Yesterday it was the climate scientists’ turn to scare the public into believing that CO2 will cause the apocalypse, and today it’s the Federal government, in a report to be released about the effect of “climate change” on World Heritage sites. The report has been prepared by ANU, so you can bet that it will have Wong adviser Will Steffen’s fingerprints all over it.

None of this is surprising, however, because the government inevitably will ramp up its efforts, in advance of the Senate vote on 13 August, to mislead the unsuspecting public into thinking that the ETS will actually make some discernible difference to the climate, and therefore to the fate of Australia’s World Heritage sites. I have news for you: it won’t.

I hope you are sitting down for this, because it’s a veritable smorgasbord of all the worst scaremongering you will ever hear from the Aussie alarmists:

THE Royal Exhibition Building, the Sydney Opera House and the Great Barrier Reef could be wiped off the map if runaway climate change is left unchecked, a new Federal Government report claims. [This runaway climate change must have escaped me, because personally, I haven’t noticed, and neither have the satellites measuring global temperature – Ed]

The Department of Climate Change’s damning insight into the future of our most treasured heritage sites forecasts rising sea levels, drought and extreme weather as factors that could see buildings and natural landmarks devastated.

The preliminary assessment of Australia’s World Heritage sites predicts:

• The Royal Carlton Gardens could wither and the Exhibition Building could crumble with faster deterioration from higher temperatures.
• The Sydney Opera House could be battered by storm surges and rising sea levels and could be infested by pests because of habitat change.
• The Great Barrier Reef faces coral bleaching and a halt in growth from higher ocean acid levels, as well as rising mortality rates for seabirds, turtles and other species.
• Kakadu National Park could see an outbreak of diseases such as malaria because of increased temperatures, plus erosion from cyclones and extreme weather.

I could go on to dissect all this, but really, I can’t be bothered. It’s Sunday. I will post a link to the report when it is online.

Just a final word, remember that the government still does not acknowledge the existence of the Medieval Warm Period or the Little Ice Age and is still using the “Hockey Stick” from the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report, shown to be a fraud years ago, as demonstrated by this graph in the Climate Change Department’s web site:

Read it here.

Are we all ready for our morning dose of Fairfax alarmism? The warm-mongers are getting desperate. The planet continues to ignore the predictions of flaky climate models, and has cooled since 2001, and the warmenistas are starting to worry that they’ll be out of a job if this whole “global warming” scam [surely “climate change” scam – Ed] is revealed to be nothing more than natural climate variations which humanity can do nothing about except adapt.

So what do they do? Resort to even more desperate misrepresentations, which, let’s face it, are bordering on outright lies. Let’s pick them apart.

• The global average temperature has increased by about 0.8 degrees since 1850, with most of the increase occurring since 1950. The warming varies among decades because of natural fluctuations but the overall trend has been inexorably upward.

Yes, the trend has been “inexorably upward” because the climate is recovering from the Little Ice Age, which most alarmists try very hard to ignore. It’s like saying the temperature trend from winter to spring is “inexorably upward” which would surprise nobody. Most of the 20th century warming occurred before 1950, when carbon emissions were negligible, and they conveniently forget to mention the whole “new Ice Age” scare in the 1970s, when emissions were rising faster than ever.

• Warming is evident in other indicators, such as rising sea levels and reduced sea-ice and snow cover.

Again, sea levels have been rising at an almost constant rate for several thousand years, and there has been no discernible change in that rate of increase, except, if anything, a possible slowing down in the last few years. Arctic sea ice may have reduced recently, but Antarctic sea ice has increased hugely and is at the same levels as thirty years ago – why did they forget to mention that?

• Of these, the most important measure is the extra heat in the oceans, which is steadily rising.

There has been no increase in ocean heat since 2003 (see here).

The article then moves on to other “conclusions”:

The second conclusion is that the dominant cause of the warming since about 1950 is the increase in the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases released by human activities, of which carbon dioxide (CO2) is the most important.

This critical conclusion is based on several independent lines of evidence, including basic physics, studies of climate changes in both in the geological past and in the industrial era, and finally – but far from solely [yeah, right – Ed] – from the predictions of climate models. Together, these provide an overwhelming case that increasing greenhouse gas concentrations cause warming, and that CO2 is the largest contributor to the current warming trend.

No explanations why they conclude this, you will note. Just accept what we say, peasants, and don’t ask difficult questions. They also avoid the tricky subject of why the planet has cooled since 2001 with ever increasing CO2 emissions.

The third conclusion is that warming will increase in future, if emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases maintain their present paths. “Business as usual” scenarios for future emissions lead to likely global temperature increases of up to six degrees above present temperatures by 2100.

Where do they get this figure from? The same flaky models, despite them being only used as an afterthought, apparently. And then, just to ram home their desperation further, the usual “it’s all happening faster than we thought”:

New findings suggest that the situation is, if anything, more serious than the assessment of just a few years ago.

