Cartoons to "teach kids to save Barrier Reef"

6 November, 2009 by

The word on the truck sums it up nicely…

The word on the truck sums it up nicely…

Indoctrination Alert as the ABC reports that the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority is “targeting children” in its latest effort to protect the reef.

A series of cartoons will go online and be sent to schools around the country to let children know they can play a role in preventing climate change’s impact on the reef.

The authority’s chief scientist, Dr David Wachenfeld says it has enlisted the help of some colourful creatures to get children’s attention.

“We’ve got Hermi the hermit crab who goes through a few trials and tribulations in relation to ocean acidification and we’ve also got some very charismatic coral polyps who do some fairly amusing things in explaining the impacts of climate change and global warming,” he said.

Dr Wachenfeld says while the health of the reef is a serious issue, engaging children is essential for its survival.

“We thought that it was really important that kids understand both what are the risks from climate change to the reef but actually more importantly, what can they and their families do in their homes, their schools and their businesses to help the reef and minimise the impacts of climate change, so that’s really the thrust behind these animations,” he said.

Climate change for dummies, or in this case, children

Climate change for dummies, or in this case, children

The “Climate Change” animation links CO2 to climate change, then links climate change to droughts and droughts to dying plants; it links climate change to “cyclones” that make big waves and smash coral reefs; it links climate change to warming seas causing corals to “lose colour and die and fish to go away”. It then harangues the viewer to “cycle or walk to places instead of going in the car”, “switch off TV and lights when not in the room” (accompanied by a picture of wind farms and solar panels), and “travel by bus instead of flying” (fun if you were going to the US or Europe, say).

And I know you’re all dying to see it, so here’s Hermi in action:

This is yet another example of completely unacceptable brainwashing of our children, sanctioned by the Rudd government, using especially sinister methods to do it. And the most idiotic thing of all, linking the 1.5% of global emissions produced by Australia to the fate of the Barrier Reef. Climate madness.

Check out the other animations here.

Read it here.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: ,

Cory Bernardi – Petition against Copenhagen Treaty

6 November, 2009 by

copenhagen-treaty-petition-400x144Senator Cory Bernardi has launched a petition against the signing by Australia of the Copenhagen Treaty (although all the indications are that there won’t be anything signed in Copenhagen).

Click the image to vote.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: ,

Cory Bernardi's letter to colleagues

6 November, 2009 by

Via Andrew Bolt. South Australian Senator Cory Bernardi sets out the painful sacrifices we will make if Australia signs a binding treaty at Copenhagen:

Dear colleagues

As some of you may be aware, the Rudd Government, is being asked to sign a treaty at the Copenhagen climate conference. Most Australians know nothing about the consequences of our nation agreeing to this draft treaty.

The detail of the draft treaty has been hidden away and only now are we becoming aware of the implications for our economy, society and sovereignty if Australia signs it in a month’s time.

By signing this treaty, we are effectively putting aspects of Australia’s sovereignty, economy and future prosperity in the hands of an unelected body that is not accountable to the Australian people.

On 3 November I raised questions about the draft treaty on my blog and the initial potential $7 billion annual cost to taxpayers. In response I have received hundreds of emails from all over Australia expressing their concerns.

[Read more…]

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: ,

Hypocrisy alert: polluters "fear tactics" on climate

6 November, 2009 by

Fairfax is on form today, with yet more hypocritical nonsense in the Sydney Morning Herald about “polluters” under the triumphant headline “REVEALED: polluters’ fear tactics on climate”:

BIG greenhouse polluting companies around the world, employing thousands of lobbyists, are exerting heavy pressure on governments to weaken climate change laws at home and slow progress on an international climate agreement in Copenhagen, a global investigation reveals.

In Australia, 20 companies who have already won the most concessions from the Rudd Government’s emissions trading scheme employ 28 lobbying firms with well over 100 staff, many of them former politicians, political advisers or government officials.

