"ANU death threat claims debunked" – The Australian

3 May, 2012 by

FOI request

UPDATE 6: Jo Nova writes here.

UPDATE 5: Scan of The Australian article is now here.

UPDATE 4: Catallaxy Files writes here.

UPDATE 3: James Delingpole writes here.

UPDATE 2: Anthony Watts posts on this here.

UPDATE 1: Andrew Bolt comments here.

Christian Kerr at The Australian reports on my ongoing efforts to obtain, from the Australian National University, copies of emails to climate scientists containing death threats, and a recent Privacy Commissioner ruling that shows that none of the documents produced contain such threats:

Climate scientists’ claims of email death threats go up in smoke

CLAIMS that some of Australia’s leading climate change scientists were subjected to death threats as part of a vicious and unrelenting email campaign have been debunked by the Privacy Commissioner.

Timothy Pilgrim was called in to adjudicate on a Freedom of Information application in relation to Fairfax and ABC reports last June alleging that Australian National University climate change researchers were facing the ongoing campaign and had been moved to “more secure buildings” following explicit threats.

In a six-page ruling made last week, Mr Pilgrim found that 10 of 11 documents, all emails, “do not contain threats to kill” and the other “could be regarded as intimidating and at its highest perhaps alluding to a threat”.

Chief Scientist Ian Chubb, who was the ANU’s vice-chancellor at the time, last night admitted he did not have any recollection of reading the emails before relocating the university’s researchers. “I don’t believe I did,” Professor Chubb told The Australian.

Instead, he said he had responded “as a responsible employer”.

“I had a bunch of concerned staff and they thought they should be moved to a more secure place so I moved them,” he said.

“With hindsight, we can say nobody chased them down. What do you do?”

The FOI application was lodged by Sydney climate blogger Simon Turnill. It requested the release of “emails, transcript of telephone calls or messages that contained abuse, threats to kill and/or threats of harm to the recipient” sent to six staff members of the ANU’s Climate Change Institute. His request resulted in the discovery of the 11 documents.

The university refused to release the documents, citing a clause in the Freedom of Information Act that exempts documents that “would, or could reasonably be expected to … endanger the life or physical safety of any person” from disclosure.

Mr Turnill appealed against the decision.

In response to the appeal, Mr Pilgrim found 10 documents did not contain threats to kill or threats of harm.

Mr Pilgrim said of the 11th, a further email offering an account of an exchange that occurred at an off-campus event sponsored by members of the Climate Change Institute and other bodies: “I consider the danger to life or physical safety in this case to be only a possibility, not a real chance.” 

By way of background, in June 2011, there was a flurry of media reports regarding the receipt of alleged “death threats” at the ANU and other universities. The story was the splash in the Canberra Times on 4 June. Furthermore, for example, here in Australia the ABC reported:

Death threats sent to top climate scientists

Several of Australia’s top climate change scientists at the Australian National University have been subjected to a campaign of death threats, forcing the university to tighten security.

Several of the scientists in Canberra have been moved to a more secure location after receiving the threats over their research.

Vice-chancellor Professor Ian Young says the scientists have received large numbers of emails, including death threats and abusive phone calls, threatening to attack the academics in the street if they continue their research.

He says it has been happening for the past six months and the situation has worsened significantly in recent weeks. (source)

The story made it around the world, with the UK Guardian reporting:

Australian climate scientists receive death threats

A number of Australia’s leading climate scientists have been moved into safer accommodation after receiving death threats, in a further escalation of the country’s increasingly febrile carbon price debate.

The revelation of the death threats follows a week of bitter exchanges between the government and the opposition in the wake of a pro-carbon price TV advert featuring actor Cate Blanchett.

The Australia National University (ANU) in Canberra said that it has moved a number of its climate scientists to a secure facility after they received a large number of threatening emails and phone calls.

Ian Young, ANU’s vice-chancellor, told ABC national radio that the threats had worsened in recent weeks.

“Obviously climate research is an emotive issue at the present time,” he said.

“These are issues where we should have a logical public debate and it’s completely intolerable that people be subjected to this sort of abuse and to threats like this.

