Climate Madness: EU signs its own economic death warrant

26 May, 2010 by

Dangerous pollution? No, steam.

The … world … has … gone … mad. I am sure many of you, like me, will simply not believe the content of this article. The EU is going through a time of almost unprecedented financial turmoil. The global economy is struggling to recover from the GFC, but in Europe things are still very precarious: Greece is sinking fast, and Spain isn’t far behind, trillions in debt, the Euro will soon be worthless, and the entire economy of the European Union may literally grind to a halt. So what do the morons at the European Commission decide to do? Set ridiculous unilateral targets for curbing CO2 emissions which will cripple Europe’s economy even faster. From the UK Times Online (via The Australian):

Europe will introduce a surprise new plan today to combat global warming, committing Britain and the rest of the EU to the most ambitious targets in the world. The plan proposes a massive increase in the target for cutting greenhouse gas emissions in this decade.

The European Commission is determined to press ahead with the cuts despite the financial turmoil gripping the bloc, even though it would require Britain and other EU member states to impose far tougher financial penalties on their industries than are being considered by other large economies.

The plan, to cut emissions by 30 per cent on 1990 levels by 2020, would cost the EU an extra £33 billion a year by 2020 [roughly AU$60 billion as of today], according to a draft of the Commission’s communication leaked to The Times.

The existing target of a 20 per cent cut is already due to cost £48 billion. The Commission will argue that the lower target has become much easier to meet because of the recession, which resulted in the EU’s emissions falling more than 10 per cent last year as thousands of factories closed or cut production. Emissions last year were already 14 per cent below 1990 levels. [What a great argument! Let’s cripple our economy, then we won’t have any emissions anyway! Brilliant!]

Business leaders fear that thousands of jobs could be lost and energy bills could soar. Carbon taxes on road fuel, heating and other sources of emissions could be introduced, with proceeds reinvested in renewable energy products. [Wind and solar, and we know how reliable they are]

The EU’s present policy is to wait for other countries to commit themselves to equivalent action on their emissions before raising its target to 30 per cent “as part of a genuine global effort”. But after the failure of the Copenhagen climate summit, a global deal on cutting emissions is now unlikely to be agreed until the end of next year.

Connie Hedegaard, the Climate Commissioner, will make the case for the EU to commit itself unilaterally to a 30 per cent cut, to inspire other countries to follow suit and accelerate the development of low-carbon industries.

This is Climate Madness on a simply staggering scale. My heartfelt sympathy goes out to those readers in the EU. It’s been nice knowing you, but sadly, by next year, you won’t be able to afford the electricity to switch on your computers…

Read it here.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: ,

Recipe for a climate scare story

26 May, 2010 by

Is the IPCC a corrupt political alarmist machine? Do polar bears shit in the Arctic?

OK folks, hope you’re all ready to put on your chef’s hats and venture to the kitchen to concoct a climate scare story. Firstly, we must have the right ingredients:

  • cuddly furry creature (in this case, a polar bear will do nicely)
  • a large serving of climate change hysteria
  • a tipping point or two (to taste)
  • a half-baked computer model
  • generous helping of hyperbole

Mix them all together, et voilà! Now feed to a desperate mainstream media organisation (the BBC) which will swallow anything.

Climate change will trigger a dramatic and sudden decline in the number of polar bears, a new study has concluded.

The research is the first to directly model how changing climate will affect polar bear reproduction and survival.

Based on what is known of polar bear physiology, behaviour and ecology, it predicts pregnancy rates will fall and fewer bears will survive fasting during longer ice-free seasons.

These changes will happen suddenly as bears pass a ‘tipping point’. [Do not pass Go, do not collect $200]

…

Dr [Peter] Molnar, Professor Andrew Derocher and colleagues from the University of Alberta and York University, Toronto focused on the physiology, behaviour and ecology of polar bears, and how these might change as temperatures increase.

“We developed a model for the mating ecology of polar bears. The model estimates how many females in a population will be able to find a mate during the mating season, and thus get impregnated.”

…

“In both cases, the expected changes in reproduction and survival were non-linear,” explains Dr Molnar.

“That is, as the climate warms, we may not see any substantial effect on polar bear reproduction and survival for a while, up until some threshold is passed, at which point reproduction and survival will decline dramatically and very rapidly.”

<sarc> I wonder if these computer models are as good as the IPCC’s climate models? </sarc>

Read the rest here, although to be honest, I really wouldn’t bother. (h/t WUWT)

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: , ,

"Global warming" makes Everest harder to climb

26 May, 2010 by

So hard even a 13-year-old can do it

Note how, that without a pause for breath, the media return to the term “global warming” when it suits? Even though global warming virtually stopped in 2001? But they need to make the link between “warming” and melting ice for this story:

Mount Everest is becoming increasingly dangerous to climb because global warming is melting glacier ice along its slopes, according to a Nepalese Sherpa who has conquered the world’s highest summit 20 times.

