Kind of like “Spot the Ball” but in this case we’re using our sceptic olfactory organs to sniff out climate bullshit (of which there’s plenty around).

Here is the ABC in full alarmist mode. In a completely uncritical interview with ACM’s favourite alarmist, Will Steffen, on ABC’s Catalyst, there is spin heaped upon hysteria heaped upon alarmism heaped upon… you get the idea.

The interviewer, Dr Jonica Newby, challenges Steffen on absolutely nothing, and swallows absolutely everything. Not a single difficult question, not a single alternative viewpoint, and this is our national broadcaster’s flagship science programme acting as a platform for a well known climate alarmist. And it will only get worse as we approach Copenhagen.

So here it is: The Inaugural ACM Competition

ACM readers are invited to submit comments to this post pointing out the misrepresentations (or even, dare I say it, lies) that you can find in the video of the segment here, together with a transcript.

There is also a web extended interview with Steffen in two parts: first video is here, and second video is here (second part mainly plugging Copenhagen)

Feel free to complain to the ABC as well. With propaganda like this, there is little hope for the public ever having a balanced view of the climate change debate.

Bizarreness Alert: on Google’s blog search feature (blogsearch.google.com.au), if you type in “arctic ice”, which admittedly is a pretty general search term, the second result is … ACM! Result! Google would not be pleased to discover that a sceptic web site was nearly leading the search results:

Margot O’Neill’s execrable blog Countdown to Copenhagen (see here for previous post on this) acts as a kind of conduit for all of Australia’s looniest alarmists, conveniently distilling them all into one place. In her latest offering, she quotes Amanda Lynch of Monash University.  O’Neill prefaces the whole thing with this completely even-handed and balanced introduction:

So what’s happening? Are sceptics having a serious impact? Is the drawn-out argy bargy over the proposed emissions trading scheme anesthetising [sic] public engagement? Have scientists failed to cut through because they’ve been too cautious or too inaccessible? [Ha, ha, my aching sides – Ed]

A couple of recent US books argue that scientists need to loosen their lab coats. Unscientific America by Chris Mooney urges young scientists to undertake communication courses.

Of course, because it’s just simply that we can’t get the message across. Nothing to do with the science – hey, that’s settled, you filthy denier, you – we need to reprogram the population to accept our message (as if the media and the government weren’t doing that job well enough). Ms Lynch clearly thinks that censorship is the way forward to shut up the dissenters once and for all. Welcome to the People’s Republic of Kruddistan:

What I am sensing right now is a very high level of anger and frustration particularly at the ‘sceptics’ who continue to derail the discussion. That frustration is probably at the forefront, and from many I’ve heard a real sense that to play the nay-sayer in the face of such serious consequences is deeply unethical. I’ve heard this directed both at scientists of various stripes and at members of the press.

O’Neill also quotes the following impartial observers of climate change:

• David “Asteroid” Karoly (Melbourne University)
• James Risbey (CSIRO)
• Andy Pitman (UNSW)
• Michael Raupach (CSIRO)
• Will “ACM’s Favourite Alarmist” Steffen (ANU)
• Barry Brook (Adelaide Uni)

So pretty fairly balanced, then… Pity the blog doesn’t allow comments (why not?).

It’s-All-Happening-Faster-Than-We-Though Alert: Tedious stories about the Arctic ice keep cropping up, like bad pennies, despite the Arctic ice actually having increased by a million square km since 2007.

The Arctic ice cap will disappear completely in summer months within 20 to 30 years, a polar research team said as they presented findings from an expedition led by adventurer Pen Hadow.

Note that this is the same Pen Hadow who participated in the Caitlin expedition earlier in the year. See here for a dissection of the alarmism that spawned.

It is likely to be largely ice-free during the warmer months within a decade, the experts added.

Veteran polar explorer Hadow and two other Britons went out on the Arctic ice cap for 73 days during the northern spring, taking more than 6,000 measurements and observations of the sea ice.

The raw data they collected from March to May has been analysed, producing some stark predictions about the state of the ice cap. [Gee, there’s a surprise – you could have bet your house on it NOT saying the opposite – Ed]

“The summer ice cover will completely vanish in 20 to 30 years but in less than that it will have considerably retreated,” said Professor Peter Wadhams, head of the polar ocean physics group at Britain’s prestigious Cambridge University.

“In about 10 years, the Arctic ice will be considered as open sea.”

And then of course the inevitable hysteria and call to action at Copenhagen:

Loss of sea ice cover will “set in motion powerful climate feedbacks which will have an impact far beyond the Arctic itself,” he added.

“This could lead to flooding affecting one quarter of the world’s population, substantial increases in greenhouse gas emission from massive carbon pools and extreme global weather changes.” [One quarter of the world’s population??! I think you’ve got frostbite on the brain, pal – Ed]

“Today’s findings provide yet another urgent call for action to world leaders ahead of the United Nations climate summit in Copenhagen in December to rapidly and effectively curb global greenhouse gas emissions.”

Yawn, yawn, yawn, yawn, yawn. etc.

Read it here.

UPDATE: Anthony at Watts Up With That does the required demolition job.

Congratulations, Tim, on your award for linking the Samoan tsunami and the Indonesian earthquake (both caused by tectonic plate movement) to climate change:

Mr Costello said the “ring of fire” that had exploded in our region in recent weeks, including the tsunami in Samoa, the earthquake in Indonesia and flooding in the Philippines and India, was directly related to changes in global weather patterns. (source)

I’d love to hear an explanation for that!