“I think it is totally outrageous and the vast majority of Australians would think it is totally unacceptable for anybody in society to be subjected to this sort of behaviour.”

Young said that scientists had been threatened with assault if they were identified in the street. Among those targeted is Prof Will Steffen, ANU’s climate institute director. (source)

The Nature blog ran the story as well:

Australian climate scientists face death threats

Leading climate scientists in Australia are being subjected to an escalating campaign of death threats and abusive phone calls, as the country’s government edges closer to introducing a price on carbon.

A number of Australia’s highest profile climate scientists have been moved into secure buildings following the recent spate of threats, including at the Australian National University (ANU) in Canberra, as well as other universities in New South Wales and Queensland. Some economists and policy experts have also been relocated after being targeted.

ANU vice-chancellor Professor Ian Young told ABC News that the situation has worsened significantly in recent weeks. “Obviously climate research is an emotive issue at the present time,” he said. “These are issues where we should have a logical public debate and it’s completely intolerable that people be subjected to this sort of abuse and to threats like this.”

Scientists targeted include Will Steffen, director of ANU’s climate change institute. (source)

As a result of these news items, on 5 June 2011 I submitted an application for the documents in question under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The request stated that I required copies of  the following:

Emails or telephone calls or messages to members of the Climate Change Institute containing abuse, threats to kill and/or threats of harm to the recipient

and sent to any of six senior members of the ANU’s Climate Change Institute within the previous six months.

On 4 August 2011, the ANU sent a decision letter in which they stated that 11 documents meeting the above criteria had been found, but all of them were exempt from disclosure under two grounds, firstly, that of privacy, and secondly, that disclosure may “endanger the life or physical safety of any person”.

This immediately struck me as odd. Naturally, personal information could easily be redacted from emails, and secondly, how could such disclosure of the content of previously sent emails possibly cause further danger to life or physical safety? I did not see any point in referring the matter for internal review at ANU, and therefore lodged an appeal directly with the Information Commissioner. The grounds for appeal were stated thus:

The request for information regarded alleged “death threats” sent to members of the Australian National University climate change department. This story was reported widely in the media (e.g. including at the ABC – http://www.abc.net.au/ news/2011-06-04/death-threats-sent-to-top-climate-scientists/2745536, Herald Sun – http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/ scientists-suffer-death-threats/story-e6frf7jo-1226069173816, Sydney Morning Herald – http://www.smh.com.au/environment/ climate-change/death-threats-to-scientists-20110604-1fm4i.html).

I contacted the ACT police media office about this matter and they confirmed no complaint had been received and therefore no action in respect of the alleged threats had been taken.

The reasons for this review are as follows:

1. The ANU claims that disclosing the material would result in “unreasonable disclosure of personal information”, despite the fact that such information could easily be redacted from the e-mails. Such a ground should not prevent the disclosure of the substance of the e-mails.

2. The ANU further claims that disclosing the material would “endanger the life or physical safety of any person.” This is clearly nonsensical. The disclosure of the e-mails has no bearing on the threats contained therein, and cannot possibly further endanger life or physical safety of those concerned.

3. The ANU apply both exclusions to every document. It appears that this decision is therefore arbitrary and there has been no attempt to apply the exclusions on a case by case basis.

Given that no complaint was made to the police, the suspicion must arise that the e-mails contained abuse, but, importantly, no “threat to kill” within the meaning of the criminal law. That suspicion would also extend to the fact the ANU would now be reluctant to disclose the materials, since it would reveal that the stories reported in the media were exaggerated and overblown.

Given that the ANU themselves were content for the story to be provided to the media, it is wholly unconscionable for them now to refuse access to the materials on which those media reports were based, whether they are supportive of such media reports or otherwise. 

Finally, after a long wait, on 26 April 2012, the Privacy Commissioner ruled in my favour. The decision is available here. In respect of danger to life, the Commissioner wrote:

15. The question is how release of the documents could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any person. In other words, the question is whether release of the documents could be expected to create the risk, not whether the documents reflect an existing credible threat. Even if the threats were highly credible, the question would be how release of the documents would add to the expected threat.