Rising temperatures have melted much of the ice on the steep trail to the summit and climbers are struggling to get traction on the exposed rock surface, according to the 49-year-old Sherpa, known only as Apa.

The melting ice has also exposed deep crevasses which climbers could fall into, and experts have warned that people scaling the mountain risk being swept away by “outburst floods” from rising volumes of glacial meltwater.

Could this possibly be the same Apa who, just four days ago, dedicated his climb with 13 year old American Jordan Romero to the impact of climate change on the Himalayas, a fact not even mentioned in the Telegraph report? Obviously an impartial assessment, then. Add it to the warmlist.

Read it here.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With:

Middle classes "bear brunt of liberal elite's obsession with climate change"

25 May, 2010 by

The green economy myth

We knew this already, but it’s refreshing to see it stated so bluntly, in the UK Telegraph. The governing intelligentsia, sitting in their ivory tower, insulated from reality, can pontificate about “sustainable lifestyles” as much as they like, without ever having to suffer the consequences of their actions. And this is also why wealthy celebrities are so quick to climb on any passing environmental bandwagon, safe in the knowledge that nothing they say or do will have the slightest effect on their cosy way of life, or their seven houses (yes, I’m talking about you, Jeremy Irons).

Joel Kotkin, an American expert in social trends, said environmental policies were being used as an excuse to restrict the expansion of the suburbs on the edge of towns and cities.

The result was “a direct assault on the quality of life for millions of working and middle class families“.

Mr Kotkin argued that working and middle class people suffered the most from well intentioned yet-ill thought out policies of liberal and urban elites.

Mr Kotkin said: “Long-term aesthetic arguments against suburbia have now evolved into a new emphasis on ‘sustainability’, largely in terms of greenhouse gas emissions.”

And the best bit of all:

Mr Kotkin argued that plans to build a new “green economy” in the UK were a myth that would never replace the economic and social benefits of traditional manufacturing.

We’ve said so all along.

Read it here.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: ,

Government climate adviser compares sceptics to "flat-earthers"

25 May, 2010 by

Censorship the next step?

See? We literally haven’t moved on one inch in this debate. Will Steffen, alarmist-in-chief to the Rudd government, wails that the climate debate is “infantile” – and his comments then perfectly make his point for him. Flat Earth Alert:

Speaking at a Melbourne summit on the green economy, Professor Will Steffen criticised the media for treating climate change science as a political issue in which two sides should be given a voice. [That’s the obvious next step of course – censorship of dissenting views – and to seriously think that the sceptics currently get a fair hearing in the MSM? Laughable]

While there were uncertainties about the pace and impact of change, he said, the core of climate science – that the world was warming and the primary cause since the middle of the last century had been industrial greenhouse gas emissions – should be accepted with the same confidence as the laws of gravity and relativity.

“Right now, this almost infantile debate about whether ‘is it real or isn’t it real?’, it’s like saying, ‘Is the Earth round or is it flat?’ [Climate change] is a hugely important question and yet we are not having a rational discourse in the media in Australia on this question. That is my biggest frustration.” He called on the media to focus on areas where there was not a consensus, including the link between climate change and the south-east Australian drought and how rapidly sea levels would rise. [Yet more calls for manipulation of the media to his own agenda]

This is the kind of crap that climate scientists are reduced to? Setting up pathetic straw men to then blow them over? We all agree on the basic science, that CO2 warms the atmosphere. What we disagree on is the complex science, like feedbacks and how much of the current warming is natural (which the IPCC doesn’t even consider), which neither you, nor your alarmist friends, nor your computer models have any clue about.

And to compare climate science to gravity or relativity or whether the earth is round or flat? I mean, really, you sure are scraping the barrel. Sorry, but the desperation is palpable.

Read it here.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: ,

Mammoth farts kept planet warm

24 May, 2010 by

"He who smelt it, dealt it."

And by the way, “mammoth farts” means farts from mammoths, and not just enormous farts from anyone else, like bad-mannered neanderthals. From the You Couldn’t Make It Up Department:

SCIENTISTS believe gassy mammoths helped to fill the atmosphere with methane and keep the Earth warm more than 13 thousand years ago.

Experts estimate that, together with other large plant-eating mammals that are now extinct, they released about 9.6 million tonnes of the gas each year.

When the megafauna disappeared there was a dramatic fall in atmospheric methane which may have altered the climate, British scientists say.

