Ignorant, patronising climate propaganda

"Feisty carbon particle"

The Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency plugs a propaganda drive by ClimateWorks Australia, which plumbs new depths of inanity and ignorance:

Today, ClimateWorks Australia (link here) launched its national public engagement program aimed at showing how Australia can reduce its greenhouse gas emissions.

The Empower campaign is aimed at raising awareness of how business and households can take up low cost opportunities to reduce their emissions and save money.

The actions highlighted in the program involve energy efficiency measures (such as retrofitting buildings, upgrading equipment, reducing waste and the use of co-generation), land sector measures (such as reforestation and soil carbon sequestration), and power sector measures (such as wind and solar).  It outlines simple measures households and businesses can adopt to reduce their emissions and save money on their power bills.

The program involves presentations to industry and community groups, train-the-trainer sessions and on-line video materials.

As part of the program, a YouTube video animation has been developed starring a feisty character called CP, which is short for carbon particle. CP has a dual nature; in moderate quantities he can be good (Dr Jekyll), but in large quantities he turns bad (Mr Hyde).  Using easy to understand graphics and dialogue, the video shows how Australia can achieve a clean energy future. (source)

I really wish I was making this up, but I’m not.

Once again, the population is treated like total morons. “CP”, or carbon particle, lectures us on how we should cut emissions and lead virtuous low carbon lives. Unfortunately, particulate carbon has NOTHING to do with global warming, climate change or whatever. Carbon dioxide, the alleged part-cause of the modern warming, is a harmless, invisible, trace gas.

And the level of the accompanying video would insult a six-year-old. It is unbelievably patronising, juvenile, unfunny (despite trying desperately to be so) and deeply painful to endure. I’ve embedded it below, watch it and weep. Actually you only need to watch about the first minute. That’s really enough.


Note: CEO of ClimateWorks is Professor David Griggs, who is a fully paid-up alarmist, formerly director of the Met Office’s Hadley Centre (appears in a few of the Climategate emails as well), head of IPCC Scientific Assessment Unit, and recently spoke at the Four Degrees or More conference (link). So none of this should be a surprise. Embarrassing that an organisation led by someone of his pedigree would intentionally confuse carbon dioxide with particulate carbon, but in the propaganda game, anything goes.

Ben Pile on Gleick and environmentalism

Ben Pile

A brilliant piece of writing, as always, by Ben Pile (Climate Resistance) at Spiked Online:

The environmental movement is as promiscuous with its ‘ethics’ as it is with ‘The Science’. You can make stuff up, apparently, just so long as you do so in order to ‘save the planet’. And this is why sums as paltry and insignificant as $1,000 are so important to their perspective. It is only by amplifying the trivial that the myth of ‘networks’ of ‘well-funded deniers’ can be sustained. It’s only when you lose a sense of proportion that a few million dollars can stop global action on climate change. 

Read it all.

Richard Lindzen at the House of Commons

UPDATE: Unfortunately, only the first half of the talk is available. I will post a link when the second half is uploaded.

Professor Lindzen was speaking at the UK House of Commons at the invitation of a group seeking to repeal the UK’s barking mad Climate Change Act, which is guaranteed to send the UK’s economy into a terminal nose dive.


PDF of the presentation can be downloaded here.

John Cook's climate myth-information evening

Fully un-sceptical

John Cook of Un-Skeptical Pseudo-Science  is at a “climate Q & A” tonight which is, quote, “brought to you by sustainme on behalf of Lane Cove Council”. Sustainme, I think, is a firm of “sustainability consultants” from what I can gather, so that kind of sets the tone.

In front of a (no doubt friendly and sympathetic) audience of twenty or so, Cook will bust all the filthy deniers myths, just like wot ‘e does on ‘is web site, innit?

He’s even got a companion puff piece on ABC Environment (where else) illustrated with a photo of the real Mythbusters:

Tonight, I’ve been asked to present a climate myth busting evening at Lane Cove in Sydney. However, instead of giving a prepared talk with a slideshow, the organisers plan to break the audience up into groups who will select the most persuasive climate myths they’ve heard. I will then attempt to debunk the myths. To add a little edge to the evening, the audience will vote to determine whether the myths have been successfully busted or not.