Bjørn Lomborg is a voice of sanity in the climate debate. Despite believing that anthropogenic CO₂ causes “global warming”, he always argued cogently against emissions trading schemes, as they simply don’t work. However, in this article, Bjørn appears to be advocating “climate engineering,” which has to be one of the crazier ideas going around right now. There have been a few of these, like painting roofs white to reflect sunlight, injecting tonnes of sulphur into the atmosphere to reduce incoming solar radiation, many of which would have completely unpredictable results on the climate, and would be far more dangerous than the problem they are trying to solve, which Bjørn himself admits. But he does make a very valid point – that money should be spent on research and development rather than inefficient and unreliable “green energy”:

Some suggested climate engineering technologies – in particular, marine cloud-whitening technology – could be cheap, fast, and effective. (Boats would spray seawater droplets into clouds above the oceans to make them reflect more sunlight back into space, reducing warming). Remarkably, the research says that a total of about $US9 billion spent implementing marine cloud-whitening technology might be able to offset this entire century’s global warming. Even if one approaches this technology with concerns – as many of us do – we should aim to identify its limitations and risks sooner rather than later.

It appears that climate engineering could buy us some time, and it is time that we need to make a sustainable and smooth shift away from reliance on fossil fuels. Research shows that non-fossil-fuel energy sources will – based on today’s availability – get us less than halfway towards a path of stable carbon emissions by 2050, and only a tiny fraction of the way towards stabilisation by 2100.

If politicians change course and agree this December to invest significantly more in research and development, we would have a much greater chance of getting this technology to the level where it needs to be. And, because it would be cheaper and easier than carbon cuts, there would be a much greater chance of reaching a genuine, broad-based – and thus successful – international agreement.

Read it here.

So here is a prime example of the effect the ETS will have on the Australian economy, which the government is working hard to keep under the radar so that the public won’t notice:

CALTEX chief executive Julian Segal has criticised the federal government’s proposed carbon pollution reduction scheme, warning that it could mean the end of petrol refining in Australia.

Mr Segal described the government’s proposed scheme as “flawed.”

He said that if it was introduced, Caltex would not invest more funds in its two Australian refineries, as it would be cheaper to operate refineries in Singapore, where there were no plans to introduce an emissions trading scheme.

Mr Segal also said the price of petrol would fall after the scheme came into operation, because the federal government would be reducing the fuel excise.

He said this would provide an incentive for people to use more petrol, rather than less.

“From Caltex’s point of view we do support an emission trading scheme of some kind as a tool to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases,” he told the forum. [Turkeys voting for Christmas again – Ed]

“However, the CRPS in the form it is in today is, I believe, flawed.”

Read it here.

… but will still vote it down anyway!

THE Nationals have given Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull the go-ahead to negotiate amendments to the federal government’s emissions trading scheme.

But they have vowed to vote against Labor legislation – amended or unamended – setting up the carbon pollution reduction scheme.

The Nationals and Liberals will thrash out amendments proposed by the shadow ministry during a special joint coalition parties meeting in Canberra on Sunday.

“Well, you support amendments to try to tone it down,” Nationals senate leader Barnaby Joyce told ABC Radio, adding it was “a safety provision“.

“You do everything in your power to turn the volume on this ridiculous tax down.”

Strange times indeed.

Read it here.

I don’t know which is funnier, hearing Ross Garnaut, the government’s own climate guru, slagging of the ETS he helped create, or listening to the government slagging off Ross Garnaut for daring to criticise it in the first place. It’s all too ridiculous for words:

The federal government has dismissed criticism of its planned emissions trading scheme by the man who helped develop Labor’s model.

Ross Garnaut has described the carbon pollution reduction scheme as “one of the worst examples of policy making we have seen on major issues in Australia“.

Professor Garnaut, the government’s former climate change adviser, said it was extraordinary how political debate about emissions trading had broken down.

Whose fault is that? Maybe Rudd & Wong should take some of the blame for trying to railroad the scheme through Parliament before Copenhagen when it makes absolutely no sense to do so.

Read it here.

The voters have had enough of the hysteria and alarmism peddled to them by the government and an obliging media. The greatest threat to humanity since the dawn of time (© Al Gore, James Hansen etc etc) is slipping steadily down the list as we collectively wake up to the dodgy science and the huge costs of an ETS:

AUSTRALIANS’ anxiety about climate change is falling substantially, even as the issue dominates political debate in Canberra.

The latest Lowy Institute poll shows that tackling climate change is viewed as only the seventh-most important of 10 foreign policy goals, and global warming the fourth of a dozen “threats to Australia’s vital interests”, just a point or two above other threats.

In 2007, tackling climate change was perceived as the joint top foreign policy goal, together with protecting the jobs of Australian workers.

In 2007, 75 per cent of those surveyed said climate change was a very important issue. Last year, this fell to 66 per cent, and this year to 56 per cent.

Global warming was viewed as “a critical threat” by 68 per cent in 2007, 66 per cent last year and 52 per cent this year.

So that’s a drop of 14% in one year, compared to just a 2% fall between 2007 and 2008.

Read it here.

UPDATE: Piers Ackerman dissects the whole thing here.