secondary College in Victoria “pledge to put the brakes on climate change”:
Year 7 and 8 art and textiles students each made and decorated a patchwork pledge patch that were then sewn together to make a quilt panel.
On each patch, the students have appliqued or sewn a design, written their name, age and suburb, along with a personal pledge committing to make a small change in their life that will help the environment.
Their finished product will be taken to the United Nations Climate Convention in Copenhagen by Leigh Hofman from Habitat Planet who helped co-ordinate the climate quilt campaign project.
The aim of the finished quilt is to empower children and give them a voice at the conference and to tangibly connect children worldwide around the issue of climate change and show what they can do about it.
The implication being that a global agreement in Copenhagen to slash emissions is necessary to “save the planet” from climate change. I have no objection to children being taught to care for the environment – indeed it is essential that they are. However, I do have a serious problem with schools involving children in a controversial political matter such as the Copenhagen climate convention. And you can bet that there will have been only one side of the climate debate discussed – and you can guess which side it is, can’t you?
Read it here.
P.S. There is no record whatsoever on Google for an organisation called “Habitat Planet”…
UPDATE: Thanks to reader Bob Campbell, who has helpfully pointed out the the organisation is “Habitat Heroes”, which you will note itself is a veritable goldmine of indoctrination cleverly camouflaged as fun activities for kids… Click here for a taste.
"It's the Murray, darling."
Another Science is Settled Alert, as researchers at Newcastle University conclude that elevated temperatures in the Murray-Darling basin were a combination of natural factors:
Lead researcher Associate Professor Stewart Franks, from the University’s Faculty of Engineering and Built Environment, said the findings were based on known principles of physics.
“Senior climate change researchers have claimed that higher temperatures lead to higher moisture evaporation and that this is why the Murray Darling Basin has experienced such a harsh drought,” Associate Professor Franks said.
“This is incorrect and ignores the known physics of evaporation.
“During drought, when soil moisture is low, less of the sun’s radiant energy goes into evaporation and more goes into the heating of the atmosphere which causes higher temperatures.
“Most importantly, the elevated air temperatures do not increase evaporation but are actually due to the lack of evaporation and this is a natural consequence of drought.
“Therefore any statement that the drought experienced in the Murray Darling Basin is a direct result of CO2 emissions is fundamentally flawed.”
Associate Professor Franks said the findings of the study highlighted the importance of getting the science right.
“A key concern is that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – which advises governments around the world – has used the Murray Darling Basin and incorrect science as an example of CO2 induced climate change.
Read it here.
You can tell when he's being economical with the truth - his lips move
Just as Kevin Rudd denies that there are any problems with the climate models relied on by the IPCC, and just as he denies that there is any debate to be had on climate change, he also denies that the special deal offered to the Sri Lankans aboard the Oceanic Viking is a special deal at all. The Opposition can see it’s a special deal. The Sri Lankans themselves can see it’s a special deal, because why else would they have left the customs vessel at all? Anyone with half a brain in his head can see it’s a special deal. But not Rudd or his government, who continue to swear blind that black is white. Andrew Bolt does the demolition better than I can:
No special deal? Here’s the offer that the Tamils actually received:
“1. If UNHCR has found you to be a refugee – Australian officials will assist you to be resettled within four to six weeks from the time you disembark the vessel.”
The rest of the Tamils were promised help to get processed as refugees by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, with the lucky ones “resettled within 12 weeks”. Probably here.
And there were promises of English classes, daily help, contact with families back home, and more.
This was a deal so special that Rudd refused in Parliament to offer it to the other 2000 UNHCR-approved refugees in Indonesia also waiting to get here, or to the many thousands more boat people yet to be assessed there.
It was so special that Indonesian officials say they must separate the Oceanic Viking asylum seekers from other boat people in detention in case they’re attacked out of jealousy.
Let me explain how special this deal was. Australian lawyer Jessie Taylor, who has visited 11 Indonesian detention centres, reports “it is not uncommon for people to wait 24 to 36 months between their initial registration and their refugee status determination”.
What’s more, “positive findings of refugee status are meaningless in the current context, as there is no prospect of third country resettlement”.
So contrast. Rudd promised to resettle the UNHCR-approved refugees on the Oceanic Viking within just six weeks – and almost certainly in Australia.
If they were in Indonesia, they might wait for years. Indeed, some have waited so long there already that they’ve married Indonesians.
For the others, Rudd offered assessment and resettlement in just 12 weeks, when boat people in Indonesia can wait three years just to have their UNHCR claims finalised.
The moral of all this: you can’t trust Rudd to tell the truth on anything, and that includes climate change.
Read it here.
After a perfectly reasonable delay yesterday to finish other important legislation (which the government, in its usual, cheap, point-scoring way used as a stick to batter the Opposition), debate on the ETS has finally got underway in the Senate. We’re in such an odd situation here, with debate going on in Parliament, and parallel back-room negotiations going on outside. With chummy assurances going on outside Parliament, and harsh rhetoric within. Bizarre.
The Opposition just look like a bunch of wet rags, dancing to the Government’s tune – it’s pathetic. But at least inside the chamber, the Coalition are doing a passable impression of an Opposition:
Liberal senator Ian Macdonald has kicked off upper house debate on the government’s planned emissions trading scheme, dubbing it a “shambles.”