It feels a bit like going back to school and sitting exams. I don’t know what questions will be asked and I’ll be graded afterwards. Except this time, the examination and grading will occur in front of an audience. The result will depend not just on knowing the science but also successfully negotiating the psychological pitfalls and backfire effects. The evening could be a highly engaging, interactive and educational experience. Or it might be a train wreck. Either way, bring popcorn! (source)

You can guarantee the “myths” will all be the so-called “myths” of realists, rather than the thousands of myths perpetrated by alarmists.

Here are a few such alarmist myths, which you can bet the farm Cook won’t be busting tonight:

  • That Un-skeptical Pseudo-Science presents a balanced view of the current state of climate science, not a smug partisan sycophantic repetition of IPCC propaganda
  • That all those computer models can make accurate projections of climate 100 years from now, not hopelessly incomplete and flaky and which couldn’t predict their way out of a paper bag
  • That the IPCC is a fair and balanced organisation, dispassionately reviewing climate science, and not a hopelessly compromised and politicised organisation that made up its mind CO2 was to blame before it even began work back in 1990
  • That grey literature is just fine and dandy, as long as it helps The Cause
  • That WWF and Greenpeace are reasonable and balanced organisations which can appreciate both sides of the climate debate, so they should be entitled to write half of the IPCC reports
  • That climate scientists understand the magnitude and sign of all climate feedbacks to at least two decimal places
  • That CO2 swamps all natural climate drivers, including the Sun (we don’t know how, it just DOES, OK?!!)
  • That Henrik Svensmark is the devil incarnate, but James Hansen is the model to which every climate scientist should aspire
  • That consensus scientists uphold the highest standards of integrity and Climategate was “all taken out of context”, and not that they were caught red handed fudging data, deleting emails, skewing peer-review and avoiding FOI requests
  • That Peter Gleick is not guilty of scientific misconduct and possible criminal deception and is just a valiant whistleblower (© MeDog’sGob)
  • That sceptics really are better funded and better organised than the entire Big Green movement bankrolled by national governments and the UN
  • That Al Gore really knows what he’s talking about and his film was a balanced scientific documentary, rather than a bad fairy tale
  • That global warming really does cause everything you could think of on this list (and plenty more besides)
  • That black really is white, if you look at it long enough

Readers are invited to submit in the comments other “myths” that Cook wouldn’t touch with a ten-foot barge pole.

Guardian finally goes batshit crazy

100ppm CO2 causes this?

The global warming narrative is going nowhere, the public are more sceptical than ever of the outrageous claims of climate scaremongers, and the combined efforts of Climategate (I and II) and Peter Gleick’s recent Heartland deceptions have exposed yet again the rotten underbelly of consensus science.

So instead of taking stock and rethinking their approach, perhaps being more frank and open about uncertainties in the science or conceding that the science isn’t as settled as they like to pretend, the headbangers have gone even further, stretching the alarmism to even more unbelievable lengths in order to get people to listen, when in fact such a course of action will have precisely the opposite effect.

Alarmists have attempted to link “global warming” to other geological phenomena in the past (see “Earthquakes linked to “climate change for example) but this time the headbangers have outdone themselves with a string of exaggerations and scares to match the best in the business:

Could it be then, that if we continue to allow greenhouse gas emissions to rise unchecked and fuel serious warming, our planet’s crust will begin to toss and turn once again?

The signs are that this is already happening. In Alaska, where climate change has propelled temperatures upwards by more than 3 degrees Celsius in the last half century, the glaciers are melting at a staggering rate, some losing up to one kilometre in thickness in the last 100 years. The reduction in weight on the crust beneath is allowing faults contained therein to slide more easily, promoting increased earthquake activity in recent decades. The permafrost that helps hold the state’s mountain peaks together is also thawing rapidly, leading to a rise in the number of giant rock and ice avalanches. In fact, in mountainous areas around the world, landslide activity is on the up; a reaction both to a general ramping-up of global temperatures and to the increasingly frequent summer heatwaves.