The heightened concern among climate scientists arises from a growing realisation that climate change can be accelerated beyond current predictions by reinforcing “climate feedbacks”, which contribute to climate change and are accelerated as it occurs, thus causing climate change to feed on itself. When these feedbacks are sufficiently strong they become “climate tipping points” which can flip the climate into a new state with essentially no way to recover.

And this is the trump card the alarmists love to play – the “tipping point”. The planet has been warmer in the past, and, strangely, there were no climate tipping points then. But the whole idea of a “point of no return” is such a useful tactic for the alarmists to scare the unwitting public that they aren’t going to drop it in a hurry. In their view, the climate is balanced precariously on a knife edge, and the slightest prod, whether from man or natural causes, will send it spiralling into oblivion. This is despite no evidence of this ever happening in the past (and please don’t quote the planet Venus at me, there are so many differences that it isn’t the slightest bit analogous to Earth).

And no mention, you will notice, of the possibility of any negative feedbacks, such as increased cloud cover or precipitation, which may transport energy away from the planet or reduce incoming solar radiation, to push the climate towards its original starting point. Feedbacks, in the alarmists’ minds, are always positive.

That’s enough. I can’t stand any more. Here’s the last paragraph, the usual call to immediate action, no matter what the cost:

All of these concerns are firmly grounded in science. They have led the great majority of climate scientists to conclude (paraphrasing the summary of the Copenhagen conference) that rapid, sustained and effective emissions reductions are required to avoid ‘‘dangerous climate change’’, regardless of how it is defined.

Here’s the rogues’ gallery of authors, so you can keep an eye out for them in future:

• Michael Raupach and John Church, CSIRO
• David Griggs, Amanda Lynch and Neville Nicholls, Monash University
• Nathan Bindoff, Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Co-operative Research Centre
• Matthew England and Andy Pitman, University of NSW
• Ann Henderson-Sellers and Lesley Hughes, Macquarie University
• Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, University of Queensland
• Roger Jones, Victoria University
• David Karoly, University of Melbourne [über-alarmist extraordinaire]
• Tony McMichael and Will Steffen [Penny Wong’s climate advisor], Australian National University.

Read it here, but you have been warned.

It’s like banging your head against a very large, very solid brick wall listening to Penny Wong. Nothing, repeat nothing, ever gets through. So we’ve hardly had a chance to draw breath after UN climate change bigwig Yvo de Boer said that we don’t need to legislate the ETS before Copenhagen, and guess what Penny does? That’s right, completely ignores it and ploughs on regardless, as she makes clear in this transcript from ABC’s The World Today. Sabra Lane doesn’t do a bad job of trying to get Ms Wong’s icy façade to crack, but it’s just no use:

SABRA LANE: Penny Wong, the head of the United Nations’ climate change agency Yvo de Boer says it doesn’t matter if Australia doesn’t have an emissions trading scheme in place by the time of the Copenhagen talks in December.

That blows a pretty big hole in your argument, doesn’t it?

PENNY WONG: Well look what Yvo went on to say was that these are matters of domestic policy and domestic issues. What the Government is saying to the Australian people is this – that we want Australia, Australian businesses to know how we will meet the targets we sign up to in Copenhagen. We think that is the responsible thing to do and that is what passing the legislation will provide.

SABRA LANE: But he was specifically asked if it mattered and he said quite honestly, no.

PENNY WONG: The Government’s view is and it’s a very logical position is that a failure to legislate does weaken our negotiating position.

We have to look at the national interest. We think it is in the national interest to ensure that we have a way of meeting the targets we sign up to and when I as Minister and in Copenhagen, I want Australians to know how we can meet the targets that we will be committing to.

I am utterly sick and tired of listening to the same old nonsense from this arrogant, self-satisfied, self-opinionated, out of touch government.

Read it here.

Back in January, ACM made the comment that those who deny that the planet is cooling will be the new “deniers” in 2009 (see here). Dr Roy Spencer has picked up on that same theme in a new article, branding them “natural climate cycle deniers”:

The natural climate cycle deniers have tried their best to eliminate the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age from climate data records by constructing the uncritically acclaimed and infamous “hockey stick” of global temperature variations (or non-variations) over the last one- to two-thousand years.
…
And when the natural cycle deniers demand changes in energy policy, most of them never imagine that they might personally be inconvenienced by those policies. Like Al Gore, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., and Leonardo DiCaprio, they scornfully look down upon the rest of humanity for using up the natural resources that they want for themselves.

And the few who freely choose to live such a life then want to deny others the freedom to choose, by either regulating or legislating everyone else’s behavior to conform to their own behavior.

The natural climate cycle deniers’ supposedly impartial science is funded by government research dollars that would mostly dry up if the fears of manmade global warming were to evaporate. With contempt they point at the few million dollars that Exxon-Mobil spent years ago to support a few scientists who maintained a healthy skepticism about the science, while the scientific establishment continues to spent tens of billions of your tax dollars.

Read it all!

Kevin Rudd’s excuses for trying to force through the ETS legislation before Copenhagen are in tatters. Now even the moonbattish UN has stated that there is no urgency for the scheme to be in place before the climate summit:

It won’t matter if Australia doesn’t have its emissions trading scheme finalised by December’s Copenhagen climate change talks, the head of the UN’s climate change agency says.