The reality, which appears to escape the journos in question, is that billions and billions of dollars is spent by the real climate fearmongers, i.e. the catastrophists, every year in order to brainwash the public into believing that there is a climate crisis. But that’s all OK of course, because we’re saving the planet, right? But when corporates, who are likely to be hit hard by emissions trading schemes around the world, try to redress the balance a bit, it’s shock horror and outrage!

Then we discover where this investigation comes from, and suddenly it all makes sense:

The report by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists examined the climate lobby in eight countries including the US, Canada, Australia, India, Japan, China, Belgium and Brazil. It relied on more than 200 interviews, lobbying registers and political donation records. The Herald collaborated in the investigation for Australia.

Read it here.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: ,

The Age kisses Gore's backside

6 November, 2009 by

Try running three 30" monitors on sunbeams, pal

Try running three 30" monitors on sunbeams, pal

To the editors of The Age and all the other Fairfax media outlets, Al Gore is a brave warrior for the planet, courageously flying all over the world by private jet in order to make more money out of an imagined climate crisis. I beg to differ – the man peddles misinformation and refuses to debate, in other words, he’s a snake oil salesman.

But that doesn’t stop The Age, who put together a sycophantic, fawning piece about Big Al’s new book, Our Choice: A Plan to solve the Climate Crisis. That there is a “climate crisis” is a given, of course, since Gore put the tick in the “science is settled” box by way of An Inconvenient Truth, if you ignore the nine fundamental errors and the scores of other misrepresentations. So this one is all about solutions.

Gore’s new book, the result of more than two years of consultations with leading scientists, technologists, economists and, yes, neuroscientists, is his attempt to lay out a detailed solution to the climate crisis [and line his pockets at the same time – Ed]. It is an attempt to spell out in a way that ordinary readers can understand the current state of technology and what still needs to be invented to bring a low-carbon world to reality.

There are passages where it becomes a little dense, but for the most part it is a worthy sequel to An Inconvenient Truth, full of optimism about the promise of science to solve this urgent crisis — although perhaps it skims over the possible changes that we all might need to make to our lifestyles.

While it explores all technologies from nuclear to “clean coal”, the book leans heavily towards the renewables such as wind, solar and geothermal energy, arguing that the economics of nuclear and the uncertain viability of carbon capture and storage make them less viable.

Maybe Gore could set the example by running his mansion (and his three monitors), which consumes about as much electricity as all of sub-Saharan Africa put together, on sunbeams and wind power, as he suggests for the rest of us.

Read it here.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: , ,

The Daily Bayonet – GW Hoax Weekly Round-up

6 November, 2009 by

Three cheers for the return of the Round-up!

Read it here.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With:

NSW government's fantasy sea level rises

5 November, 2009 by

Manly in the year 2100 according to the models…

Manly in the year 2100 (according to the models…)

Like the rest of the country, New South Wales is now gearing up to base its planning decisions on sea level models that have very little to do with reality. We’ll let the Manly Daily take up the story:

The government yesterday announced the next step in its plan to respond to the future challenges of sea level rise.

The guidelines outline an approach to assist councils, state agencies, planners and developers when addressing sea level rise in land-use and development assessment.

According to the government, best available research indicates sea levels along the NSW coastline will rise 40cm by the year 2050, and 90cm by 2100.

This will have a significant impact on areas such as Collaroy Beach which suffer severe erosion.

40cm by the year 2050? That’s 1cm per year, which is fully three times the current rate of increase, which is about 3mm per year, and which for the last couple of years is actually slowing down! But hey, who cares? The models tell us 40cm by 2050, and the models can’t be wrong, so we will enact laws that will inconvenience thousands of people and lose huge amounts in property values for thousands more.

Climate madness.

Read it here.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: ,

CSIRO embroiled in censorship battle

5 November, 2009 by

We reported here about how CSIRO had attempted to suppress the publication of a paper critical of the government’s ETS. Unfortunately, it seems the story just won’t go away:

The CSIRO is grappling with claims it is trying to censor the work of an economist who has criticised the policy at the centre of the Federal Government’s response to climate change.

The researcher, Dr Clive Spash, has been told not to publish a journal article that questions the economic underpinnings of carbon trading versus other means of cutting greenhouse emissions.

Dr Spash is an ecological economist with the sustainable ecosystems division at the organisation.

He told ABC Radio’s AM that he was headhunted to join the CSIRO but wonders if he has a future there if he cannot talk about the subject of his research.

It’s hardly surprising, when you read the following letter from Garth Paltridge in The Australian in May last year:

I HEAR on the scientific grapevine that CSIRO’s biggest problem when providing formal advice to the federal Government on the matter of climate change is to say nothing that can be interpreted as giving aid and comfort to the army of irresponsible sceptics out there who are doubtful about the dreadful consequences of global warming.

One can only feel sorry for the Government. Where can it go these days to get unbiased advice on the issue of global warming? Its official sources are poisoned by the fear among many scientists that they may be labelled by their colleagues and by their institutions as climate-change sceptics. (source – h/t Andrew Bolt)

Read it here.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: , ,

The price of inconvenient reality

5 November, 2009 by

In an editorial today, The Australian asks some very awkward questions about the economic realities of the ETS, and the global socialism that climate change is advancing:

BOTH domestically and internationally, the price that could be demanded from Australians for our part in cutting greenhouse gas emissions is emerging from a sea of red ink. Earlier estimates suggested that an emissions trading scheme would reap a profit of between $11 billion and $20bn by 2020. Now we learn from the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook that the scheme is likely to lose money over the next five years. The second reality check was the European Union’s call for industrialised nations to contribute $160bn per annum by 2020 to help developing nations tackle climate change.

The shortfall in ETS revenue makes the prospect of a deal between the Rudd government and the Coalition less likely. It will be impossible to pay for Malcolm Turnbull’s proposed amendments to Labor’s ETS from funds generated through emission permit sales. A fortnight ago, an analysis by Riskmetrics and Innovest Strategic Value Advisors gave an idea of what the Coalition amendments could cost. It found that the amendments could turn an estimated $777 million net surplus in its first year into a $1.8bn deficit.

…

After years of inflated expectations of what can be achieved in curbing carbon, it is clear that any deal that would make an appreciable difference in emissions levels will be costly. As a responsible global citizen, Australia should play its part. But we have no obligation to join any push to use climate change to redistribute global wealth to assuage the consciences of climate change billionaire Al Gore and social campaigners such as Bono, whose carbon footprints far exceed those of the ordinary Australian taxpayers they expect to foot the bill.

Read it here.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: , , ,

Ban Ki-moon: no deal in Copenhagen

5 November, 2009 by

Even the UN is conceding that there is not a hope of a binding agreement in Copenhagen:

A LEGALLY binding agreement on cutting greenhouse gas emissions is no longer a realistic goal for next month’s Copenhagen summit on climate change, the UN Secretary-General says.

According to Ban Ki-moon, an agreement will not be signed next month, and the most likely outcome is voluntary reduction targets, which countries could announce but then ignore.

Several key countries were not ready to sign up to binding targets [including the US – Ed] and the best the world could hope for from the summit would be “political commitments“, Mr Ban said yesterday.

If political commitments is all that can be expected, please tell me again why Kevin Rudd and Penny Wong are pushing for binding emissions reductions when the rest of the world will be waiting to see what happens? But Mr Moon(bat) at least uses the opportunity to talk yet more nonsense about the climate:

Mr Ban suggested the target for limiting the global temperature increase to 2C above pre-industrial levels might have to be adjusted because it could still result in sea-level rises inundating many small islands.

“These small-island developing countries say it should be a maximum of 1.5C. For them, it’s a matter of life and death.”

Uh oh, here we go. Should have seen this coming. 2C isn’t enough anymore, we’re down to 1.5C. Next week it’ll be 1C, then zero … well you see where we’re going here. In any case, tell me again why reducing the target to 1.5C will stop islands sinking because of tectonic influences?

Read it here.

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