Senate to investigate damaging effects of wind farms

24 June, 2011 by

The best thing that can happen to a wind farm

Wind farms are, as we all know, inefficient, expensive and ugly. And that’s just their good points. They are also a scandalous waste of money, generating pitiful amounts of electricity, and rarely running at more than 25% of their rated capacity. And back-up traditional power stations are still required for when the wind isn’t blowing, or isn’t blowing hard enough (which is most of the time). Not only that but there are other concerns too:

URGENT research should be undertaken into the potentially damaging health effects of wind farms on nearby residents, says a landmark Senate report released yesterday.

In a dramatic win for residents’ groups who have raised widespread concerns about the impact of wind farms on rural communities, the committee recommended that noise measurements be expanded to include low-frequency noise, or infrasound.

Campaigners welcomed the report and said there should be an immediate halt to wind farm developments until the potential health impacts were better understood.

According to the Clean Energy Council, there are 53 wind farms operating in Australia, with 1089 operating turbines that can reach the height of a 45-storey building and have blades up to 50m long.

…

The majority Senate report yesterday called for tougher rules on noise, new rules to govern how close wind farms can be built to houses, and an independent arbitrator to hear complaints.

It said arbitrary setbacks – the distance that a wind farm must be built from a residence – may not be adequate and each situation may need to be considered on its merits.

But the most dramatic findings were in the area of potential harm from low-frequency noise.

The committee said the commonwealth government should initiate as a matter of priority “thorough, adequately resourced epidemiological and laboratory studies of the possible effects of wind farms on human health”.

It doesn’t matter what route we take, as long as we put a stop to the wind farm madness.

Read it here.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With:

Daily Bayonet GW Hoax Weekly Roundup

24 June, 2011 by

Skewering the clueless

As always, a great read!

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With:

Monckton oversteps the mark

23 June, 2011 by

Not a good look

I have to confess that I have mixed feelings about Lord Monckton as an advocate for the sceptics cause. On the one hand, he has built up a loyal following and his presentations are always entertaining.

But on the other, he comes across as rather eccentric (and this is in no way a criticism, merely an observation, and it is the unfortunate reality that eccentricity can subtract from credibility), a little out of touch perhaps (every PowerPoint slide features an aristocratic portcullis, both unnecessary and alienating), and, of more concern, some of his claims are sitting targets for alarmists.

We had an exchange of emails back in January regarding the baseline year for claims that temperatures had fallen (see here) which ACM viewed as unhelpful. Read the correspondence and form your own view.

But I think my mind has been made up after this latest episode. The climate debate has become even more vicious and personal in recent days and weeks. Only yesterday I posted about Jill Singer’s suggestion that sceptics should gas themselves with carbon monoxide. Richard Glover wrote recently that “deniers” should be tattooed.

And now, sadly, Monckton has confirmed Godwin’s Law and joined in:

PROFESSOR Ross Garnaut has been labelled an eco-fascist by climate-change sceptic Lord Christopher Monckton in a speech in the US.

The Scottish peer, who is scheduled to speak at the Association of Mining and Exploration Companies conference in Perth next week, said Prof Garnaut, the government’s chief climate-change adviser, held fascist views.

Footage of Lord Monckton aired on the Seven Network showed him variously describing Prof Ross Garnaut as having “a fascist point of view”, as someone who expected people to “accept authority without question”.

“Heil Hitler, on we go,” said Lord Monckton in discussing Prof Garnaut, as a quote was displayed beside a swastika. (source)

Now, I agree in principle with the sentiment of all this, but invoking Nazi symbols and references is uncalled for.

The last thing we should be doing is abandoning our standards of conduct towards those with whom we disagree. Let the alarmists call us names and try to silence us, but at the same time, we must try our very best to maintain dignity and rise above the petty schoolyard bullying of the alarmist camp. As Anthony Watts correctly states, this doesn’t help.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With:

Breaking: pissweak Fielding scuttles plebiscite call

22 June, 2011 by

A right stunt

Steve Fielding – never has so much hope been placed on someone so incapable of delivering. The lamentable Senator voted Abbott’s plebiscite down, calling it a “political stunt” – I guess you of all people should know one when you see one (see right).

I remember back in the day, when Fielding actually had some sceptical gumption (see here for an example from 2009). Happy to challenge the science, he actually went to the US to discuss it. But now he can’t even bring himself to give the people a vote on a policy that will not only do bugger all for the climate, but about which the Prime Minister LIED before the election.

What a total waste of space. At least he’ll be gone by the end of the week, off to the land of political obscurity, never to be seen or heard of again.

Read it here.

Filed Under: Climate

Final Solution: alarmist wants sceptics to gas themselves

22 June, 2011 by

Jill Singer - charming

Offensive on so very many levels, but I guess it’s what we should expect from alarmists with no arguments left:

I’m prepared to keep an open mind and propose another stunt for climate sceptics – put your strong views to the test by exposing yourselves to high concentrations of either carbon dioxide or some other colourless, odourless gas – say, carbon monoxide.

You wouldn’t see or smell anything. Nor would your anti-science nonsense be heard of again. How very refreshing.

On second thoughts, maybe you should be tattooed first, then gassed. All we need now are the sceptic death camps and we’d have a fully fledged Final Solution on our hands. Is that maybe what’s being suggested?

Read it here.

See here for information about the real dangers of carbon monoxide, which kills many people as a result of faulty gas heaters…

(h/t Bolta)

Filed Under: Climate

Aussie Chief Scientist only wants to hear from warmists

22 June, 2011 by

Counting heads ISN'T SCIENCE

UPDATE: Just in case you were in any doubt about Chubb’s views on climate change, The Age helps us out:

Professor Chubb rejected accusations that he was partisan because he believed that ”the science is in on climate change”.

”Well, I don’t think that’s partisan. I think that I can read English – as Ross Garnaut once said – and understand it. And I think that the evidence is overwhelming,” he said at the National Press Club. (source)

Call me an old fogey, but I thought that the whole point of science was about challenging a hypothesis in order to see if it stands up to scrutiny, and if it does not, moving on to develop a new hypothesis. Apparently not, according to Australia’s own Chief Scientist, who is following in the same sorry footsteps as his predecessor, alarmist Penny Sackett. He seems to believe that science is done by counting heads. He needs an urgent lesson in the scientific method, and in scientific history:

AUSTRALIA’S chief scientist Ian Chubb has waded into the highly charged debate surrounding climate change, arguing people who disagree with the scientific evidence supporting human-induced global warming do not “deserve equal weight”.

Professor Chubb yesterday used the stage at the National Press Club in Canberra to say the debate on climate change had been “appalling” and “hysterical”, and to label the scientific literacy of politicians as lacking. [I agree with that – Ed]

He also signalled his intention to take a more robust involvement in policy development. [Call me an old fogey again, but what has the Chief Scientist’s role got to do with policy development? – Ed]

Professor Chubb took over the job after Penny Sackett, who failed to secure one face-to-face meeting with Julia Gillard, resigned earlier this year.

He yesterday took aim at the media’s coverage of the climate change debate, saying it had not conveyed the science in a “proper and balanced” way. [No, just look at ABC and Fairfax – bias is in their genes – I don’t think that’s what he meant – Ed]

“I think attacking people because they’re giving a message is appalling. I think some of the language that’s used is bordering on the hysterical,” he said. “I’ve seen literature that suggests (more than) 90 per cent of experts in climate science are all of one view. And that is that the planet is warming and humans have intervened to accelerate that process.

“So somebody who comes along and says it’s not true doesn’t deserve equal weight. [Try telling that to Galileo, or to Robin Warren and Barry J. Marshall – Ed]. They deserve to have their views considered if they’ve gone through the proper and scientific process and it’s ended up in the peer review literature.” (source)

So I assume he will be speaking out forcefully and standing up for giving equal weight to Professors Carter, Lindzen, and the hundreds of other highly respected scientists who have published peer-reviewed works challenging the alarmist consensus. Oops, I don’t think that’s what he meant, do you?

Shutting down those who don’t share your views. Oldest trick in the book.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: ,

Kiwis not so dumb? Scaling back ETS already

21 June, 2011 by

Slightly less mad?

Following on from yesterday’s post on the New Zealand ETS that, according to PM John Key, is “working”, The Australian today reports that our neighbour across the ditch is actually scaling back its ETS in the face of economic pressures. Julia didn’t mention that, did she?

AS Julia Gillard urged Australia to follow the “gutsy Kiwi” lead on carbon pricing, Prime Minister John Key has declared New Zealand will be slowing its expansion of emissions trading and doesn’t want to “lead the world”.

Mr Key refused to offer advice to Australian politicians embroiled in the carbon tax debate and signed an agreement with the Australian Prime Minister for a joint working party on trans-Tasman carbon emissions trading.

But he warned that New Zealand would be delaying the inclusion of agricultural emissions in its system for at least four years and was unlikely to double the carbon price from 2013, as previously planned, because of pressure on consumers.

…

Earlier, Mr Key said in an interview with The Australian his government was reviewing the ETS he inherited from the former Labour government and there would be changes to the “quite expensive system”.

Mr Key said the New Zealand system, which prices carbon at $NZ12.50 ($9.55) a tonne and includes all gases and emitters, was costing consumers about $NZ150 a year but the price was due to double to $NZ25 a tonne from 2013 and include agriculture, which accounts for 50 per cent of New Zealand’s emissions.

Mr Key told The Australian the review would mean “the government is likely to move a bit more slowly because of the global financial crisis and other countries are moving more slowly”. (source)

So NZ is actually taking notice of the fact that the other major emitters are doing nothing, and responding appropriately. How refreshing. Just as the Kiwis sensibly don’t want to “lead the world”, neither should Australia.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: ,

Zombie science: the Hockey Stick lives!

21 June, 2011 by

No matter how many times it’s killed off, it keeps coming back from the dead. Now it’s Mann-made sea level rise, to go with Mann-made temperature rise:

Return of “The Stick”

See Watts Up With That? for the full press release.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: ,

New Zealand Climate Madness: PM John Key says "our ETS worked"

20 June, 2011 by

Key... to the asylum

Hmm. “Worked” in what sense, John? Added costs to every business in New Zealand? Check. Raised electricity prices for every Kiwi in the land? Double Check-a-rooney. Made everything that they buy in the shops more expensive? Triple Check-a-doodle-doo.

But what about the climate? Did it lower temperatures? Nope. Did it make any difference to “global action” on climate? Double Nope. Did anybody, except the twits in the Gillard government, take any notice whatsoever of the fact that New Zealand had stitched up its economy like a kipper? Nope, nope and thrice nope.

New Zealand emits just 0.11% of global emissions. I’m going to write it BIG so people can see it:

0.11%

 

Even if that were reduced to zero, the planet wouldn’t give a sh*t.

What begets such total climate madness? Seriously, it’s completely, utterly, totally, mind-bogglingly beyond comprehension.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: ,

Climate scientists put out call for "respect"

20 June, 2011 by

Rank hypocrisy

Maybe they would not have lost it in the first place if they hadn’t:

  • resorted to smears and petty name calling of those who disagree (“deniers”)
  • fudged data to get their desired result (Hockey Stick)
  • avoided providing background materials for independent checking (Hockey Stick again)
  • avoided Freedom of Information requests by deleting emails (Climategate)
  • ganged up on journals that dared publish materials challenging their precious consensus (Climategate again)
  • dressed up political propaganda as impartial science (IPCC/Greenpeace, repeated occasions)

Don’t make me laugh, Anna-Maria Arabia.

UPDATE: Arabia has apparently received a “death threat” this morning – see here. I trust that it has been reported to the police.

UPDATE 2: Arabia was previously an adviser to Anthony Albanese and Kim Beazley, so there are obvious political motivations at work here.

UPDATE 3: Excellent comment on this post via Facebook:

As a real scientist I know respect must be EARNED.

These Climate pseudo-scientists are not entitled to respect. They must earn it by stopping the lies, half-truths, and deliberate politicization of their “research”.

They must perform real, verifiable work that meets the basic scientific principle that their work must be reproducible by ANY OTHER scientist who is competent in the field. They have failed that test, miserably.

Then they may begin to earn “respect”. Until then, all they deserve is contempt.

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