16. In my view, there is a risk that release of the documents could lead to further insulting or offensive communication being directed at ANU personnel or expressed through social media. However, there is no evidence to suggest disclosure would, or could reasonably be expected to, endanger the life or physical safety of any person.

17. Therefore I consider that the 11 documents are not exempt under s 37(1)(c).

In respect of privacy issues, he wrote:

21. I agree that the documents in their entirety contain information and/or opinions about individuals—both those sending and receiving the documents. However, the scope of material that the applicant is seeking in this review excludes information that would make the identity of the individuals sending or receiving the emails reasonably identifiable. Without identifying information, such as names, phone numbers and email addresses, I do not consider the material within the scope of the review is personal information. In my opinion the identity of the senders and recipients of the emails would not be apparent or reasonably ascertainable from the remaining information in the documents. Therefore the 11 documents without information identifying individuals are not exempt under s 47F.

The ANU have still refused to release the documents, pending a possible appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. I fully intend to contest this appeal if necessary.

Furthermore, enquiries to the ACT Police last week confirm that since the threats were allegedly received, no complaint had been received from the University, and therefore no investigation has ever taken place.

 

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: , ,

Corrupting impressionable minds – one book at a time

30 April, 2012 by

Harmless? Think again

Unpacking a delivery from Amazon this morning, I was faced with an attractive and well-presented children’s pop-up book entitled “How the World Works – A hands-on guide to our amazing planet” (see cover illustration right).

As usual, before passing it on to my children, I gave it a quick scan for any possible subliminal (or blatant) global warming propaganda, and suffice it to say, it’s going straight back to Amazon in tomorrow’s post.

Just for background, this book was the winner of the Royal Society’s Young People’s Book Prize in 2011 – and that just about tells you all you need to know. The Royal Society isn’t about impartial and rigorous science any more, its about environmental brainwashing and political activism, hence this book would have scored very highly. It was also shortlisted for the Blue Peter Book Awards 2011 (“best book with facts” – no irony intended).

Driving your car kills the planet. Click to enlarge

The first three double spreads, about the formation of the planet were interesting and informative. By the fourth, however, on the water cycle, the usual hectoring tone of the environmentalists began to show through. The principle is that the planet is pure and undefiled and everything humanity does merely damages that purity. So we begin:

“How do we interfere [their emphasis] with the water cycle? Fertilisers and pesticides can seep into rivers and lakes, polluting the water [no mention of the fact that those chemicals allow us to feed the worlds population more effectively than any time in history]. Our vehicles release harmful gases into the air. This makes the rain acidic and affects wildlife [no mention of the fact that the global population’s standard of living has, in part due to the availability of global transportation, never been higher]”

And from there it just gets worse:

“Extreme weather. Weather can be dangerous! Winds and rain help move heat and water around the earth. But extreme weather can cause huge damage to homes, buildings and roads, and can even kill people. Scientists believe that human activities are changing our atmosphere and making the earth warm up. This might mean more extreme weather in the future.”

Gulf Stream - click to enlarge

And now for the Day After Tomorrow moment:

“What if the Gulf Stream stops? Scientists fear that global warming could affect the Gulf Stream. Melting polar ice caps will make the water at the poles less salty, preventing it from sinking and gradually slowing down the Gulf Stream. This would make Europe and North America much colder!”

Yet more global warming alarmism:

“The world has changed fast over the last hundred years. With an increasing number of people, factories, power stations and cards. We are constantly adding large amounts of carbon [sic] to the air, but the planet cannot absorb it any longer. We are meddling with the world’s natural carbon cycle, with worrying results (see ‘The Greenhouse effect,’ on the right.

Because there are more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, more of the Sun’s heat is trapped and the earth’s surface is warming up.”

And then, more lecturing on “green” living:

“How can we reduce our carbon footprint? The best way is to use less energy. We can start at home by turning down thermostats, hanging out the washing rather than tumble drying it, and switching off lights, televisions and computers when not needed. Transport is another big carbon producer. So walking, cycling or using public transport really helps.”

Environmental propaganda - click to enlarge

And as you can see from the images, it’s all dressed up in cheerful, kid-friendly artwork, with plenty of pull tabs and pop-ups so the message is cleverly concealed. Apart from the global warming propaganda, almost every page admonishes the reader and humanity in general for the evil it has done to the planet.

Because it’s a kids book, and the message must be straightforward, there’s no room for subtlety or shades of grey – it’s a blunt assessment that humanity is damaging the planet and we must change our ways, or else.

Gone are the days when children could grow up enjoying the wonders of the planet and the universe for their own sakes without being badgered or berated. Now even pop-up books designed for the very youngest in our society are packed with enviro-propaganda to make them feel guilty about the way in which humanity (and by inference the young readers of the book) have defiled Gaia. Tragic.

A link to the book on Amazon is here.

The publisher is Templar (link).

Christiane Dorion, the author, spent several years as co-ordinator of primary education for, wait for it, WWF. So here we have a committed environmental activist brainwashing children into Gaia-guilt when they are barely out of diapers… 

UPDATE: Apologies for the typos – quick copy typing unfortunately. Hopefully all corrected now.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: ,

Youth and naiveté no match for maturity and experience

27 April, 2012 by

Anna Rose of AYCC

UPDATE: Don’t forget to vote again at ABC’s website – the results prior to the show have been disappeared…

ABC’s documentary “I Can Change Your Mind about Climate” was an interesting experiment, but ultimately unsuccessful.

Throwing together veteran of the Senate, Nick Minchin, a well-known climate sceptic, and Anna Rose, founder of the Australian Youth Climate Coalition, each attempted to change the mind of the other by calling on their own selection of experts and commentators.

Prior to the documentary, the ABC did an excellent job of attempting to skew opinion. Catalyst, ABC’s science show immediately before the documentary, linked climate change to dying trees, and again showing excellent timing, ABC chose to begin the rehabilitation of Tim Flannery, by trailing his touchy-feely documentary alongside trailers for this show.

Furthermore, ABC Environment managed to post no less than THREE articles supporting the consensus, with not a single sceptical viewpoint for balance. Desperation, perhaps? You be the judge.

The choice of Rose as an adversary for Minchin was unfortunate for a number of reasons, primarily that as founder of AYCC, she is hardly likely to abandon her position on AGW – her entire career is based on sustaining that belief. Furthermore, she is married to Simon Sheikh of GetUp! (thanks to a comment for that little gem), which again reinforces the perception that her mind was already made up.

Perhaps another politician would have been better – someone on the Labor side who was a believer and not so entrenched in alarmist activism and advocacy would have made for a better match.

Rose’s choice of experts was patchy. Her first, a farmer offering anecdotal evidence of a changing climate, was an obvious wasted opportunity. Matthew England, a well known alarmist scientist (see here for example) was a better option, but his certainty with regard to the magnitude of climate feedbacks was unconvincing. Richard Muller, of BEST fame, did his “best” to present himself as that rarest of commodities, a heretic who became a believer, but again was to my mind unconvincing. Personally, I would trust satellite data a thousand times over land data when you see the adjustments and fudges applied to the raw records.

An expert on measuring CO2 at Mauna Loa similarly raised question marks – I don’t think anyone seriously disputes that CO2 is rising.

Minchin’s first experts were Jo Nova and David Evans, who in the very short time they were seen, acquitted themselves well. It was unfortunate that Rose made such a meal out of Nova’s “recording the recording”, in order to ensure that there was no unfair editing, but given the history of bias at the ABC one can understand Nova’s concerns.

UPDATE @ 11.10am on 27/4/12: Comment from Jo Nova at her blog here:

“I just watched the online streaming version. We did 4 hours of footage at our house, and they showed not one single point I made, not one answer to Anna Roses questions. I repeated my favourite lines about 28 million weather balloons, 3000 ocean buoys off by heart at least 4 times. Obviously everything I said was too “dangerous”. But we have the full tape of the whole event, so sooner or later the world will see the parts that the ABC deemed to be not “interesting” to the Australian public. So all in all, pretty much as we expected. They trimmed it down to the point where it’s tame, they gave the alarmists the last word (they always do), and while they were happy to grill us about where our money came from just like Wendy Carlisle, when the question backfires (because we are not shills for anyone) they won’t show it. We can’t let the public know that Jo Nova and David are volunteers.”

