Climategate was indeed a "game changer"

6 July, 2010 by

Nothing to see here

But hang on a minute – haven’t we just spent the past six months listening to scores of AGW-funded scientists try and sweep the whole Climategate debacle under the carpet? Wheeling out the “nothing to see here” line? What’s more amazing is that this piece is published in The Age, or “Pravda on the Yarra” as it is less than affectionately known (kind of the Aussie version of The Guardian). It appears that climate scientists are all of a sudden suffering pangs of remorse for all the hype and spin, and think that more openness and honesty is required. Well, bravo at last for that.

SENIOR climate scientists have conceded that their world has changed irrevocably – and for the better – in the wake of the so-called Climategate scandal.

As Sir Muir Russell, chairman of the inquiry into the leak of the University of East Anglia emails, finalises his report for publication in Britain tomorrow [which we can guarantee will be another paper-thin whitewash], scientists the world over agree the affair was a ”game changer”.

”The release of the emails was a turning point,” Mike Hulme, professor of climate change at the University of East Anglia, told The Guardian . ”The community has been brought up short by the row over their science. Already there is a new tone. Researchers are more upfront, open and explicit about their uncertainties.”

Bob Ward, policy director of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change at the London School of Economics, said researchers had to accept that the affair would not only result in their own science being judged but also their motives, professionalism, integrity and ”all those other qualities that are considered important in public life”.

…

Hans von Storch of the KGSS Research Centre in Geesthacht, Germany, told the newspaper that trust had been damaged by the affair:

“People now find it conceivable that scientists cheat and manipulate, and understand that scientists need societal supervision as any other societal institution,” he said.

…

Judith Curry, of the Georgia Institute of Technology, the scientist who has worked hard to try to reconcile warring factions, said the idea of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change scientists as ”self-appointed oracles, enhanced by the Nobel prize, is now in tatters”.

The outside world, she said, could now see that the science of climate was ”more complex and uncertain than they have been led to believe”.

Alle-freaking-luia. As I have said many times before, I have no axe to grind whether CO2 is causing climate change or not, but I do expect our governments to make decisions on the future of the planet based on impartial, unbiased science, not on quasi-religious, politically motivated dogma.

Read it here.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With:

Idiotic Comment of the Day: Kylie Kwong

5 July, 2010 by

Worthy winner

I guess there’s now one more restaurant I won’t need to bother trying out. Chef Kylie Kwong earns the ICOTD Gong for this one:

“The big picture for me is: how can I help combat climate change? I truly believe that climate change is the most pressing topic of the 21st Century,” Kwong says.

What selective amnesia the environmentalists have. How about poverty, disease or war? You know, things that actually cause people harm, rather than merely imaginary harm in the workings of a dodgy computer model? Really, get a grip.

Read it here.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With:

Must read: Matt Ridley – "Down with Doom"

3 July, 2010 by

Matt Ridley (from rationaloptimist.com)

Matt Ridley exposes the culture of doom that pervades our existence, of which global warming is but the latest in a very, very long line. It certainly won’t be the last, for as we know, the UN is now focussing on biodiversity as the planet’s next crisis. Personally, I recall, as a small boy growing up in suburban south-west London, the Ice Age scare of the mid-1970s, which terrified the pants off me. I had nightmares about it, thanks to over-zealous environmentalists who extrapolated the small, natural cooling to something catastrophic. Sound familiar?

When I was a student, in the 1970s, the world was coming to an end. The adults told me so. They said the population explosion was unstoppable, mass famine was imminent, a cancer epidemic caused by chemicals in the environment was beginning, the Sahara desert was advancing by a mile a year, the ice age was returning, oil was running out, air pollution was choking us and nuclear winter would finish us off. There did not seem to be much point in planning for the future. I remember a fantasy I had – that I would make my way to the Hebrides, off the west coast of Scotland, and live off the land so I could survive these holocausts at least till the cancer got me.

I am not making this up. By the time I was 21 years old I realized that nobody had ever said anything optimistic to me – in a lecture, a television program or even a conversation in a bar – about the future of the planet and its people, at least not that I could recall. Doom was certain.