The suite of 11 bills setting up Labor’s carbon pollution reduction scheme was voted down by all non-government senators in August.
The government reintroduced the draft laws to the lower house in October, and on Monday used its numbers in that chamber to send them onto the Senate.
Senator Macdonald foreshadowed a difficult debate on the legislation.
“It’s going to be one of the most difficult debates to prosecute because the bill before the chamber today is exactly the same bill that the Senate voted down three months ago,” he told parliament on Wednesday.
“What we are debating today is a piece of flawed legislation that the Senate has already expressed its views on.”
The coalition and the government are currently negotiating amendments to the scheme, which are yet to be finalised.
“The government’s climate change policy is in a complete shambles,” Senator Macdonald said.
Then why on earth are you “negotiating” to pass it? Climate madness from the Opposition.
Read it here.
Walks on water as a party trick
Part of President Obama’s Messiah complex is that it brings on delusions which makes him believe that he can single-handedly save the world, or in this case, raise a binding deal at Copenhagen from the dead. This is despite the fact that there is absolutely no hope of such a deal, and they’ve just chucked the 200-page draft treaty in the dumpster. But The Australian swallows it, resurrecting Obama’s vacuous campaign slogan at the same time:
Yes we can: climate hopes revived
CHINA and the US last night resuscitated hopes for a binding deal at next month’s Copenhagen climate change talks after President Barack Obama said the two countries had agreed to aim for a comprehensive accord to take “immediate operational effect”.
…
Mr Obama said after talks with Mr Hu in Beijing that the countries had agreed “to work toward a successful outcome in Copenhagen”.
“Our aim there is . . . not a partial accord or a political declaration, but rather an accord that covers all the issues in the negotiations and one that has immediate operational effect,” he said.
I don’t know what Obama knows that we don’t, but this just isn’t going to happen.
Read it here.
The next logical step…
They must be putting something in the water down in Exeter, Devon, where the UK Met Office is located, as scare stories are flying out of there by the dozen. The latest contains all the usual apocalyptic ingredients, as reported lovingly and unquestioningly in The Telegraph:
Heatwaves that kill thousands, tropical-style storms and widespread flooding could be regular features of Britain’s climate within a generation if global warming is not checked, according to the Met Office.
The forecast is part of the most comprehensive study into the impacts of climate change ever conducted. It shows the effects of global warming on Europe over the next 50 years and beyond. Unless pollution [?] from greenhouse gases is reduced, temperatures could rise by an average of 7.2F (4C) across the continent, transforming the landscape, agriculture and industries, it found.
In some parts of the far north of Europe, temperatures could rise by up to 18F (10C), melting the permafrost and wiping out endangered animals and bird species.
Southern Europe would become unbearable in the summer, destroying the tourism industry and making it impossible to grow staple crops like durum wheat for pasta in Italy and fruit and vegetables in Spain.
In Britain, floods and extreme storms would become more frequent, pushing up insurance premiums on homes and buildings.
In the summer, temperatures could reach 104F (40C) in London, causing heatwaves like the one in 2003 that killed an estimated 2,000 people.
More flawed models producing more flawed projections. We always knew the hysteria would get worse as the global warming bandwagon derailed, but this is verging on the ridiculous. Next week the Met Office are sending some poor bloke down to London to walk around with a sandwich board saying “The end of the world is nigh.”
Beyond parody.
Read it here.
Dangerously rapid warming, as you can see
Whenever things are a bit slow, and the alarmists are a bit desperate, they throw in a story about some cuddly creature becoming extinct, koalas or possums or polar bears, or in default, that great Aussie icon, the Barrier Reef. So here we go again, with the same ol’ same ol’ story rehashed and spun slightly differently:
THE Great Barrier Reef has only a 50 per cent chance of survival if global CO2 emissions are not reduced at least 25 per cent by 2020, a coalition of Australia’s top reef and climate scientists said today.
The 13 scientists said even deeper cuts of up to 90 per cent by 2050 would necessary if the reef was to survive future coral bleaching and coral death caused by rising ocean temperatures.
“We’ve seen the evidence with our own eyes. Climate change is already impacting the Great Barrier Reef,” Terry Hughes, director of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies at James Cook University, said in a briefing to MPs.
Australia is one of the world’s biggest CO2 emitters per capita [What relevance is that? We produce less than 1.5% of global emissions – Ed], but has only pledged to cut its emissions by five per cent from 2000 levels by 2020. The Government said it would go further with a 25 per cent cut, if a tough international climate agreement is reached at UN climate talks in Copenhagen in December, but this is looking increasingly unlikely with legally binding targets now off the agenda.
[Cue violins] “This is our Great Barrier Reef. If Australia doesn’t show leadership by reducing emissions to save the reef, who will?” asked scientist Ken Baldwin.
The reality, of course, is that sea surface temperatures around the GBR have hardly risen at all, the reef has been here for hundreds of thousands of years, and has been through more warmings and coolings that Terry Hughes or Ken Baldwin between them have had hot dinners. And it’s still here. And it will still be here long after Terry Hughes and Ken Baldwin are pushing up the daisies. Why? Because reefs adapt. Unlike humans, who panic and throw trillions of dollars at a solution that won’t work.
Read it here.
Australian Climate Madness 
Recent Comments