Whether or not Alaska proves to be the “canary in the cage” – the geological shenanigans there heralding far worse to come – depends largely upon the degree to which we are successful in reducing the ballooning greenhouse gas burden arising from our civilisation’s increasingly polluting activities, thereby keeping rising global temperatures to a couple of degrees centigrade at most. So far, it has to be said, there is little cause for optimism, emissions rocketing by almost 6 per cent in 2010 when the world economy continued to bump along the bottom. Furthermore, the failure to make any real progress on emissions control at last December’s Durban climate conference ensures that the outlook is bleak. Our response to accelerating climate change continues to be consistently asymmetric, in the sense that it is far below the level that the science says is needed if we are to have any chance of avoiding the all-pervasive devastating consequences. (source)

It’s actually funny, really. The desperation is so palpable. There’s plenty more at the link.

Who would have thought that a planet that has survived for 4.5 billion years and allowed the evolution of myriad species of plants and animals, including humans, could be so vulnerable to increasing a harmless trace gas by 100 parts per million? Sorry, no one’s listening any more, and the more this kind of nonsense is spouted as “science”, and regurgitated by complicit media like the Guardian and Fairfax, the less people will take any notice.

(h/t Bolta)

Cosmic rays and the Titanic

Titanic link?

Nigel Calder explores the correlation between cosmic ray flux and its effect on the climate, in particular in relation to the sinking of the Titanic (100 years ago on 15 April):

Although it seems a strange thing to celebrate, the Titanic Festival in Belfast, where the ship was built, will very soon mark the 100th anniversary of the liner’s foundering on 15 April 1912 after hitting a south-wandering iceberg, with the loss of a multitude of passengers and crew.

Comparing the £100-million Titanic complex newly built in Belfast with the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao, the travel writer Simon Calder has commented, “There is a great shipbuilding heritage, it is a divided city, but the Guggenheim is great on the outside but rubbish on the inside – unlike the Titanic building.”

What’s more, James Cameron’s movie “Titanic” has been remastered in 3D for the centenary.

Time then for me to dig out some slides that I’ve used off and on in lectures since 1999 as an illustration of Henrik Svensmark’s cosmic rays in action, controlling our climate. But first, just to show that I’m not being kooky, here’s a graph from a 2000 paper by E. N. Lawrence of the UK Meteorological Office. “The Titanic disaster – a meteorologist’s perspective,” related iceberg abundance at low latitudes to a scarcity of sunspots (see image top right).

And Steven Goddard recalls a much older article, from the Chicago Tribune in 1923, that also linked icebergs with sunspots.

The notion that the Sun is dimmer when there are few sunspots goes right back to William Herschel at the beginning of the 19th Century. The trouble is that the variations in solar brightness, as measured by satellites, are too small to explain the strong influence of the Sun on climate as recorded over thousands of years, and continuing into the 21st Century. That’s where Svensmark’s discovery of 16 years ago comes in, with the amplifier. Cosmic rays coming from the Galaxy are more intense when there are fewer sunspots and they increase the global cloud cover, so cooling the world.

Read it all here.

And while we’re on the subject of Svensmark and cosmic rays, Anthony on Facebook linked to an interesting series of videos in which Svensmark and Nir Shaviv are both interviewed. First three parts are excellent, will get to watch the remainder soon. There doesn’t appear to be a date, but from the upload information, it was made prior to the results of the CLOUD experiment.

One of the most astonishing quotes comes from Bert Bolin (he of the IPCC, who had decided prior to the IPCC’s formation that CO2 was responsible for the present warming), who says of Svensmark’s work:

“Scientifically extremely naive and irresponsible”

Yes, you read that right. The head of the IPCC said that reporting scientific results from an experiment was “irresponsible”. It is a wonderful quote to cite, because it exposes at a stroke the political agenda of Bolin and the IPCC, where the risk of derailing the pre-conceived plan to regulate CO2 is deemed “irresponsible”.

It’s also instructive to witness the hostility that Svensmark receives from The Cause. And they accuse the sceptics of being “anti-science”?

Here is the first:


Bloggies: Congratulations Jo Nova

Well done, Jo Nova

Congratulations Jo Nova, for winning the Best Aussie or NZ Blog – a great blog that fully deserved to win.

As soon as I saw you were nominated I knew I didn’t stand a chance!

Thanks to all my readers who voted for ACM.


%d bloggers like this: