Just don't tell me the debate's over…
The climate Consensus isn’t that 97% of climate scientists or papers worship at the altar of the warmist religion, as Cook ‘n’ Lew would have you believe, kind of like the old Whiskas advert (“8 out of 10 owners, that expressed a preference [that proviso added by the lawyers, clearly], said their cats preferred it”), but is in fact…
… that 97% of climate models are wrong. In fact, it’s nearly 100%. Epic fail.
That’s the only consensus there is…
The Climate Commissioners on their days off…
Tell us something we don’t already know. The Climate Commission has got nothing whatsoever to do with impartial, free-thinking scientific enquiry. It’s sole purpose is to regurgitate government climate policy, couched in pseudo-science and alarmism.
Monday’s “Critical Decade” report, which claimed that there is a one-in-two chance that there will be no humans left on the planet by 2100, has been rightly exposed as extremist environmental propaganda:
THE mining industry has lashed out at the latest Climate Commission report, labelling it taxpayer-funded environmental activism that would devastate the Queensland economy.
Minerals Council of Australia chief executive Mitch Hooke said the report, which called for an end to most coal mining, crossed the line from scientific analysis into environmental campaigning.
The report warns that unchecked climate change would hit hard at Queensland’s biggest industries: mining, cattle and potentially tourism, through impacts on the Great Barrier Reef and Wet Tropics.
Climate Commissioner Will Steffen said an orderly transition had to be made from most fossil fuel use such as coal if the climate was to be stabilised this century.
Mr Hooke said extreme green groups had promoted an end to the coal industry in a secret campaign called Stopping the Coal Export Boom.
The document outlined a plan to eliminate the industry and he wanted to know why a taxpayer-funded agency with a charter that demanded scientific rigour was following the same approach.
Professor Steffen hit back, saying there were no conspiracies [Conspiracy? Quick, where’s Loon-dowsky when you need him? – Ed], he had not heard of the campaign and his organisation had no contact of any sort with conservationists.
“If he’d cared to read the report [Sarcasm, lowest form of wit – Ed], he would find pages of [alarmist] scientific references in it [and none that challenged the consensus],’’ Professor Steffen said. “(The report) is based on the [fudged and fiddled] science and consistent with what the International Energy Agency says, what the Grantham Institute says and what (economist) Lord Stern says.
“It’s well understood in investment and science communities [both of which are making shed-loads of cash from the climate scare].’’
The stopping coal document, which is sponsored by Greenpeace, Coalswarm and the Graeme Wood Foundation [remember to boycott Wotif.com] and is available on the internet, says its strategy is to disrupt and delay key projects while eroding support for coal mining.
Mr Hooke said there would be severe economic consequences if coal mining ended but no tangible environmental dividend.
“Eliminating the Australian coal industry would reduce Australia’s GDP by between $29 billion and $36 billion per year,’’ he said. “It would reduce Australian jobs by almost 200,000 and reduce income to the Commonwealth by $6 billion.’’ (source)
But that’s OK, because the activists’ quasi-religious duty to ‘save the planet’ trumps everything, including common sense, apparently.
You just need to take a close look at this image to see all that’s wrong with the government funded propaganda mouthpiece the Climate Commission. It has been annotated with some ACM comments:
Propaganda, alarmism and blackmail
Planet’s been here for four and a half billion years, yet this microscopic blink of ten years is critical, right chaps?
Read the whole sorry thing here – and see if you can find any reference to the divergence between models and reality. Most of it is just a cut-and-paste job from IPCC AR4. This is where your tax dollars are going. Aren’t you glad?
source: Cartoons by Josh
Conflict of Interest Alert as Tim Yeo, who is alleged to have £1,000,000 (AU$1.65m) in Green interests, and who chairs the UK parliament’s Energy and Climate Select Committee, was caught in a Sunday Times sting, offering to lobby government figures in exchange for payment (allegedly).
The Telegraph reports:
The Conservative MP who scrutinises energy policy has been filmed boasting that he can be paid to introduce businessman to members of the Government.
Tim Yeo, the chairman of the Commons Energy and Climate Change Committee, also said he had coached John Smith, managing director of GB Railfreight, before the executive gave evidence to the committee last month. Yeo is a paid director and shareholder of Eurotunnel — the firm’s parent company.
Mr Yeo was filmed by undercover reporters working for The Sunday Times saying: “I told him [Mr Smith] in advance what to say. Ha-ha.”
When asked if he would be interested in a £7,000-a-day consultancy contract with a solar company, the MP said: “If you want to meet the right people, I can facilitate all those introductions and I use the knowledge I get from what is quite an active network of connections.”
The reporters queried if this included Government figures. Mr Yeo replied “Yes”.
The House of Commons’ code of conduct forbids MPs from acting as paid advocates, including by lobbying ministers. (source)
For those with their snouts in the trough (allegedly), the green economy is a nice little earner.
Respect and integrity
In what other area of scientific discourse would this kind of exchange take place?
Marshall Shepherd: learned n strange emails/blogs some disagree with my #Tedx Talk, @MichaelEMann HockeyStick discredited (hasn’t), & wx varies-gee “who knew”
Bishop Hill: @DrShepherd2013 I attended a debate with a paleoclimate guy a few months ago. In q&a he was asked about the hockey stick. He said “it’s broken”.