Other nations will only care that the federal government has made a commitment to reduce emissions targets ahead of the summit, Yvo de Boer says.
…
“I think everybody is very happy with what Australia is doing,” he told ABC radio.

But when asked whether it mattered if Australia arrived at Copenhagen in December with a scheme in place, he replied: “Quite honestly no.”

So there you have it, from the horse’s mouth: a commitment is all that’s required. Kevin Rudd’s blinkered urge to see the ETS enshrined in legislation before December is exposed as nothing but political posturing. Enough is enough, Mr Rudd. Delay the ETS until after Copenhagen. End of story.

Read it here.

UPDATE: See Penny Wong’s knee-jerk response here [Can you guess what it is? – Ed]

A welcome return for the Weekly Roundup – always a great read!

More of the same from our great leader. Spin, spin and more spin, especially on climate. Don’t forget of course, he’s preaching to the ALP faithful, so he can say what the hell he likes and get away with it, which, curiously, is precisely what he does…

The climate change sceptics constantly scare-monger about the possible loss of jobs through the transition to a lower carbon economy. [“Possible”? Try “inevitable” – Ed]

But they constantly fail to talk about the new clean energy jobs of the future which will arise from the introduction of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, the renewable energy target and energy efficiency measures in the future. [Ah, yes, of course, the new green economy – a myth – Ed]

Specifically, these fifty thousand positions will be made up of: [Hope you’re ready for this…]

• 4000 disadvantaged job seekers participating in the current insulation program [paid for by the taxpayer];
• 6000 local green jobs through the jobs fund;
• 10,000 places in a new National Green Jobs Corps; [WTF? – Ed]
  
• 30,000 trainees and apprentices in priority sectors of the building and construction sectors and other trades, where places will concentrate across the range of “green skills” competencies that will be needed in the future. These will be achieved through a new National Green Skills Agreement and will start building a new skill base in existing industries and cutting-edge industries, and create jobs and opportunities for generations to come. [Can someone please tell me, is this for real or have we moved into some kind of “Chaser”-style parody land? – Ed]

The practical job-ready skills included in this training will include:

• Training electricians in the installation of solar energy [which nobody wants];
• Training plumbers in the installation of water-recycling, plumbing systems; and
• Training workers in the booming home insulation industry and the retro-fitting of buildings to reduce energy consumption. [All paid for by you and me and every other poor taxpayer in the country – Ed]
  

There really is no comment which will do justice to this pitiful nonsense.

Read it here.

Gordon Brown’s lame duck government continues to plough headlong into economic oblivion by crippling the economy with emissions reduction schemes and believing the fairytale that renewable energy is currently a realistic alternative to coal. And now yet another spanner is thrown in the works, as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) lodges formal protests against a new wind farm:

Europe’s largest onshore windfarm project has been thrown in severe doubt after the RSPB and official government agencies lodged formal objections to the 150-turbine plan, it emerged today.

The setback adds to the problems facing the government’s ambition to install 10,000 new turbines across the UK by 2020 as part of its plan to cut the carbon emissions causing climate change. [This is the lefty/moonbat Guardian, after all, hence the lack of any qualifying “which may be” in that last statement. Science is settled, you denier you – Ed]

The proposed 550MW windfarm, sprawling across the centre of Shetland’s main island, would add almost 20% to existing onshore wind capacity. But the objectors say the plans could seriously damage breeding sites for endangered birds, including a rare wader, the whimbrel, which was unexpectedly discovered by the windfarm developer’s own environmental survey teams. [Oops! Classic own goal there! Fire that environmental survey team’s butt – Ed] Other species at risk include the red throated diver, golden plover and merlin.

The RSPB heavily criticised the proposal from Viking Energy after initially indicating it could support the scheme.

Read it here. (h/t Daily Bayonet)

Next time you hear an alarmist parrot the line: “Global warming is causing more frequent and more intense hurricanes/tropical cyclones” (© Al Gore and thousands of others), point them to the following chart, which shows Northern Hemisphere Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) in May, June and July:
Note how nothing has changed significantly since 1970… And as Anthony Watts points out, note where 2009 is in the scheme of things.

Read it here.

Another blow for Malcolm Turnbull’s terminally wounded leadership. Peter Costello has defended Wilson Tuckey in his call for more open debate on the ETS:

“Wilson Tuckey is an enormously successful candidate in elections. He has enormous support in that electorate and he’s a highly intelligent person. I have not agreed with everything Wilson has said over the years, and over the years he has said some pretty funny things about me.

“But I’ll tell you this, he’s a very intelligent man.

“And I’ll make this point: that, when you go to Canberra … you are entitled to put your view in the partyroom. Nothing wrong with putting a view.”

Mr Costello said it was best that the views were agreed in the “forums of the Liberal Party” and it was best that “the members support that decision”.

“You’re there to represent your constituents and to bring a view,” he said. “And I think a vigorous debate never hurt any political party.“

Read it here.