The IPCC just doesn't learn…

16 June, 2011 by

Quoting Greenpeace (again)

You would have thought the IPCC would have learned some lessons after the revelations that chunks of the last climate report were lifted straight from the work of advocacy groups like Greenpeace. But no. The latest report, on renewables, falls into the same trap, as Donna Laframboise reports:

Last month I blogged about a new Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report on renewable energy. At that time I pointed out that the IPCC was up to its old tricks. When it issued the press release, it made only the Summary available. The full report wasn’t scheduled to become public until later.

The problem with this is that journalists are placed in the position of simply taking the IPCC’s word for it that the summary is an accurate reflection of what the full report says. Although IPCC likes to boast about how transparent it is, this is a perfect demonstration of the wide gap between IPCC rhetoric and reality.

Well, the whole enchilada is now available and, as Steve McIntyre explains, there’s a good reason why the IPCC might not have wanted anyone to look too closely at the full report.

It turns out the information the IPCC chose to highlight in its press release comes from a Greenpeace report – and that the person who wrote the Greenpeace report was also a lead author of the IPCC document.

It could not be clearer that the IPCC still doesn’t understand some basic concepts. It is improper for the IPCC to base its conclusions on Greenpeace research. I mean, how hard is this? If the IPCC is a scientific organization, if it says it is conducting a scientific assessment it cannot rely on work that was in any way undertaken or funded by activist groups.

It is also improper for Greenpeace employees to be IPCC lead authors. Period.

Even warmists are embarrassed by this, as Donna reports later.

Read it all.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With:

Sun may be "less active" in coming years

15 June, 2011 by

Sunspot with Earth to scale

But it won’t have any effect on the climate, because as any fule kno, the only thing that drives climate is man-made CO2 – specifically man-made CO2 from SUVs driven by right-wing sceptics.

If you were an impartial, apolitical scientist, you would be thrilled at this prospect, because it would be a heaven-sent (literally) opportunity to monitor and investigate the true effect of the sun’s activity on our climate. However, you can be sure that the alarmists will avoid it like the plague, because the results may challenge their man-made groupthink mindset.

Some unusual solar readings, including fading sunspots and weakening magnetic activity near the poles, could be indications that our sun is preparing to be less active in the coming years.

The results of three separate studies seem to show that even as the current sunspot cycle swells toward the solar maximum, the sun could be heading into a more-dormant period, with activity during the next 11-year sunspot cycle greatly reduced or even eliminated.

The results of the new studies were announced today (June 14) at the annual meeting of the solar physics division of the American Astronomical Society, which is being held this week at New Mexico State University in Las Cruces.

“The solar cycle may be going into a hiatus,” Frank Hill, associate director of the National Solar Observatory’s Solar Synoptic Network, said in a news briefing today (June 14).

The studies looked at a missing jet stream in the solar interior, fading sunspots on the sun’s visible surface, and changes in the corona and near the poles.

“This is highly unusual and unexpected,” Hill said. “But the fact that three completely different views of the sun point in the same direction is a powerful indicator that the sunspot cycle may be going into hibernation.” (source)

Some are even talking about a repeat of the Maunder Minimum, the period in the 17th century when sunspots disappeared (and, coincidentally, the planet went through the Little Ice Age). Interesting times.

(via WUWT)

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With:

Open letter from Australian warmists

14 June, 2011 by

It's a bit one-sided (as always)

The Conversation publishes an open letter from a collection of Australian warmist academics, which repeats the usual IPCC line and adds little to the debate, except by smearing sceptics (again). I thought for a bit of fun we could examine in detail what the letter says. Before we do, however, let’s have a look at just a few of the signatories:

  • Andrew Glikson
  • David Karoly
  • Matthew England
  • Ian Enting
  • Ove Hoegh-Guldberg
  • Andy Pitman
  • Barry Brook
  • Neville Nicholls

A veritable gallery of Australian alarmists, well documented here on ACM (just search any of those names). So already we know what the letter will say. It is oddly titled “Climate change is real” by which I think they mean “man-made climate change is real”, so even before we’ve got past the title, there is an intentionally confusing ambiguity. Not a promising start.

Anyway, here we go – I warn you in advance, it’s not pretty:

The overwhelming scientific evidence tells us that human greenhouse gas emissions are resulting in climate changes that cannot be explained by natural causes.

That’s because we daren’t look too closely at natural causes in case we find out that CO2 isn’t as much to blame as our models say. Solar? Schmolar.

