Just don't tell me the debate's over…
As Anthony Watts puts it: Scientists Behaving Badly. Here’s the clip, yet again, on another flagship BBC current affairs programme, Newsnight (I wonder how long it will be before we get the same level of debate on Climategate on the ABC?):
Admittedly, Morano is annoying, but it’s no excuse for Andrew Watson’s behaviour.
See Morano’s page on this here.
And the only reason there was a swing to the Greens was, er, no ALP. So the predictions of voter anger over the blocking of the ETS don’t seem to have materialised. Perhaps the voters actually quite liked it?
UPDATE: In fact there was virtually no swing. As Andrew Bolt reports:
What an astonishing triumph for new Liberal leader and warming sceptic Tony Abbott. There was actually a swing to the Liberals – from last election’s 57.04 per cent of the two-party preferred vote to 57.57 per cent this time – despite:
- A campaign dominated by the media coverage of the bitter rifts and leadership turmoil in the Liberal Party.
- The retirment of a very popular local member in Peter Costello
- Furious media promotion of the by-election as a referendum on the leadership of Tony Abbott, widely portrayed as a “Mad Monk” and warming denialist.
- The imposition on voters of an unnecessary by-election, which in Jeff Kennett’s case in nearby Burwood saw the state Liberals actually lose a safe seat.
- The selection by the Liberals of a low-profile candidate in Kelly O’Dwyer, against the high-profile Green in Clive Hamilton.
- Blanket coverage for the Greens by the ABC in particular.
- A media soundtrack of increasingly hysterical warnings about warming doom, including dying penguins at Phillip Island, cannibalising polar bears and record heat waves in Australia.
- An accidental win of the leadership by Abbott by just one vote.
- Immediate public criticism of his new policies by his defeated rival, Malcolm Turnbull.
- Universal predictions by commentators and psephologists that the Liberals would take a hit, or even lose.
And the ABC’s headline this morning makes me laugh: Liberals escape voter backlash (source). The media predict something ridiculous, then when it doesn’t happen, the Libs have “escaped”.
Herald Sun
But hang on… surely this wonderful new green economy will create thousands of jobs, billions of dollars of investment, and everything in the environmental garden will by rosy, right? That’s what we’ve been told over and over again by the Rudd government, despite the fact that a bit of common sense would tell you that taxing energy will cause huge damage to any economy. Seems that it takes this long for the media to catch up with common sense:
IMF experts say the global economy stands to benefit from action against climate change, but warn that aggressive curbs on emissions could jeopardise the recovery without careful planning.
Days before a major climate summit gets underway in Copenhagen, the experts at the International Monetary Fund said a global pact would help the world’s poorest who face the worst effects of rising temperatures.
“Greater climate resilience can promote macroeconomic stability and alleviate poverty,” Michael Keen and Benjamin Jones of the global lender’s fiscal affairs department wrote in a staff position note.
But they also called for caution. They warned that sudden, large hikes in the costs of carbon emissions blamed for global warming could generate “unwelcome pressures on production costs and household incomes, thus dampening prospects for recovery”.
Preventing developing countries from using fossil fuels will consign millions if not billions of people back into a life of poverty – it’s a simple as that. There is no green economy panacea – it’s a myth.
Read it here.
Tricked by carbon intensity
The media is full of headlines praising India and China for agreeing to cut carbon by this percentage or that percentage, but it’s only when you read down that you realise that they are referring to carbon intensity, which is carbon dioxide emissions per unit of GDP.
So when China says it will cut carbon by 40% by 2020, what it means is that it will actually increase emissions by about 25%, because GDP in developing countries such as China is going through the roof, but which is 40% less than it would have been.
And yet the media seem unable to see through the trick, reporting it as if it’s big news:
INDIA aims to reduce its carbon intensity by 2020 by up to 25 per cent compared with 2005, the country’s Environment Minister has announced, echoing similar commitments by China and the US before the Copenhagen climate change conference.
Jairam Ramesh reiterated India’s refusal to accept legally binding targets for reducing its carbon emissions or to agree to Western demands to set a date for when its emissions would peak. But he did announce a target for India’s unilateral efforts to reduce the quantity of carbon dioxide it produces per unit of GDP — known as its carbon intensity — and said that India would show flexibility at the summit.
The announcement was seen as a major shift in India’s negotiating position.
“The Planning Commission has concluded that we can have a 20 to 25 per cent reduction in emission intensity between 2005 and 2020,” Mr Ramesh said in a speech outlining India’s position at next week’s summit.
So whereas countries like the UK have unilaterally committed economic suicide by legislating an 80% reduction in actual emissions by 2050, India and China merely commit to increase emissions, but more slowly.
Read it here.
Debating CRU
BBC radio’s flagship current affairs programme, Today, has aired a 12 minute debate with Jonathan Porritt, sceptic Philip Stott [amazingly], and the BBC’s environment correspondent, Richard Black.
As Biased-BBC puts it:
Porritt admitted through gritted teeth that there was something to investigate in Climategate (though of course still maintaining that “most scientists” say there is a consensus), while Stott skillfully painted the picture of why there are major doubts about the causation of warming, and that taxation of CO2 would not in any case solve the problem. (source)
Listen here.
Hardly impartial…
Amazingly, the ABC did report this one! Don’t hold your breath, it will be the IPCC effectively investigating itself, so we can be pretty sure it will be a whitewash.
A top UN panel is to probe claims that British scientists sought to suppress data backing climate change sceptics’ views, its head said ahead of the the landmark Copenhagen summit.
Rajendra Pachauri, head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said the claims – which led a top expert to leave his post temporarily this week – were serious and needed to be investigated.
Professor Phil Jones has stood aside as head of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, after emails allegedly calling into question the scientific basis for climate change fears were leaked onto the internet.
Hackers [It ain’t no hacker. This was an inside job – Ed] penetrated the centre’s network and posted online thousands of emails from researchers, including Professor Jones, ahead of the Copenhagen summit which starts Monday.
The CRU at the university in Norwich, eastern England, is a world-leader in the field. [Maybe that should be “was” – Ed]
Dr Pachauri, head of the Nobel Prize-winning United Nations panel since 2002, told BBC radio: “We will certainly go into the whole lot and then we will take a position on it.
“We certainly don’t want to brush anything under the carpet. This is a serious issue and we will look into it in detail.” (source)
I won’t hold my breath. And at the same time, Australian scientists are doing just that: brushing it all under the carpet and hoping it will go away – all lovingly reported by the Sydney Morning Herald:
Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, professor of marine science at the University of Queensland, said a few out-of-context quotes gained by illegally trawling through ”electronic garbage” did not undermine the huge amount of peer-reviewed scientific data on climate change.
”I think the denialist movement is so desperate, given the overwhelming conclusions of the science, that they’ll do anything,” he said. (source)
I think we all know who’s in denial now, Ove.
Enraged goldfish: "Grr, who turned up the heater?"
Stick with it. This journalist clearly hasn’t heard of Climategate and still believes every press release about global warming that lands on his desk.
Warmer ocean temperatures caused by global warming could [important word, that – Ed] cause sharks and other fish to become more aggressive, according to a new Australian study.
Research conducted by the University of New South Wales [Note to self: remember not to send kids to UNSW – Ed] found that a slight lift in water temperatures — just two or three degrees — can cause some fish to become up to 30 times more aggressive than they normally would be.
The studies were conducted on young damsel fish, but head researcher Dr Peter Biro told ninemsn it is possible that sharks could also undergo a similar transformation in warm water.
[And this is what happened next. The poor journo thought the story was just too boring with only damsel fish (whatever they are), so, desperate for an alarmist headline, asked the “scientist” if it would affect sharks, because sharks = scary. And the response below was just what was needed – phew. Scary headline in the bag – Ed]
“I would imagine that it might also affect sharks … we think it is linked to the metabolism of the fishes — it increases their need to feed,” Dr Biro said.
The research involved putting the damsel fish in varying temperatures of water and placing other fish behind glass to see how they reacted.
Dr Biro said it was “obvious” the warmer water had an effect.
“Some fish would literally charge at the glass,” he said.
“I’m quite confident that if the glass was not there they would have torn the other fish to shreds.”
So next time you see a flounder getting mugged by a marauding gang of barramundi, you’ll know why.
Read it here.
Hansen (L), Homer (R)
And with Al Gore pulling out of a $1,200-a-head presentation, things aren’t looking that hot:
The scientist who convinced the world that global warming was a looming danger says the planet will be better off if next week’s Copenhagen climate change summit ends in collapse.
James Hansen, considered the most distinguished climate scientist [Ha, ha! My aching sides – Ed], says any agreement to emerge from the meeting will be so flawed that it would be better to start again from scratch.
His words came on the same day as the University of East Anglia announced an investigation into the thousands of damaging leaked emails emanating from its Climatic Research Unit.
Professor Hansen heads the NASA Goddard Institute earth sciences unit in New York. In 1989 he made several appearances before Congress and did more than any other scientist to educate [“brainwash” – Ed] politicians about the causes of global warming and the urgent need to change behaviour.
Earlier this year, he was awarded the Carl Gustaf Rossby Research Medal by the American Meteorological Society. It was awarded for his outstanding contribution to climate modelling and for clear communication of climate science in the public arena. [The ABC is in full hyperbole mode here, as you can see – Ed]
He certainly was not mincing his words when he gave his views to the Guardian newspaper online about the prospects for next week’s climate change conference.
“The approach that’s being talked about is so fundamentally wrong that it’s better to reassess the situation,” he said.
“I think it’s just as well that we not have a substantive treaty.”
Advice to Copenhagen delegates. Save the airfare, save the CO2, stay at home instead.
Read it here.
Not worth reading
“Which Side Are You On” Alert, as Malcolm Turnbull backs Kevin Rudd’s attack on Tony Abbott’s climate policies:
KEVIN Rudd has launched his campaign to demolish Tony Abbott, warning that the new Opposition Leader wants to dot the nation with nuclear reactors and reinstate John Howard’s industrial relations laws.
The Prime Minister has also accused Mr Abbott of espousing “magic pudding politics” by claiming Australia could tackle climate change without the market-based solution of putting a price on carbon.
And Malcolm Turnbull, ousted by Mr Abbott as Liberal leader on Tuesday, has reignited party tension by endorsing Mr Rudd’s argument on the issue. (source)
Here is the extract from Turnbull’s newsletter, from which I have now unsubcribed with great haste:
And I regret that the party room changed its policy on climate change from one of supporting the emissions trading scheme legislation, as amended at our request, to opposing it.
…
Many people have asked me whether it is possible to cut emissions without an ETS, a carbon tax or raising electricity prices. The short answer is “No”.
If I never hear Malcolm Turnbull’s name again, it will be too soon. A disgrace to his party, and as Andrew Bolt puts it, “Liberal’s Latham.”
Australian Climate Madness 
Recent Comments