The next two decades were just as bad: acid rain was going to devastate forests, the loss of the ozone layer was going to fry us, gender-bending chemicals were going to decimate sperm counts, swine flu, bird flu and Ebola virus were going to wipe us all out. In 1992, the United Nations Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro opened its agenda for the twenty-first century with the words `Humanity stands at a defining moment in history. We are confronted with a perpetuation of disparities between and within nations, a worsening of poverty, hunger, ill health and illiteracy, and the continuing deterioration of the ecosystems on which we depend for our well-being.’

By then I had begun to notice that this terrible future was not all that bad. In fact every single one of the dooms I had been threatened with had proved either false or exaggerated. The population explosion was slowing down, famine had largely been conquered (except in war-torn tyrannies), India was exporting food, cancer rates were falling not rising (adjusted for age), the Sahel was greening, the climate was warming, oil was abundant, air pollution was falling fast, nuclear disarmament was proceeding apace, forests were thriving, sperm counts had not fallen. And above all, prosperity and freedom were advancing at the expense of poverty and tyranny.

…

Where are the pressure groups that have an interest in telling the good news? They do not exist. By contrast, the behemoths of bad news, such as Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and WWF, spend hundreds of millions of dollars a year and doom is their best fund-raiser. Where is the news media’s interest in checking out how pessimists’ predictions panned out before? There is none.

Read it all!

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With:

Penn State whitewash clears Michael Mann

3 July, 2010 by

Squeaky clean?

Penn State knows how to look after its own. Avoiding difficult questions and clearing Michael Mann of anything. And this is just the latest in a string of so-called investigations into dodgy practices exposed by Climategate, all of which have, amazingly, found nothing wrong! How’s that for consistency?

The ABC gleefully reports:

American climate change scientist Michael Mann has been cleared of manipulating his research findings.

The allegations arose in the ‘climategate’ scandal which erupted when emails between Dr Mann and other scientists were taken [er, leaked, more likely] from a computer at the University of East Anglia in Britain and posted on the internet.

The Pennsylvania State University findings follow two other investigations in Britain effectively exonerating climate scientists accused of misconduct. [Whitewash, whitewash, whitewash]

Dr Mann’s data adjustment procedures in particular were called into question when private email messages between him other scientists were posted on the internet.

The Pennsylvania university received a number of complaints about its professor’s conduct and it launched two separate investigations in response.

They looked broadly at whether Dr Mann had falsified, suppressed or destroyed data, or deviated from accepted research practices.

In a surprising display of balance, however, the ABC also quotes a view critical of the investigation:

But John Roskam, executive director of the Melbourne-based free-market think tank the Institute of Public Affairs, says questions still remain over Dr Mann’s research.

“This was not an independent review – this was effectively the university examining itself and the result is entirely predictable,” he said.

“The university was highly unlikely to be critical of one of its most high-profile academics who has received hundreds of thousands of dollars in research grants.”

Mr Roskam says the four separate ‘climategate’ inquiries – two in Britain and now two in the US – are all compromised.

“The reviews did not answer the questions about why data was missing; why data was not shared; why there hasn’t been a full and open, transparent process,” he said.

“Unfortunately many people still think that these reviews and processes are part of a general lack of transparency about the whole climate change debate.” (source)

And Marc Morano sums up the whole shabby affair:

This is not surprising that Mann’s own university circled the wagons and narrowed the focus of its own investigation to declare him ethical.

‘The fact that the investigation cited Mann’s ‘level of success in proposing research and obtaining funding’ as some sort of proof that he was meeting the ‘highest standards’, tells you that Mann is considered a sacred funding cash cow. At the height of his financial career, similar sentiments could have been said about Bernie Madoff.