Climate change is real, we are causing it, and it is happening right now.

Scary tag line? Check.

Like it or not, humanity is facing a problem that is unparalleled in its scale and complexity. The magnitude of the problem was given a chilling focus in the most recent report of the International Energy Agency, which their chief economist characterised as the “worst news on emissions.”

Limiting global warming to 2°C is now beginning to look like a nearly insurmountable challenge.

As we all know, the entire climate system is just one big knob with CO2 scrawled on it. Cripple the world’s economies, and problem solved. The fact that temperatures went up and down by greater amounts than the present warming before any industrialisation is just a tiresome distraction. The models are programmed to result in a climate sensitive to changes in CO2 but not to natural forces, with significant but unverified positive feedbacks, which are little more than guesswork, just to make sure.

Like all great challenges, climate change has brought out the best and the worst in people.

Translation: “best” being the climate warriors on our side, and “worst” being the filthy sceptics.

A vast number of scientists, engineers, and visionary businessmen are boldly designing a future that is based on low-impact energy pathways and living within safe planetary boundaries; a future in which substantial health gains can be achieved by eliminating fossil-fuel pollution; and a future in which we strive to hand over a liveable planet to posterity.

Usefully confusing “fossil-fuel pollution” with harmless CO2 in order to muddy the waters. Of course there are health benefits to reducing proper pollution, such as toxins and particulates, but if that were the aim, we wouldn’t be planning on taxing our economy out of existence. Reducing CO2 emissions will have no effect on health whatsoever. Even these scientists refuse to be intellectually rigorous and unambiguously distinguish between harmless CO2 and “pollution”.

At the other extreme, understandable economic insecurity and fear of radical change have been exploited by ideologues and vested interests to whip up ill-informed, populist rage, and climate scientists have become the punching bag of shock jocks and tabloid scribes.

Yawn, yawn, ad hom, yawn… How about responding to their concerns? Breach of pre-election promise by the Prime Minister? The fact that nothing Australia does will make any difference to the climate? Or are they just too hard?

Aided by a pervasive media culture that often considers peer-reviewed scientific evidence to be in need of “balance” by internet bloggers, this has enabled so-called “sceptics” to find a captive audience while largely escaping scrutiny.

Laughs out loud. Sorry. Have these people actually seen the ABC or Fairfax? Read Unleashed on the ABC web site recently? Rarely is a critical word published in these two major news organisations (not to mention most of the international news agencies), but still they complain of media bias. Lamentable.

Australians have been exposed to a phony public debate which is not remotely reflected in the scientific literature and community of experts.

Beginning today, The Conversation will bring much-needed and long-overdue accountability to the climate “sceptics.”

And I bet they won’t invite a single one to take part. It will be a closed shop of warmists, all stewing in their own juices, like the Climate Commission. On the one hand they want to exclude sceptics from the process, and on the other, they then complain sceptics are resorting to other methods to get their views across. You can’t have it both ways.

For the next two weeks, our series of daily analyses will show how they can side-step the scientific literature and how they subvert normal peer review. They invariably ignore clear refutations of their arguments and continue to promote demonstrably false critiques.

My aching sides. Alarmists talking about subverting peer review? Climategate, anyone? When there is a cosy little coterie of warmists who all review each others papers, and make sure any that challenge the consensus are rejected? Please.

We will show that “sceptics” often show little regard for truth and the critical procedures of the ethical conduct of science on which real skepticism is based.

There will then follow the inevitable smearing of anyone who dares question the whole alarmist package put forward by the IPCC (and the signatories to this letter).

The individuals who deny the balance of scientific evidence on climate change will impose a heavy future burden on Australians if their unsupported opinions are given undue credence.

Do you know what would be really refreshing? If some of the signatories actually took the time to invite a respected “sceptic” like Bob Carter or Richard Lindzen to discuss his concerns about the IPCC position. But they won’t because they are afraid of what they might hear. Much easier to ignore the real issues and carry on smearing sceptics than to actually engage in proper scientific debate.

Read it here.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With:

Climate indoctrination to continue in schools

14 June, 2011 by

Climate propaganda

Whereas the UK has abandoned [correction – “has recommended abandoning” (link)- Ed] teaching climate science in its curriculum, Australia will plough on, with our extremist (former Australian Conservation Foundation president) school education minister Peter Garrett confirming that the indoctrination with political propaganda will continue:

SCHOOL Education Minister Peter Garrett has confirmed the Gillard government will not stop the teaching of climate science in the classroom following a move in Britain for the subject to be withdrawn from the national curriculum.