He then paid a visit to Richard Lindzen who believes that climate sensitivity, the essential crux of the climate debate, is low, due to various feedback acting to reduce warming from CO2. Rose then demonstrated an unfortunate tendency towards the cheap ad hominem attack, by accusing Lindzen of denying links between smoking and cancer. Such allegations were treated by Minchin and Lindzen with the contempt they deserved.

Rose’s low point was her introduction to Marc Morano. She refused to engage with someone who was “not a climate scientist”. Neither was her first “expert”, the farmer, but that didn’t stop Minchin from listening politely. Her petulant schoolyard attitude unfortunately betrayed her youth and inexperience, and harmed her cause. Morano was pretty well controlled in the circumstances.

Minchin’s choice of Bjorn Lomborg was again interesting. Lomborg, with his trademark shock of blond hair, is the warmist the warmists love to hate, being a believer in AGW but rejecting the draconian emission reductions most of them advocate. I agree with his logic, yes invest in renewable research, but it should not be foisted upon an economy until it is competitive. This provided one of the few meeting of minds in the show.

In conclusion, there was no way that Rose’s mind would EVER be changed – she is too wrapped up in the whole socio-political agenda of AGW for that. She unfortunately resorted to cheap tactics when the answers weren’t going her way, and her discourtesy to Morano was unforgivable. Furthermore, the evidence she presented was unlikely to be persuasive enough to change Minchin’s mind (or mine).

On balance, however, and putting my own views aside, it would be hard not to award a win to Minchin. Rose was outclassed – her youth and inexperience showed at every turn, and her open-mindedness compromised from the start.

I’m not going to say a great deal about the Q&A debate afterwards. It was horribly biased as would be expected: four against two (including host Tony Jones, of course). Rose continued her ad hom theme by accusing sceptics of accepting funds from Heartland, and Jones appointed Matthew England, who was astonishingly in the audience, as “official” climate scientist to the panel, the go-to person whenever Minchin or Clive Palmer made a claim about the science – an appalling lapse of judgment on Jones’ part.

Palmer and Minchin landed some good punches, however, although one must wonder why they put themselves through the ABC wringer…

LINKS TO REACTION AND COMMENT

  • Minchin has an opinion piece in The Age here, in which he reveals that his visit to a cosmic ray scientist at CERN was left on the cutting room floor…
  • Anna Rose has a piece up at Unleashed here, in which I briefly saw the word “denialist” and closed the window. Let’s face it, we know what it’s going to say.
  • Jo Nova has a reaction here entitled “The intellectual vacuum – alarmists are afraid of debate, they namecall and break laws of reason”
  • The ABC website for the show is here
  • Michael Ashley, warmist at UNSW, writes at The Conversation here. I’ll leave it up to you to deconstruct this essay, but in the first few lines he misrepresents Minchin’s position as being “sceptical of ANY human impact on climate” and it’s all downhill from there
Filed Under: Climate Tagged With:

"I can change your mind" – running commentary

26 April, 2012 by

UPDATE: See my full review of ABC’s “I Can Change Your Mind about Climate” HERE.

Nick Minchin vs Anna Rose.

Round 1 – Anna chooses anecdotal evidence from a farmer, Nick chooses Jo Nova and David Evans. Round 1 to Nick.

Round 2 – Anna chooses Matthew England, who fudges on feedback, Nick chooses Lindzen who embarrasses Anna big time. Round 2 to Nick.

Then Anna smears Lindzen by raising passive smoking. Nick (rightly) goes ballistic. Onya.

Round 3 – Anna chooses Richard Muller (of BEST fame) whose arguments are weak at … er, best.

Anna totally outclassed. Then smears Marc Morano. Hilarious. And tragic. Anna just not interested. “I will only debate a climate scientist” says Arts/Law graduate. “Won’t be engaging in debate”. Embarrassing, Anna. I’m afraid avoiding debate isn’t the answer.

“Alarmed” are worried about social justice. Yep.

Nick calls on Bjorn Lomborg – good choice, Anna picks Zac Goldsmith. Hmm.

Ben Goldacre… uses “denier” in the first 30 seconds. Thinks that the realists have the media on their side – bwahahaha! Twat. Thinks the documentary is a “flawed format”… geez.

Mike Hulme and Anna try to scare Minchin by showing eroding cliffs. Like cliffs never eroded before… FFS. Check the sea levels. Hulme and Anna question the validity of a democratic system. When have you heard that before?

ABC concludes by saying that it’s all about your “values” – not that climate science is corrupted and politicised.

Ah yes, now the ABC sends them to the Barrier Reef to show who has the real “moral” authority on this issue, and it ain’t Nick.

—-

Q&A is getting painful. Glad the “unknown” has come out as an alarmist, using the word “denier” within the first minute of her speaking. So that’s 4/2, then.

Every time Anna Rose opens her pretty mouth, she spouts total crap. Sorry, but she is so naive.

Q&A producers highlighting mindless tweets as usual…

Anna on the utopia of a “green economy” – which, er, doesn’t exist!

Ah, the bias of the Q&A audience finally revealed, as Anna chirps to Clive Palmer “why don’t you build solar panels instead?” Predictable round of applause for that puerile comment.

Anna cannot even accept that there has been a slowing in warming. Oh dear.

Why the F**k is Matthew England there bolstering Anna’s case? Is Lindzen there too? Shameful.

Shame again on Anna for cheap ad hominem attacks. Shows how desperate she is – and totally out of her depth.

APPALLING BIAS to allow Matthew England act as Q&A’s “appointed” climate scientist – WTF? Where’s Lindzen for balance?

OK, sick of this now. ABC has abandoned any pretence of impartiality. Going offline. *fume*

Amazing I lasted as long as this.

Filed Under: Climate

A few quick plugs

26 April, 2012 by

Nick Minchin

UPDATE 5: Catalyst, ABC’s “science” programme, blames climate change for tree deaths – right before the climate doco. You have to hand it to the ABC – they don’t let any opportunity go to waste.

UPDATE 4: Let’s not forget the ABC’s brave and singlehanded rehabilitation of Tim Flannery, with his touchy-feely show, “Two on the Great Divide”, cleverly trailed right after the teasers for the climate debate tonight. Subliminal, right?

UPDATE 3: Oops, the ABC does it again. And again. Three alarmist articles supporting the consensus on ABC Environment, and not a single sceptical one for balance. See? I said I could tell where this was going.

UPDATE 2: Because too much bias is never enough at the ABC, they’ve dragged in Un-Skeptical Pseudo-Science’s John Cook to smear the realists before the show is even broadcast. Breathtaking.

UPDATE: Andrew Bolt confirms the Q&A panel contains no sceptical scientist, but Megan Clark of CSIRO (alarmist with shares in carbon sequestration company – see here), Clive Palmer (who the lefties can immediately write off as a conspiracy theorist, and whose credibility is therefore compromised before we even start), Rebecca Huntley (unknown position on climate), Anna Rose (alarmist AYCC founder), chair Tony Jones (alarmist), and Nick Minchin of course (sceptic). So that’s three alarmists against one (and a half) sceptics, with one unknown. Why no Carter, Kininmonth or Plimer?

A couple of plugs for some worthwhile watching/reading this week:

  • The ABC is screening the climate doco I can change your mind (link) tonight at 8.30pm AEST, with Nick Minchin and Anna Rose (founder of the Australian Youth Climate Coalition). I guess the fact that the ABC even allow Nick on the telly as a filthy climate heretic is some small miracle coming from our biased national broadcaster, for which we should be duly thankful. But you can bet the Q&A audience afterwards (9.30pm) will be heavily stacked (and with lefty/alarmist Tony Jones in the chair…). You only have to look at how the ABC regarded the sceptic doco The Great Global Warming Swindle back in 2008 to see how this will pan out.
  • Also, I highly recommend this week’s Spectator magazine (out on Friday). Nick Minchin pens the Diary, and Tim Blair writes on James Delingpole’s visit down under.
Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: ,

Gone fishing

23 April, 2012 by

UPDATE: I’m currently awaiting an appeal decision regarding an FOI request. Once this is handed down, I will (hopefully) be posting on the material.

