Australian Alps to be "free of snow by 2050"

10 October, 2011 by

Six inches of global warming in the UK - that should never have happened

As if by magic, in the week that the carbon tax bills are due to be forced through the lower House, the government-funded scare stories appear – right on cue! The Sydney Morning Herald salivates:

AUSTRALIA’S ski slopes could be completely bare of natural winter snow by 2050 unless concerted action is taken against global warming, according to a government-commissioned report that paints a grim picture of the effects of climate change on alpine areas.

The report, Caring for our Australian Alps Catchments, has found the Alps, which stretch from Victoria through New South Wales to the Australian Capital Territory, face an average temperature rise of between 0.6 and 2.9 degrees by 2050, depending on how much action the international community takes to combat climate change.

”The effects of climate change are predicted to be the single greatest threat to the natural condition values of the Australian Alps catchments,” the report states.

Rain, snow and other precipitation will decrease up to 24 per cent over the next four decades, accompanied by more bushfires, droughts, severe storms and rapid runoff, causing heavy erosion.

Australia’s major mountain range, which peaks with Mount Kosciuszko at 2228 metres, is vulnerable to climate change and faces a dramatic transformation unless serious efforts are made, the study concluded.

”The scenario that is most likely is that there will be less snow both in total and in area, and that we shift more to summer rainfall,” said study co-author Roger Good, a retired botanist with the NSW government.

A “botanist”? Gasp! But he’s not a climatologist! Shock! How many peer-reviewed papers on climate change has he published? [Cue sound of gramophone needle being hastily removed from surface of record] No, wait a minute, he’s saying all the right (alarmist) things that back up our policies, so it doesn’t matter.

As usual, all of this is based on flaky computer modelling, which is as good as useless for any kind of climate projection. But who cares? The timing is perfect – government fear-mongering to scare the population into accepting, if not supporting, the pointless carbon tax.

But hang on a minute… what will having a carbon tax do for the Alps (even if we assume the nonsensical alarmist viewpoint of manmade CO2 being the only control on the planet’s climate)? Reduce the temperature by about 0.0001˚C, that’s what. And will it make any difference? Nope.

Reminds me of that article in the UK Independent that said that snow in Britain was a thing of the past… yeah, right.

Read it here. Full report can be downloaded here (9MB PDF)

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: ,

Opinion polls: how to get the answer you want

9 October, 2011 by

The Sydney Morning Herald is in a state of high excitement today, as a new poll gives it a “two fingers up to deniers” moment (admittedly copied almost verbatim from the UK equivalent, The Guardian here):

EUROPEANS believe the dangers of climate change represent a more serious problem than the current financial turmoil, according to a major new poll.

The Eurobarometer poll found most people in the European Union consider global warming to be one of the world’s most serious problems, with one-fifth saying it is the single most serious problem.

Overall, respondents said climate change was the second most serious issue facing the world, after poverty.

Connie Hedegaard, European climate commissioner, said: ”This is encouraging news. The survey shows that the citizens of Europe can see that economic challenges are not the only ones we face. A clear majority of Europeans expect their politicians and business leaders to address the serious climate challenge now.” (source)

So as always, we check the questions, and here is the relevant extract from the lengthy PDF:

Loaded much?

So not only is the question headed “Climate Change”, but the first option on each answer is, that’s right, “Climate change”. And I am pretty sure that those asking the questions would have prefaced each interview with a spiel about how this was a poll about attitudes in Europe towards climate change as well, so the purpose of the questions would have been well and truly embedded in the respondents’ minds before the questions were even asked. And hey, we all want to give the “right” answer don’t we? But we must give them credit for the fact that even after all that badgering, they still put “Poverty, hunger and lack of drinking water” above climate change.

Furthermore, this is an opinion poll conducted on behalf of the climate change apparatchiks in Europe, as the disclosure statement reveals:

“This survey has been requested by the Directorate-General Climate action…“

And the Introduction further reveals the inherent bias in the entire process:

Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of the modern age. The European Commission established its Directorate-General for Climate Action in February 2010 to strengthen Europe’s response to this issue (previously climate change was under the overall remit of DG Environment). 