Marshall Shepherd: @aDissentient why don’t you ask @MichaelEMann
Marshall Shepherd: @aDissentient and fyi, I generally don’t debate anything that isn’t published in the peer-reviewed lit, best regards
Then Mann shows up:
Michael Mann: @DrShepherd2013 Marshall, I don’t engage disinformation-spewing trolls. It just encourages them…
Marshall Shepherd: @MichaelEMann indeed
Marshall Shepherd: @MichaelEMann I am loving the block function immensely…
Michael Mann: @DrShepherd2013 You and me both 😉
Marshall Shepherd: @MichaelEMann @skepticscience [of course – Ed] unfortunately already blocked the folks that need to see this 🙂
No comment required. The tweets speak for themselves. By the way, Marshall Shepherd is the President of the American Meteorological Society.
P.S. Note to Michael Mann, Shepherd and all the other blockers, all you need to do is log out of Twitter and you can see everything, which is how ACM (which was blocked by Mann) can post all the tweets.
H/T Bishop Hill
Here’s the exchange as it appeared on Twitter:
Twitter has a long memory…
Climate Clowns
Here’s a summary of the Scientific Method, according to John Cook & Stephan Lewandowsky:
Step 1: Develop a quasi-religious belief in a particular point of view (e.g. that human-caused emissions are causing dangerous climate change);
Step 2: Convince yourself that you are morally and intellectually superior to those who hold a different view, since your view is naturally “right” and “good”, and the other is “evil” and “bad”;
Step 3: Look for ways to caricature, demean, ostracise and ridicule your ideological opponents whilst at all times avoiding any rational discussion of the subject matter in dispute;
Step 4: Find some suitably catchy phrases, like “deniers are all conspiracy theory fruitcakes who think the Moon landing was faked” or “97% of scientific papers support the ‘consensus’ on global warming“, with which to frame the “research” and portray your opponents as fools;
Step 5: Beat, batter and torture whatever data you get until it fits said phrase;
Step 6: Use said phrase in the title of your paper so that MSM journalists, who never read anything beyond the title anyway, will do all the hard work for you (especially when one of your mates writes part of the story…!);
Step 7: Continue to pretend that the research is “impartial” and of the highest standard, despite the fact that the entire world and his dog is aware of the researchers’ firmly held beliefs and biases. How? Mainly because they publish them every day on web sites.
Step 8: Sit back and wait for moonbat universities, governments and supposedly learned societies to award you great honours for doing such valuable “research“, and for the grants to flood in.
By the way, that whirring noise in the background is Karl Popper spinning in his grave.
CFCs to blame?
It’s all one way traffic for the carbon dioxide mongers at the moment. Not only is the climate refusing to play ball, and the pesky media is starting to ask awkward questions of the alarmists, but a new paper hints at CO2 being less of a factor in climate change than CFCs.
From The Science is Settled department:
BANNED aerosols that caused the ozone hole – not carbon dioxide – were responsible for global warming since the 1970s, according to published research from one of Canada’s leading universities.
The research predicts global temperatures will continue to fall for the next 50 to 70 years and sea levels will rise for two decades before starting to retreat.
The peer-reviewed research by Qing-Bin Lu, a professor of physics and astronomy, biology and chemistry at Waterloo University, was published in the International Journal of Modern Physics B.
The findings of Professor Lu’s paper – Cosmic-Ray-Driven Reaction and Greenhouse Effect of Halogenated Molecules: Culprits for Atmospheric Ozone Depletion and Global Climate Change – are at odds with the consensus view that climate change is driven by increasing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere. Waterloo University said Professor Lu’s research provided “new fundamental understanding of the ozone hole and global climate change”. Critics said it might be “nothing more than coincidental correlation”, but it warranted further study.
Chlorofluorocarbons are known to deplete ozone, but conventional thinking is the emission of human-made non-CFC gases such as carbon dioxide had mainly contributed to global warming.
“But we have observed data going back to the industrial revolution that convincingly shows that conventional understanding is wrong,” Professor Lu said. “In fact, the data shows that CFCs conspiring with cosmic rays (solar activity) caused both the polar ozone hole and global warming.”
By proving the link between CFCs, ozone depletion and temperature changes in the Antarctic, Professor Lu said he was able to draw almost perfect correlation between rising global surface temperatures and CFCs in the atmosphere. “The change in global surface temperature after the removal of the solar effect has shown zero correlation with CO2 but a nearly perfect linear correlation with CFCs,” he said.
If correct, the theory would have dramatic implications for forecasting global climate change.
“Most conventional theories expect that global temperatures will continue to increase as CO2 levels continue to rise, as they have done since 1850,” Professor Lu said. “My calculations of CFC greenhouse effect show that there was global warming by about 0.6 degrees C from 1950 to 2002, but the Earth has actually cooled since 2002. The cooling trend is set to continue for the next 50-70 years as the amount of CFCs in the atmosphere continues to decline.” (source – $)
Next step will be for the UN to tax underarm deodorants, I guess.
Australian Climate Madness 
Recent Comments