Mann has become the posterboy of the corrupt and disgraced climate science echo chamber. No university whitewash investigation will change that simple reality.’ (source)

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: ,

Climate nonsense from Australia's Chief Scientist

2 July, 2010 by

Eyes closed, ears closed, brain closed

Who isn’t really a scientist at all any more. She has become an alarmist environmental advocate, along with the majority of the climate science community. She has already decided that “the debate is over” and that we should all be blindly committed to “tackling the problem”, and screwing our economy for no benefit whatsoever. All of this is evidenced by her wholly unscientific comments at the Gold Coast climate conference:

”Often a scientific argument for climate change, and the ways in which humanity has contributed to it, is confused with political or economic arguments for or against a particular course of action to mitigate or adapt to climate change,” she said.

‘‘The consensus within the scientific community about the main points of the science is strong, [sorry what has consensus to do with science again?] whereas the consensus within the political community – and those who elect them – about what to do about it is less strong.

”While it is unfortunate that Australian politics and a large fraction of the citizenry may be polarised with respect to the best course of climate action, it would be not only unhelpful but tragic if this polarisation led to a societal divide in our commitment to act.”

On the ”gap” between the scientific understanding of climate change and that of policymakers and the public, Professor Sackett said scientists needed to better translate their work into lay terms.

Yet more weasel words, and more blaming “lack of communication” for the fact the public aren’t buying the spin.

Eyes closed, ears closed and brain closed. What hope is there for impartial, freethinking scientific enquiry with quasi-religious dogma like this from Australia’s Chief Scientist?

Read it here.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: ,

Brace yourselves for even more alarmism

2 July, 2010 by

Where's the acceleration?

No matter what happens to the climate between now and the publication of the IPCC’s 5th Assessment Report, we can be sure that the alarmism will be ratcheted up to ever more preposterous heights to keep the research funds flooding in. Everything will be bigger, faster, badder, worse than we thought, quicker than we thought etc, etc. The IPCC, and thousands of climate scientists, are too dependent on the “global warming” scare to let it go without a fight. And it’s started already. The IPCC’s AR4 predictions for sea level rise were exaggerated enough, but AR5 will be worse:

THE world’s peak scientific body on climate change [I think not] will ”almost inevitably” make an increase in its predictions of sea-level rises due to global warming in its next landmark report in 2014, the vice-chair of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says.

Jean-Pascal van Ypersele told The Age recent satellite observations showed extensive melting in the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets.

That new data will be considered in the IPCC’s next assessment report – regarded by governments and scientific groups as the world’s pre-eminent scientific document on climate change – and should lead to an increase in predictions of sea-level rises, Professor van Ypersele said.

The sea-level rises estimated in the IPCC’s last assessment report, released in 2007, were now on the low side. [See, what did I just say? It’s all bigger, badder, faster]

That report put sea-level rises at 18 to 59 centimetres above 1990 levels by 2100.

Members of the IPCC met in Kuala Lumpur last week to discuss the consideration of the Greenland and Antarctic data for the IPCC’s next report – its fifth. Analysis of the extent of reduction in mass of the two major ice sheets will be the report’s main focus.

”The reason there was a workshop in KL is that the IPCC knows very well this is an area that needs particular attention and where a lot of progress has been made,” Professor van Ypersele said.

New satellite data ”are starting to show – but are quite convincing, I must say – that both the Greenland ice sheet and the Antarctic ice sheet are losing net mass, not on the margins but as an ice sheet”, he said.

Funny that the sea level record shows no acceleration of sea level rise, despite attempts to show otherwise.

Strap yourselves in, folks, it’s gonna be one hell of a ride.

Read it here.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: , ,

Daily Bayonet GW Hoax Weekly Roundup

2 July, 2010 by

Skewering the clueless

As always, a great read!

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With:

Climate madness: New Zealand begins ETS

1 July, 2010 by

Wave your economy goodbye

Token Gesture Alert as the government of New Zealand, unable to think straight thanks to years of green environmental propaganda, brings in its emissions trading scheme. New Zealand emits about 0.1% of global CO2. So even if New Zealand reduced its emissions to zero overnight, AND it were demonstrated that the climate sensitivity is large enough to notice (which it hasn’t been), it would make not the slightest bit of difference to the climate. Not only that, but I hardly think that China and India are going to look at New Zealand, and, wracked with guilt and remorse by the plucky little country’s valiant efforts to save the planet, stop their coal fired economies in their tracks. Not on your life. China and India are far too busy building their prosperity and lifting their populations out of poverty. It’s only wealthy countries can afford the luxury of pointless environmental gestures like this.

So the only result will be higher prices for poor Kiwis. Everything will cost more: electricity, petrol, groceries, consumer goods – everything – since everything (virtually) requires energy for its production or transportation. As the ABC reports:

New Zealanders are bracing for higher electricity and fuel prices with the introduction of an emissions trading scheme (ETS).

From today New Zealanders will pay around three cents a litre more for fuel.

Electricity bills are set to increase by up to 5 per cent as companies pass on the costs of buying carbon credits to consumers.

Environment minister Dr Nick Smith says New Zealand had to act because its greenhouse gas emissions have increased by 25 per cent over the past 20 years. [So from absolutely tiny, to slightly less absolutely tiny]

“It’s actually about New Zealand starting the path, starting the change to a less carbon intensive economy,” he said. (source)

Good luck with that. Just watch your industries move offshore, and your economy decline for no purpose whatsoever.

Climate madness.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: ,

Bullet dodged – Australian ETS was due to start today

1 July, 2010 by

Just like Neo (The Matrix)

Unlike other countries which have succumbed to emissions trading schemes, all of which:

  • have significantly damaged the host country’s economy;
  • have wasted precious resources that could have been spent on health, education, you name it;
  • are mired in fraud and carbon scams by organised crime gangs; and,
  • most importantly, will have no discernible effect on the climate,

Australia has, for the time being at least, been spared. Sky News tearfully mourns the ETS that wasn’t:

Australians were supposed to be waking up today to life under an emissions trading scheme.

But that birthday has been delayed by years, pleasing critics of the scheme and disappointing conservationists.

Former Labor leader Kevin Rudd said climate change was the great moral challenge of our time and promised to start an ETS on July 1.

The ETS would have forced up the price of dirty products like coal-fired power and gas and possibly petrol and beef to encourage people to use less. [Actually, it wouldn’t have forced them to use less, it would have forced them to pay more – big difference]

The scheme would also have allowed Australia to reduce greenhouse pollution. [No, it wouldn’t.] (source)

Good riddance, and let’s hope we never see it again.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With:

Sydney's coldest June morning since 1949

30 June, 2010 by

Winter wonderland!

Forget the Gore Effect, here we have the “Watts Effect” – Anthony Watts comes to Australia and suddenly we’re setting records for cold! From the “Weather Isn’t Climate” department (except when we say it is):

People across south-east Australia are complaining about unusually chilly temperatures and experts say there will be no relief from the cold until Sunday at the earliest.

…

But ABC weather specialist Graham Creed says people’s complaints are justified.

“It’s definitely quite unusual to see such widespread cold weather in June, it would be more typical in July and August,” he said.

“So people are complaining about the cold for a good reason.”

Mr Creed says most areas across the south-east are experiencing temperatures well below average.

“Last weekend a cool change moved through and that introduced some significantly colder air across most of south-east Australia,” he said.

“Quickly in behind that we had a high pressure ridge move through, producing clear skies during both the day and the night, but it’s also helping to trap that cold air in.

“The clear skies mean we are losing what little daytime heating there is and overnight temperatures are dropping into the minuses through many of those states, producing widespread frosts.

“On top of that we’ve got quite a breeze in certain areas and the air is very dry so that’s producing very low wind chill, so not only is the sun not providing much warmth, you’ve also got the assistance of the wind making it feel colder than it actually is.”

…

Sydney recorded its coldest June morning today since 1949, with temperatures diving to 4.3 degrees just before 6:00am (AEST). (source)

That would be at Sydney Observatory. And in a pretty good demonstration of the Urban Heat Island effect, the ACM weather station (a Davis Vantage Pro 2) up on the North Shore of Sydney recorded a minimum temperature of just 0.4˚C at 7.40 am this morning.

Plot of temperature at the ACM weather station

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