So the weight we can place on these results is very suspect. But as usual, neither the SMH nor The Guardian asks any of these questions, and regurgitate the line without any critical thought, because it fits their pro-climate action agenda.

Ben Pile at Climate Resistance has more:

So here’s how it works… You take people by surprise. You ask them to chose from a narrow range of issues. And then you ask them again. And Again. And again. You don’t give them the benefit of making a decision in the context of a debate. And you don’t canvass them for their opinion about costs and benefits, either ‘globally’ or in relation to themselves. You don’t tell them that the results will be used to legitimise certain policies. You compare their opinions to a historic low, and say that the answers demonstrate growing support for your policies — the bases of which have never been tested for popular assent at the ballot box.

And EU Referendum here.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: ,

Carbon tax to cost Australians $1 trillion by 2050

7 October, 2011 by

Labor's carbon tax

And for what benefit to the climate? Zero.

The federal government’s carbon tax will cost every Australian $40,000 in the period to 2050 and a cost-benefit analysis should be conducted before it passes into law, an opposition-dominated Senate committee says.

The select committee on the scrutiny of new taxes on Friday tabled a 361-page report in parliament looking at whether a carbon tax should be brought in at a time of uncertainty about the global economy and whether there will be a concerted international effort to cut carbon emissions.

Labor’s laws to establish in a fixed $23-per-tonne carbon price from July 1, 2012, before moving to an emissions trading scheme in 2015, are set to pass the lower house next Wednesday before going to the Senate for debate.

The committee found that under the government’s own modelling the carbon tax would impose a $1 trillion cost on the Australian economy, or $40,000 per person.

“This is likely to be an underestimate given that Treasury’s modelling relies on the assumption that other countries will act in concert with Australia to reduce emissions,” its report said.

“The government has provided no evidence that its policy provides benefits commensurate with these costs.

“Indeed, without global action, a carbon tax in Australia cannot do anything to mitigate the effects of climate change.

“A carbon tax will be all economic pain for no environmental gain.” (source)

Once again, Labor’s climate policy is pure, undiluted madness.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: ,

UK: Climate action "a vote losing issue"

7 October, 2011 by

Osborne: reality bites

The UK government of David Cameron was held up as a shining example of a “green” success story – bravely taking the hard decisions and setting ludicrously ambitious emissions reduction targets in order to face up to the greatest moral challenge of our time, or something. But, as was inevitable, reality bites, and the UK chancellor, George Osborne, has begun to realise that the green utopian fantasy was just that:

In his speech to the Conservative Party conference, Mr Osborne said: “We know that a decade of environmental laws and regulations are piling costs on the energy bills of households and companies.

“Yes, climate change is a man-made disaster, yes we need international agreement to stop it.”

“But…we are not going to save the planet by putting our country out of business. (source)

Of course, Osborne is still deluded about the effect of even an international agreement on the climate (zero – witness Kyoto), but the last sentence is the key. And in an article entitled “David Cameron’s Green Agenda Fades”, The Guardian wails over the change of direction:

It was the week the husky died. Since David Cameron was pulled across the Arctic ice in 2006, the promise of environmental action had been at the heart of rebranding the Conservative party as modern and compassionate. “Vote blue, go green” was the slogan.

But at the Tory conference in Manchester this week, George Osborne for the first time publicly attacked green laws and regulation as “piling costs on to energy bills” and appeared to abandon earlier aspirations of leadership for the UK in the low-carbon economy.

Cameron, who has made no major speech on the environment since pledging in May 2010 to lead the “greenest government ever”, made a single passing reference to “green technology” in his conference closing speech.

…

What is clear is that the politics have changed, if not yet the policies, according to Tim Montgomery, editor of ConservativeHome. “The government has decided that this is now a vote-losing issue,” he said, following briefings from the government.

“Soaring energy prices are what has forced Cameron to change. The government is now in sync with the vast majority of the Tory party who think it is futile to try to tackle climate change without a world agreement.” (source)

One of my commenters in a recent open thread wrote:

David Cameron endorsed the carbon tax in Australia. Discuss.

Perhaps we should rephrase that to read:

We are not going to save the planet by putting our country out of business. Discuss.