Analysis of gases trapped in ice cores suggests that the loss of animal emissions accounted for a large amount of the decline.

Read it here.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: ,

Australia "must do more to curb emissions"

24 May, 2010 by

No climate crisis, no Climate Institute

Vested Interests Alert as an organisation that owes its very existence to the climate change “crisis” urges Australia to do more to tackle climate change (in order to ensure its own survival). Can’t exactly imagine the Climate Institute saying, nah, nothing to worry about, can you, when it’s main purpose is to “drive innovative and effective climate change solutions” (see here):

A new report commissioned by The Climate Institute says Australia’s carbon pollution will continue to soar without price signals to make companies take responsibility for their emissions.

The environmental organisation has also launched a partnership with a range of prominent businesses to tackle climate change.

Climate Institute chief executive John Connor says the report shows Australia is being left behind the rest of the world in developing renewable energies.

Mr Connor says a move to amend the renewable energy target will only go so far in addressing the problem.

“While amendments to the renewable energy target will help restructure our polluting power sector and drive billions of dollars of investments in new technologies and skills, Australia’s pollution will continue to soar unless we get extra policies that make companies responsible for their pollution,” he said.

Mr Connor says the nation’s major political parties are holding back investment.

A more blatant example of cynical self-preservation is difficult to imagine. Read it here.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: ,

2010 could be "hottest year on record"

24 May, 2010 by

Throw some more snags on the barbie, mate

So screams the headline in The Times, conveniently forgetting to mention that “on record” means since about 1880, but “hottest year since 1880” doesn’t sound anywhere near as scary. But anyway, it’s a great opportunity to wheel out über-alarmist James Hansen:

CLIMATE scientists have warned that 2010 could turn out to be the warmest year in recorded history [since 1880].

They have collated global surface temperature measurements showing that the world has experienced near-record highs between January and April.

Researchers working independently at the Met Office and Nasa are soon to publish data that reveal the trend is likely to continue for the rest of the year. [Hmm, that’s odd, given that El Niño is fading fast, we’re heading towards La Niña conditions, and sea surface temperatures are heading south rapidly, but if the models say that then it must be true, surely?]

James Hansen [round of applause please], director of Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (Giss), a world centre for climate monitoring, said: “Global temperatures, averaged over the past 12 months, were the warmest for 130 years. [Big freaking deal]

“December to February was also the second-warmest of any such period [since 1880].”

Vicky Pope, head of climate change advice at the Met Office, said: “It was a cold winter in Europe but, globally, January to March was one of the seven warmest starts to the year on record [since 1880].

“This year has more than a 50% chance of being the warmest on record [since 1880].”

None of this proves anything about a link to man-made emissions. The planet is recovering from the Little Ice Age, so is it any wonder that this decade is warmer than last? And there’s been a strong El Niño, so is it any wonder that the start of this year is warmer than the end of last? Not really. At least there’s a bit of sanity at the end:

John Christy, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, was cautious about predicting record temperatures for 2010, pointing out that the global datasets for temperature had flaws that could lead to rises being overstated [that’s a polite way of saying “they’re fudged” – Ed]. He said: “Be wary of climate forecasts — Mother Nature always seems to have a trick up her sleeve.”

Yeah, remember her, James Hansen? Mother Nature?

Read it here.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: , ,

Transperth advert calls CO2 "poisonous"

23 May, 2010 by

This is the level or ignorance we have reached, where Transperth, the government department in Western Australia responsible for public transport, broadcasts a television advert that refers to “poisonous CO2”. In the few hundred parts per million it is in the atmosphere, it is completely harmless, and (cue junior school biology lesson) is essential for life on earth. But hey, don’t let the facts get in the way of a scary story.

Idiotic.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With:

UN: Biodiversity crisis worse than climate change

23 May, 2010 by

Hysteria Co., Inc.

As I predicted here, the UN can see what it thought was its free ticket to global government (climate change) disappearing before its very eyes, so it is now on the lookout for another cause through which to regulate, tax and generally interfere in the lives of ordinary people – and here it is:

The economic case for global action to stop the destruction of the natural world is even more powerful than the argument for tackling climate change, a major report for the United Nations will declare this summer.

The Stern report on climate change, which was prepared for the UK Treasury and published in 2007, famously claimed that the cost of limiting climate change would be around 1%-2% of annual global wealth, but the longer-term economic benefits would be 5-20 times that figure.

The UN’s biodiversity report – dubbed the Stern for Nature – is expected to say that the value of saving “natural goods and services”, such as pollination, medicines, fertile soils, clean air and water, will be even higher – between 10 and 100 times the cost of saving the habitats and species which provide them.

Read it here.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: ,
«Previous Page
Next Page»