Search Results for: "matthew england"

Shock! Mann’s stick droops…


Alarmists' droop?

Alarmists’ droop?

Mann’s membrum virile is a little more flaccid than it was a decade ago – well, it happens to the best of us.

This detumescence has occurred following the publication of a paper which acknowledges the existence of ‘The Pause’ and essentially confirms what the realists have been saying for some time:

It has been claimed that the early-2000s global warming slowdown or hiatus, characterized by a reduced rate of global surface warming, has been overstated, lacks sound scientific basis, or is unsupported by observations. The evidence presented here contradicts these claims.

No doubt the paper will go on to say that the sneaky old heat is hiding in the deep oceans where nobody can find it, and that when it decides it has had enough and breaks cover, it will be Far Worse Than We Thought™.

In the mean time, the stick is looking decidedly limp.

The list of authors reads like a litany of alarmism: Matthew England, Ben Santer, Michael E Mann…

I don’t for a moment believe that this is any genuine change of position – probably just setting us all up for the final coup de grace where, as a dramatic last exhortation to save the planet, Mann self-conflagrates himself whilst standing on an iceberg, and slowly melts himself into a hole.

Yet another excuse for The Pause


Age-old excuses

Age-old excuses

UPDATE: One of the other ABC reports (and there are plenty) leaves no room for any doubt:

Stronger than normal trade winds in the central Pacific are the main cause of a 13-year halt in global surface temperatures increases, an Australian study reveals.

Note: “are” the main cause. Not might be, or perhaps, but “are.” And if that weren’t enough, we have a D-word alert:

The authors reject the study gives impetus to climate change deniers and instead suggest that when the winds ease, global warming will accelerate rapidly.

The ABC really is a piece of shite.

The ABC breathlessly reports that a well-known warmist has worked out yet another reason for The Pause, and another factor that the climate models apparently didn’t know about.

Matthew England of the University of New South Wales (see here and here, for example of his impartiality on the matter) proposes a variation on the ‘Dog Ate my Warming’ excuse, accepted uncritically as usual by the ABC:

Scientists have come up with an explanation for the pause in global warming, which has long been a point of contention raised by climate change sceptics.

Over the past 15 years the rate of global warming has slowed – and more recently almost stalled.

Sceptics say the slowdown suggests warming is not as bad as first thought, while most climate scientists say it is just a natural climate variability.

Now an Australian-led team of researchers has found strong winds in the Pacific Ocean are most likely to be behind the hiatus.

The University of New South Wales (UNSW) researcher Matthew England said oceans were much more dominant in terms of their heat uptake.

“Obviously we have implications of that such as sea level rise,” Professor England said.

Professor England led a team of researchers from around the world that has come up with an explanation for why the oceans soak up the heat.

Their research, published in the journal Nature Climate Change, has found the answer lies in stronger than usual trade winds whipping across the Pacific Ocean.

It was found the winds were churning the Pacific like a washing machine, bringing the deeper colder water to the surface and pushing the warmer water below.

“The phase we’re in of accelerated trade winds particularly lasts a couple of decades,” Professor England said.

“We’re about 12 to 13 years in to the most accelerated part of the wind field.

“It’s important to point out there’s a cycle we expect to reverse and when they do reverse back to their normal levels we’d expect global warming to kick in and start to rise.” (source)

Note how the day of reckoning, when warming is set to resume, has been pushed out to some unspecified point in the future. Personally, I think it’s the Flying Spaghetti Monster that’s tinkering with the climate, reaching out with his noodly appendage to fool the warmists… no more ridiculous than the above, I would say.

Add it to the list.

BBC’s shameful climate propaganda seminar exposed


Activists, all of them...

Activists, all of them…

I wonder how much of the same goes on at our own publicly funded broadcaster? Probably all of it.

Whenever there is a climate change story to be covered, the ABC will rush to its favourites: David Karoly (alarmist), Matthew England (alarmist), Clive Hamilton (Green, activist), Stephan Lewandowsky (“scepics are conspiracy theorist fruit cakes”), Will Steffen (alarmist), Tim Flannery (alarmist), and the list goes on.

After lawyering up and spending thousands of licence fee payer’s cash on opposing Freedom of Information requests, the story is finally out, as the Daily Mail reports:

The BBC has spent tens of thousands of pounds over six years trying to keep secret an extraordinary ‘eco’ conference which has shaped its coverage of global warming, The Mail on Sunday can reveal.

The controversial seminar was run by a body set up by the BBC’s own environment analyst Roger Harrabin and funded via a £67,000 grant from the then Labour government, which hoped to see its ‘line’ on climate change and other Third World issues promoted in BBC reporting.