Mr Garrett clarified last night that climate change was not taught as a curriculum subject in its own right in Australian schools, but could be adequately dealt with in science and geography classes.

“We have a cross-curriculum theme which is sustainability, and I think climate change would be an element of that,” he said on the ABC’s Q&A program.

…

Tom Oates, who will release the blueprint for a revised national syllabus for Britain later this year, has suggested teachers focus on core scientific principles instead of the impact of scientific processes on peoples’ lives. [Gee, what a novelty – a good idea for once – Ed]

Mr Oates, director of research at exams agency Cambridge Assessment, told The Guardian in Britain: “The national curriculum shouldn’t ever try to keep up with those, otherwise it would keep changing.”

However, Mr Garrett said it was unequivocal that there was a consensus of scientific opinion on the reality of climate change. “That is something that should be reflected in the ordinary course of a student’s education. If there are competing theories of one kind or another, they’re things that teachers can raise as well.” (source)

Very, very unlikely. In reality, it will be the force-feeding of impressionable young minds with politically skewed propagandist claptrap on climate, which has nothing to do with learning about impartial, free thinking scientific enquiry, but everything to do with programming a new generation of drones to unquestioningly believe whatever the government tells it. Tragic.

 

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With:

How many Prius drivers does it take to offset a volcano?

13 June, 2011 by

Offset that…

Probably several trillion, given the massive emissions (including plenty of CO2) from the Puyehue volcano in Chile (pictured).

So, as George Carlin said, ask yourself whether you feel like a threat to the planet this week.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With:

A note about comments

11 June, 2011 by

ACM encourages open debate and comments on its stories, but I would like to point out to anyone thinking of posting abuse or ad hominem rants that they will NOT be published. Full stop. The same goes for comments on Facebook, which are reviewed regularly and will be deleted if they do not meet the following basic requirements.

So don’t waste your time and mine, and stick to these tediously obvious commenting guidelines:

  • If you disagree with what is said on this site, make cogent, reasoned arguments for why you disagree.
  • Be polite and courteous, as all scientific discourse should be.
  • Leave out the name-calling and abuse.
  • Avoid anything potentially libellous (obviously)

If you abide by these simple rules, your comment will be published, although publication does not indicate endorsement by ACM.

Thanks for taking part in the discussions.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With:

Barnaby: time to swallow a "reality pill"

11 June, 2011 by

Un-common sense

Common sense from Barnaby Joyce:

MANKIND has been on a quest to drag itself up from dark streets, disease and servitude. Pretty much all of mankind is now squared away on the mission statement but success around the office in these objectives has been fickle.

I have come to the conclusion that the same cranial attributes that developed the wheel later developed the Apollo moon landing and it was not two different species. Lately we seem to have decided that the ingenuity to run faster in Australia comes by placing heavier weights around our ankles and if all fails others will sit down and wait for us.

…

Australia has to take a reality pill about its position in the world and our effective relationship with our near neighbours. It is fantasy to believe the people of India, China, Indonesia and so many other places will be inclined to have their people stay one minute longer in poverty or hunger because of a self-indulgent internal political debate about an impossible outcome, cooling the planet, from Canberra.

If we want to be relevant and, more to the point, survive in what is our region, Southeast Asia, then we need to help them get the power on and provide them with the resources to do it, provide them with the reliable high-quality food that we take for granted and realise that trading gets Australia far more brownie points than preaching.

Read it here.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With:

Renewable energy targets to hit electricity bills hard

11 June, 2011 by

Price going up

The shocking reality of the government’s ill-conceived renewable energy targets is about to hit home, and that’s before we take a carbon [dioxide] price into consideration:

HOUSEHOLD electricity bills are set to skyrocket up to 30 per cent by mid-2013, with the Gillard government’s renewable energy scheme responsible for 11 per cent of that increase, a report by the government’s chief energy adviser has found.

The costs of the Renewable Energy Target – which provides generous subsidies for rooftop solar schemes and large-scale projects such as wind farms – will explode by 360 per cent over the three years to June 30, 2013, as power companies try to meet the target of sourcing 20 per cent of their energy from renewable sources by 2020.

The report comes as Australia’s biggest carbon emitters press for states that refuse to wind back costly rooftop solar and other programs to be penalised in the GST carve-up or be denied funds under the Commonwealth Grants Commission.

The Australian Industry Greenhouse Network, whose members include BlueScope Steel, said the case for reform was only growing and demanded the immediate withdrawal of commonwealth and state renewable energy programs that the Productivity Commission found were costing billions of dollars but achieving little. (source)

Just the same old story, green gimmicks that achieve nothing for the environment and cost ordinary people dear.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: ,

Which would you believe?

10 June, 2011 by

Productivity Commission

UPDATE at 11.15 AEST: Professor Judith Sloan, former member of the Commission, said this morning that it had been hamstrung by the very narrow terms of reference, which it must follow, that she had “serious reservations” about the report, and noted that the list of countries considered included no “competitor countries, such as Brazil, Canada or South Africa”. More to follow

The Productivity Commission, or your own eyes and ears? In the strange ivory tower that the Productivity Commission appears to inhabit, the world is rushing towards putting a price on carbon and tackling climate change, and Australia is lagging behind. Tony Windsor, one of the independents whose vote will determine whether Australia gets a carbon tax, has fallen for it, hook, line and sinker:

The independent MP who might decide the fate of Labor’s carbon tax says the Productivity Commission report released Thursday proves the rest of the world is acting on climate change.

Tony Windsor is a key member of the Multi-Party Climate Committee and was the one who requested the Productivity Commission crunch the global figures.

The commission found support for the Government’s claims that other world economies are taking significant measures to combat climate change.

It says price-based mechanisms, such as the one planned for Australia, are the most effective and least-costly way to reduce carbon pollution.

Mr Windsor says the report answers the question of whether the rest of the world is doing something.

“That’s a yes,” he said. “Some of the schemes and policies aren’t terribly cost effective, but there is an attempt to reduce emissions in the study countries the Productivity Commission looked at. (source)

But it’s all totally meaningless. The fact that the nine countries in the study (China, Germany, India, Japan, New Zealand, South Korea, the United Kingdom and the United States) are allegedly taking steps to reduce “pollution” (by which they mean carbon dioxide) is totally irrelevant to Australia, since Australia’s share of emissions is still only just over 1%. China, for all the huff and puff and all the talk of a green revolution, will still increase its emissions significantly in absolute terms over the next decades, India likewise.

So you can either believe the PC, or your own senses, which tell you that the US is backing away from any action on climate, China and India are full steam ahead for economic growth and growth in emissions (despite token gestures towards greening up, to appease gullible fools like Windsor), New Zealand has strangled its economy with an ETS for no purpose whatsoever, the UK’s energy policy is in utter disarray (see here for an expose on that), and Germany has just signed its own energy death warrant by unilaterally abandoning the only reliable form of clean energy: nuclear).

So which would you believe?

P.S. The Productivity Commission is, of course, part of the Australian government. It’s supposed to be independent, but guess what, it supports the government’s line on carbon pricing, at odds with the reality outlined above. Coincidence? You decide. You can read the report here.

Filed Under: Climate

"Cancer" at the heart of Labor

10 June, 2011 by

Faulkner

In the wake of John Faulkner’s speech last night, Kevin Rudd on ABC radio this morning referred to the “cancer” within the Labor party. And Faulkner really let rip at Labor:

IN the strongest speech of his career, Labor senator John Faulkner warned last night that the party had “no future” unless it changed to embrace a “culture of inclusion” and repudiate powerbrokers who put their own interests before Labor’s survival.

In a cry of alarm, Senator Faulkner declared himself “very pessimistic” about Labor’s ability to achieve “meaningful change” and save itself as a successful party.

Delivering the Neville Wran Lecture at NSW parliament, the former ALP Senate leader said Labor had already “lost a generation of activists” and unless it confronted internal reform, “we will risk losing a generation of voters as well”.

His message was that Labor suffered from a deepening malaise that was a national problem. He attacked Labor’s governing culture of control and staying “on message” as “no longer enough”, and argued the public now valued authenticity over “the appearance of harmony”.

Senator Faulkner’s speech mirrored his fear that last year’s national review reforms he devised with former premiers Bob Carr and Steve Bracks would be largely brushed aside.

Yet his critique runs wider and deeper. In a speech with a Whitlamist tenor, Senator Faulkner argued that internal democracy was stifled, the party was exploited as a vehicle by careerists, that power must be returned to the membership and that core structural and cultural reforms were essential.

Read it here.

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