ACM will be on a break for a while. Unfortunately, other (non-climate-related) projects mean that blogging must take a back seat for an as yet undetermined period.

As always, check the live Blog Roll on the right for your daily dose of climate sanity.

Simon

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With:

Earth Hour Open Thread

31 March, 2012 by

Not a CFL or LED in sight

UPDATE: ACM will be taking a break for a while. Comments on this thread will continue to be posted.

In honour of the pointless environmental token known as Earth Hour, I’m spending my weekend at ACM Towers (see right) replacing all the hopeless CFLs with evil tungsten filament bulbs (or “globes” as they are bizarrely called here in Aus). So it’s up to you to discuss any climate related issues here. Play nicely.

Don’t forget, celebrate Human Achievement Hour instead…

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With:

Australian Academy of Science makes Flannery a fellow

30 March, 2012 by

Where's my crystal ball?

Discredited alarmist institution confers fellowship on discredited alarmist scientist in recognition of his services to failed climate astrology. All mates together.

Representing Australia’s leading research scientists, the Australian Academy of Science annually honours a small number of Australian scientists for their outstanding contributions to science, by election to the Academy.

The new Fellows hail from institutions around Australia and have made internationally significant achievements in a broad range of scientific disciplines. The youngest is only 39 years of age.

“I warmly congratulate all of our new Fellows for their outstanding contributions to Australia and the world,” said Academy President, Professor Suzanne Cory.

The new Fellows will be admitted to the Australian Academy of Science and present summaries of the work for which they have been honoured at the Academy’s annual three-day celebration, Science at the Shine Dome, on 2 May in Canberra.

New Fellows of the Australian Academy of Science are:

…

Professor Timothy Fridtjof Flannery FAA
Environmental sustainability, Macquarie University
Advancing public awareness and understanding of science. (source)

Fridtjof. Heh.

(h/t JoNova)

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: ,

Fellow Earthians: Greens' bizarre psyche revealed

29 March, 2012 by

Bunch of nut-jobs

We’ve always suspected that the Greens were a bunch of nut-jobs, since anyone who puts the environment above care for the human condition must have serious psychological issues.

But recently, their twisted and disturbed way of thinking was confirmed and laid bare by Greens leader Bob Brown, in a recent speech, which begins thus (and this is no joke – the link to the Greens website is here):

Fellow Earthians,

Never before has the Universe unfolded such a flower as our collective human intelligence, so far as we know.

Nor has such a one-and-only brilliance in the Universe stood at the brink of extinction, so far as we know.

We people of the Earth exist because our potential was there in the Big Bang, 13.7 billion years ago, as the Universe exploded into being.

So far, it seems like we are the lone thinkers in this vast, expanding Universe.

Exclude yourself from the “thinkers” by the way, Bob. He ponders why other civilisations haven’t contacted us. His conclusion: because they have all “extincted themselves”. He doesn’t consider the miriad other possibilities, for example, that even at the speed of light, information from the other side of the universe may take billions of years to reach us, or that electromagnetic signals from such vast distances (unless stellar in origin) are too weak to reach us.

Or that the time we are currently living in isn’t particularly special on a universal scale, so why out of 4.5 billion years since the beginning of the Solar System, the alien signals choose Bob Brown’s lifetime (0.0000014% of that timeframe) as the exact time to arrive.

No, clearly alien life forms have evolved, built SUVs and sent their home planets into climate death spirals – talk about a blinkered, geocentric view of the universe! For all the talk of the wonders of the universe, Bob’s comprehension of it extends no further than the here and now.

And for those of you who still believe that “climate change alarmism as a means to global government” is a conspiracy theory dreamed up by filthy deniers:

We need a strategy. We need action based on the reality that this is our own responsibility – everyone’s responsibility.

So democracy – ensuring that everyone is involved in deciding Earth’s future – is the key to success.  

For comprehensive Earth action, an all-of-the-Earth representative democracy is required. That is, a global parliament.

…

The concept of world democracy goes back centuries, but since 2007, there has been a new movement towards an elected, representative assembly at the United Nations, in parallel with the unelected, appointed, General Assembly. This elected assembly would have none of the General Assembly’s powers but would be an important step along the way to a future, popularly elected and agreeably empowered global assembly.

…

We Earthians can develop rosier prospects. We have been to the Moon. We have landed eyes and ears on Mars. We are discovering planets hundreds of light years close which are ripe for life. We are on a journey to endless wonder in the Cosmos and to realising our own remarkable potential. 

To give this vision security, we must get our own planet in order.

Anyone who continues to plug the conspiracy line – just look above. Brown doesn’t consider exactly the mechanics of how this would all work, but that’s irrelevant to Brown, who seems happy to abandon our own self-determination and hand over power to some remote global parliament. And if that’s still not clear enough for you:

So let us resolve that there should be established for the prevalence and happiness of humankind a representative assembly a global parliament for the people of the Earth based on the principle of one person one vote one value; and to enable this outcome that it should be a bicameral parliament with its house of review having equal representation elected from every nation. An Earth parliament for all. But what would be its commission? Here are four goals:

Economy. Equality. Ecology. Eternity.

Sorry, not global government but “earth parliament”. Away with the fairies, Bob.

And finally, if you think this was just Brown off on a frolic of his own, Christine Milne defends the speech in The Australian today, calling it “very inspiring”. Says it all, really.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: , ,

Queensland: Green tokenism to be slashed

28 March, 2012 by

Celebrate, as another state begins the task of dismantling pointless and damaging green gestures. Yesterday it was Victoria, today, Queensland.

And delicious irony, the man who set them up now has to take them down – brilliant, Campbell Newman!

QUEENSLAND Premier Campbell Newman has ordered Anna Bligh’s husband to begin dismantling green energy programs he helped create, as the new LNP government moved to slash environmental spending to offset the federal carbon tax.

The showpiece of the Gillard government’s $1.5 billion Solar Flagships Program is now in jeopardy, after Mr Newman yesterday pulled the plug on $75 million in state funding pledged for the $1.2bn Solar Dawn solar thermal project near Chinchilla, west of Brisbane.

Resources Minister Martin Ferguson yesterday suggested the federal government might withdraw its own $464m contribution, promised only last month. “If the new Queensland government chose to breach the existing financial commitment to the Solar Dawn project, the Australian government would naturally need to consider its own position,” Mr Ferguson said.

Mr Newman yesterday declared his LNP government would axe seven other green schemes, on the grounds the carbon tax would make them redundant. “We now have a federal government that is imposing a great big carbon tax on us and the rest of the country that is meant to solve all these (environmental) problems,” he said.

Mr Newman has given the job of dismantling the programs to the bureaucrat who set them up – Greg Withers, who is married to Ms Bligh.

“We want him to unravel those programs ’cause he’s the bloke who set them up,” Mr Newman said. “There are rumours going around that he’s packed up his office. I want to say very clearly that is news to me; he is, as far as I’m concerned, an employee of the Queensland government, and we would like him to do a few things for us at the moment.” (source)

Great stuff.

But Gillard’s not listening, as she believes that people will warm to the carbon tax when it finally lands:

JULIA Gillard intends to tough out her dramatic collapse in support in opinion polling, convinced the looming introduction of the carbon tax will allow her to regain control of national political debate by exposing Tony Abbott as a scaremonger.

But Labor insiders are continuing to warn that the Prime Minister’s broken promise over the introduction of the $23-a-tonne tax has so badly undermined her public standing among voters that she must address the integrity issue and change her political style. As Ms Gillard and her advisers put their faith in seeking to shift the political debate towards the economy yesterday, the Coalition chimed in on cue with an internet video ridiculing her claim on Monday that voters could trust her to manage the economy by highlighting her pre-2010 election promise not to introduce a carbon tax. (source)

Let’s just hope people have long memories.

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