We in Australia (except the entire Labor/Green government) have known for some time that unilateral climate action is a pointless, vote-losing policy. Finally, other countries are reaching the same conclusion.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With:

Daily Bayonet GW Hoax Weekly Roundup

7 October, 2011 by

Skewering the clueless

As always, a great read!

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With:

A lesson for climate scientists on "consensus"

6 October, 2011 by

Challenging a consensus

See any parallels?

When Israeli scientist Dan Shechtman claimed to have stumbled upon a new crystalline chemical structure that seemed to violate the laws of nature, colleagues mocked him, insulted him and exiled him from his research group.

After years in the scientific wilderness, though, he was proved right. And on Wednesday, he received the ultimate vindication: the Nobel Prize in chemistry.

The lesson?

“A good scientist is a humble and listening scientist and not one that is sure 100 percent in what he read in the textbooks,” Shechtman said.

The shy, 70-year-old Shechtman said he never doubted his findings and considered himself merely the latest in a long line of scientists who advanced their fields by challenging the conventional wisdom and were shunned by the establishment because of it.

Challenging conventional wisdom? Now there’s an idea.

Read it here.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With:

Utopian reality check

5 October, 2011 by

There’s a cartoon making its way around Facebook today [and it has also been published on an ABC blog – where else? – to accompany an interview with Bob Carter – hmm, wonder which way that went? – Ed], which all my Green friends posted in order to slap down any filthy deniers that might be lurking:

Green fantasy

Obviously, only the most juvenile and immature readers would take this as a realistic representation of climate action – which means most of them did. So ACM tweaked it a little to make the point a bit clearer:

Closer to reality

Filed Under: Climate

Taxes as punishment don't work

5 October, 2011 by

Tax as punishment?

I wonder if the government will listen as intently to the Productivity Commission now as it did when the Commission was providing support for the carbon price:

THE Productivity Commission chairman, Gary Banks, has sounded a warning to the government against using the tax system to change community behaviour in areas such as gambling, road congestion and carbon pollution.

Speaking at the end of the first day of the tax forum in Canberra yesterday, Mr Banks warned that raising taxes to change behaviour had to be done in “the right way to the right extent”.

“That is very hard,” Mr Banks told the forum. He argued that much of the detail on how to change behaviour with taxes was “unresolved” and risked authorities’ ability to convince the community that the taxes were worthwhile.

On carbon pricing, Mr Banks said “the complexities are unbounded” and a key challenge for the government would be reviewing which of the 200 other climate schemes around Australia “deserve to stay and which of those deserve to go”.

His comments echo the Productivity Commission’s findings that state climate change schemes such as solar feed-in tariffs were greatly increasing the cost of carbon emissions abatement.

Taxes really don’t change people’s behaviour – people will just use more of their disposable income to maintain the status quo.

Read it here.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With:

The Climate Alarmism Machine

4 October, 2011 by

Click for PDF

UPDATE: Kudos to Andy for linking to my map with the comment “I think some, though by no means all, aspects of the map are spot on.” [Well, it did say that originally, it’s now been toned down somewhat… and I think Andy may have missed the fact that this is satire – Ed]

Andy Revkin, in the New York Times, indulges in a full frontal denier orgy today, proudly showing a map of “organised climate change denial”. So I thought I would respond with my own Map of the Climate Change Alarmism Machine.

P.S. Check out some of the comments on Revkin’s post… ouch.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: ,

Idiotic Comment of the Day: Clive Hamilton

3 October, 2011 by

No picture, because it would sully my monitor

Another classic Hamilton rant on ABC’s The Drum (see here for a previous example). I seriously considered whether to give this [snip] any more oxygen, but then I couldn’t resist. It’s just too funny to pass up:

At last, the ABC has broadcast a program that accurately reflects the debate over climate science.

That is, a program in which a large body of eminent scientists with an overwhelming case built and tested carefully over many years using the best procedures of science meets a politically-motivated coterie of ratbags who manipulate the truth, endlessly repeat falsehoods, harass their opponents and grandstand at every opportunity.

Poor old Hamilton has missed the obvious irony of his desperate ravings, namely that “a politically motivated coterie of ragbags who manipulate the truth, endlessly repeat falsehoods and harass their opponents” is the perfect description of the IPCC.

Read the rest here – it’s hilarious.

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