At the event, in 2006, green activists and scientists – one of whom believes climate change is a bigger danger than global nuclear war – lectured 28 of the Corporation’s most senior executives.

Then director of television Jana Bennett opened the seminar by telling the executives to ask themselves: ‘How do you plan and run a city that is going to be submerged?’ And she asked them to consider if climate change laboratories might offer material for a thriller.

A lobby group with close links to green campaigners, the International Broadcasting Trust (IBT), helped to arrange government funding for both the climate seminar and other BBC seminars run by Mr Harrabin – one of which was attended by then Labour Cabinet Minister Hilary Benn.

Applying for money from Mr Benn’s Department for International Development (DFID), the IBT promised Ministers the seminars would influence programme content for years to come.

The BBC began its long legal battle to keep details of the conference secret after an amateur climate blogger spotted a passing reference to it in an official report.

Tony Newbery, 69, from North Wales, asked for further disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. The BBC’s resistance to revealing anything about its funding and the names of those present led to a protracted struggle in the Information Tribunal. The BBC has admitted it has spent more than £20,000 on barristers’ fees. However, the full cost of their legal battle is understood to be much higher.

Read it all, then go and visit Tony’s blog: Harmless Sky

Flying Spaghetti Monster 'cannot be excluded' as driver of Queensland floods


AGW or FSM?

It’s the Holy Grail of alarmism. Even though there is almost no hope of ever doing so, the team are desperate to point to an extreme weather event and say that man-made climate change caused it, or made it worse.

Professor Matthew England (one of Anna Rose’s advisers in ABC’s I Can Change Your Mind about Climate – see here) has another go here, and uses weasel words to hijack a study – unrelated to climate change – to advance The Cause:

Abnormally high ocean temperatures off the coast of northern Australia contributed to the extreme rainfall that flooded three-quarters of Queensland over the summer of 2010-11, scientists report.

A Sydney researcher, Jason Evans, ran a series of climate models and found above average sea surface temperatures throughout December 2010 increased the amount of rainfall across the state by 25 per cent on average.

While the study did not look at the cause of ocean warming in the region, a physical oceanographer, Matthew England, said climate change could not be excluded as a possible driver of this extreme rainfall event.

Matthew England, who was not involved in the study, said ocean temperatures off northern Australia were the highest on record at the time of the Queensland floods.

“While the La Nina event played a big role in this record ocean warmth, so too did the long-term warming trend over the past 50 years,” Professor England, the co-director of the UNSW Climate Change Research Centre, said. (source)

Interfering with SST data now are we?

The study “did not look at the cause of ocean warming”, so the “abnormally high ocean temperatures” may have simply been natural variability at work. But according to England, climate change “could not be excluded”. Similarly, therefore, we cannot exclude the possibility that the Flying Spaghetti Monster was behind it, sneakily raising sea temperatures with his noodly appendage…

Youth and naiveté no match for maturity and experience


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.

[tube]yGYW7IEIirk[/tube]

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

"I can change your mind" – running commentary


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.

Australia's worst alarmists link recent rains to climate change


Yep, climate change

UPDATE: Guess what? The ABC swallows the whole thing, with a fawning, completely uncritical report on AM.

Following hot on the heels of the BoM/CSIRO climate report yesterday, today we have yet more scaremongering and alarmism.

David Karoly, Matthew England and Will Steffen are probably Australia’s three most hysterical climate alarmists. They have all featured regularly in these pages, and Will Steffen is one of the Labor government’s climate advisers.

And as we all know, any weather event, floods, drought, more cyclones, fewer cyclones, excessive heat, excessive cold, you name it, can be attributed to climate change. As has been said so many times, it is an unfalsifiable hypothesis – no event can disprove it – and therefore falls into the realm of pseudoscience. Bummer.

So when confronted with real world events which contradict their previous predictions, instead of admitting that there might be more to learn about the effects of climate on our weather, our three alarmists dig their heels in even further and make yet more extreme claims.

Put all those factors together, and you get this:

THREE of the nation’s leading climate scientists have linked the past two years of record wet weather to climate change in their strongest findings yet on the impact of global warming on the nation’s climate.

Professors Will Steffen, Matthew England and David Karoly, in a paper to be released today by the Climate Commission, find global warming may have contributed to the strength of the La Nina event and the heavy rainfall and flooding.

They also contend that the heavy rains do not contradict the trend towards drier weather for southern and eastern areas of Australia and find that despite two years of above average rains, southeast Australia continues to suffer from a cumulative rainfall deficit.

They reiterate warnings that global warming will produce longer dry spells, punctuated by heavier rainfall events, in southern and southwest Australia.

The release of the paper comes as Climate Commission chairman Tim Flannery faces increasing ridicule over his earlier predictions of water shortages in major capital cities due to drier weather resulting from global warming. (source)

Top three alarmists

And from the report itself, right on cue comes the now hackneyed “consistent with” excuse:

The wetter conditions experienced in southeastern Australia in the last two years are consistent with scientists’ knowledge and understanding of how the climate is changing in the long term. 

Because everything and anything is “consistent with” climate change, right boys? Here’s a challenge for our three heroes: what weather event would not be “consistent with” climate change? Answers on a postcard.

If you were a truly impartial scientist you would say, we don’t actually know how any changes in our climate will affect us, but these kind of events really help our understanding. Not spout yet more of the kind of alarmist nonsense that those three are all too famous for.

But that’s what happens when you are driven by an agenda – to prop up “The Cause” at all costs.

Don’t forget, the Climate Commission was set up by a government that has swallowed the IPCC line and wishes to enact a carbon tax, based on the threat of dangerous global warming… it would be highly inconvenient if dangerous global warming really wasn’t happening…

The full PDF report is here.

Wall Street Journal war of words continues


Click to enlarge

letter published in the Wall Street Journal on 27 January made the unremarkable and, one would have thought, fairly uncontentious, assertions that global temperatures had flatlined or slowed in the 21st century, that alarmist projections beget more research funding, and that the forecasts of the IPCC were exaggerated. Hardly anything earthshaking in that.

However, since such a letter dilutes “The Cause” and forces the average person to engage their own powers of reasoning, the consensus denial machine (denial of open debate and any kind of climate change other than man-made, that is) swung into action.

Kevin Trenberth and others (including Michael Mann (!), and Aussie alarmists David Karoly and Matthew England) wrote a further letter to the WSJ attempting to rebut the original points and shore up The Cause, relying heavily on the argument from authority (“97% of climate scientists etc” – remember where that figure came from – 75 out of 77 – , various “national academies” agree with us, etc etc), deploying the hackneyed cancer/doctor, smoking/lung cancer, HIV/Aids analogies, claiming that warming hasn’t slowed in the last decade, and that transitioning to a low carbon economy should be a priority. And who said scientists should never get involved in policy?

Patrick Michaels has responded in detail to this letter:

Trenberth et al. is surprisingly weak and incomplete. The 16 original authors are all individuals that are highly competent in their fields, most are physicists of one stripe or another, and all can read and summarize a scientific literature. In fact, most would hold that climate science is nothing more than applied physics.

“Extreme views” lie in the eye of the beholder, and science only grudgingly backs away from established paradigms. For example, despite the obvious jigsaw-puzzle fit of the earth’s continents, it took 100 years of bickering before continental drift was accepted over geological stasis. And, in this case, the “extreme view” of the most prominent climate scientist of the 16, MIT’s Richard Lindzen, is hardly an outrage.

Lindzen holds that the “sensitivity” of surface temperature to changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide has been overestimated because of an inaccuracy in the way that computer models magnify warming. In and of itself, it is mainstream, not extreme, to entertain the hypothesis that doubling carbon dioxide on its own would only cause a bit more than 1 degree (C) of global surface warming. Computer models arrive at much higher values, around 3.5°C, by amplifying the carbon dioxide effect because a slightly warmer atmosphere contains more water vapor, which itself is a potent greenhouse gas. Clouds are also changed in a way that enhances warming. There is evidence from the outgoing radiation signal of the earth that the effects of water vapor and clouds have been overestimated.

The 38 must somehow disagree with Susan Solomon, whose 2010 article in Science attributing the lack of recent warming—that the 39 deny—to unanticipated changes in stratospheric water vapor with no known cause.

The 38 must somehow disagree with the global temperature sensing from satellites, which also shows no net warming for the last 14 years. Now, one could argue that the satellites are measuring temperatures above the surface in the lower atmosphere, but the computer models that the 38 find so accurate, predict that the lower atmosphere should be warming faster than the surface over most of the planet.

Finally “more than 97% of all actively publishing* climate scientists agree that climate change is real and human caused” is probably an underestimate, as virtually everyone acknowledges that the surface temperature is warmer than it was, and that multifarious human activities have some influence on climate. Rather, he misses the point well-made by the original Journal article, which is that the rise in surface temperature is clearly below the values first forecast by the UN in 1990. The core—unsettled—issue in climate science is the “sensitivity” of temperature to carbon dioxide, and there are several independent lines of evidence, including the surface temperature history and the water vapor problems, that argue that it has been substantially overestimated.

In global warming, it’s not the heat, it’s the sensitivity. But don’t expect much sensitivity and expect a lot of heat when climatologists voice their opinions. (source, via WUWT)

Skeptical Science, home of the smug, fundamentalist climate headbangers, attempted to ridicule any suggestion that global temperatures had plateaued with a smug straw man graph [no link, they’re not having any of my traffic], showing smugly that us dumb sceptics will see declines anywhere in a data set by cherry picking the start and end points (I guess that’s better than hiding the declines, right, Mike and Phil?).

Thankfully, Josh came to the rescue with the sketch above, demonstrating how the IPCC sees accelerating warming in a dataset by, er, cherry picking the start and end points. Oh the ironing. Click to enlarge.

UPDATE: William Kininmonth writes to The Australian on the same subject:

KEVIN Trenberth, responding to an Opinion (to which I was a co-signatory) published in the Wall Street Journal (27/1/12) and The Australian (“Climate change ‘heretics’ refute carbon dangers”, 1/2), claims to have been quoted out of context and misrepresented (“Expertise a prerequisite to comment on climate”, 3/2).

The quote in our opinion is from an email sent by Trenberth to a group of colleagues that became public with the release of emails from the UK University of East Anglia (or climategate). Trenberth wrote: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t . . . there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observation system is inadequate.”

The context is an exchange of emails initiated in 2009 in response to a BBC item that there has been no warming since 1998 and that Pacific oscillations will force cooling for the next 20 to 30 years.

Trenberth was certainly lamenting the inadequacy of the observing systems (with which I agree) but at face value he is also acknowledging that the available data do not support warming since 1998. The latter is an inconvenience to the human-caused global warming hypothesis that he and his colleagues are wedded to.

William Kininmonth, Kew, Vic

Open letter from Australian warmists


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.

Media meltdown on Climate Commission report


Hardly impartial

Millions of column inches have been taken up on the Climate Commission’s one-sided and alarmist report, and most of those column inches haven’t had the benefit of an ounce of critical thought. Oddly, none of the journalists at Fairfax or the ABC have considered the vested interests at work in the commission, the careers built on global warming alarmism, the corruption of science by the IPCC, the lack of any opposing or dissenting views, the political influence of a government desperate to pass a carbon tax, and any number of other red flags which any independent thinking person would raise.

No, the media regurgitate the press release and the report without any consideration of any of those issues. Of course, Labor has been spruiking the report for all its worth – as if its conclusion has come as some kind of surprise! What did they expect from a bunch of scaremongering alarmists like David Karoly, Will Steffen and Matthew England? Balance? I think not. And neither did they. This whole edifice is nothing more than a propaganda machine, spewing out climate predictions on demand from a government in thrall to the Greens, and desperate to get traction on its flawed climate policy.

Then there is the inevitable “trust the scientists.” As if everything a scientist says is beyond question. Wheeling out the old chestnut about the patient with cancer, they crow, who would you trust? The three specialist oncologists or the quack? Over at the Impact of Climate Change blog, this post sums that attitude up perfectly:

The Hon. Julia Gillard, yesterday, explained that she accepts expert, scientific advice:

“The science is in, climate-change is real.  The science is clear:  man-made carbon pollution is making a difference to our planet and our climate. […]

“When I first met Ian Frazer, and he told me he had a cervical cancer vaccine that could cut the rates of cervical cancer for women and girls, I didn’t pretend to myself I knew enough about cancer to second-guess what he was telling me was right.

“He was right; he’s a scientist.  We’ve got climate scientists here who are telling us exactly the same about the nature of global warming and the climate of our planet.”

That’s “harmless carbon dioxide gas”, rather than “carbon pollution”, Julia, by the way. And the response?

When I met Claudius Ptolemaeus and he told me that he could accurately represent the geocentric universe as a set of nested spheres, I didn’t pretend to myself I knew enough about astrology to second-guess what he was telling me was right; he’s a scientist, and couldn’t be mistaken. (source)

And what is the difference between oncologists and climate scientists? Climate science has been corrupted by money and politics, things that the medical profession manages, in the main, to rise above [yes there are specific exceptions, primarily in connection with pharmaceuticals of course, so don’t bother writing in]. For years, climate science was obscure, and suddenly, a crisis! Climate science is suddenly on the front pages of newspapers. Entire climate science departments have sprung up at universities all over the world, government climate departments have been established in virtually every country, the UN has climbed aboard the bandwagon and set up hundreds of climate committees, such as the IPCC. In other words, billions and billions of dollars spent, and the careers of thousands of scientists at stake.

And we somehow expect the results of all this to be impartial? If there were no climate crisis, none of these departments would exist, and climate science would return to that forgotten corner of the lab. That is why it is mainly retired scientists who dare speak their doubts about the “consensus” out loud.

So until the Climate Commission opens its eyes and ears and invites dissenting views to be part of its reporting process, it will remain nothing more than a hopelessly biased propaganda machine and mouthpiece for a government hamstrung by the Greens.

%d bloggers like this: