Gore's new work of fiction: "Our Choice"

5 November, 2009 by

The follow-up to the first work of fiction, An Inconvenient Truth, which comprised 95% political propaganda and 5% actual science.

Al [Gore] has released a follow-up to 2006 best-seller An Inconvenient Truth, the former US vice president’s rallying cry against global warming.

Mr Gore, who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 following the book and movie versions of An Inconvenient Truth [but then again, they just gave it to Obama for doing nothing, and previously to Jimmy Carter, so it’s hardly something to brag about – Ed], aims to offer clear strategies to tackle climate change in Our Choice: A Plan to Solve the Climate Crisis.

“It offers solutions that we can – and must – begin to implement today,” Mr Gore said.

Of one thing we can be certain: every single one of those “solutions” will make Al Gore even richer than he is today.

Read it here.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: ,

"Paint rocks white" to stop global warming

4 November, 2009 by

The crazy ideas are falling over each other this week! Another one, as reported in The Australian:

A PERUVIAN scientist has called on his country to help slow the melting of Andean glaciers by daubing white paint on the rock and earth left behind by receding ice so they will absorb less heat.

Eduardo Gold, president of non-governmental organisation Glaciers of Peru, made the suggestion in a presentation yesterday to the country’s parliamentary commission on climate change.

Read it here.

Or if you don’t like that, how about hiring your clothes instead of buying them?

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With:

Today's Gore-bull News

4 November, 2009 by

gore_fire_breathing-1

Gore-bull warming

Al Gore has been getting way too much publicity recently, thanks to the launch of his new fictional book “Our Choice”, which follows up from his last fictional book “An Inconvenient Truth”. Al Gore, as any fule kno, won’t debate climate change with anybody, and when someone hits him with a difficult question unexpectedly at a news conference, the microphone is snatched away and they are hastily ejected (see here).

But that doesn’t stop big Al from smearing anyone who disagrees with him, or the IPCC, as evidenced by this quote:

“The United Nations organized, along with the scientific bodies of the national academies of science and their counterparts, the 3,000 best scientists in the world [not true – Ed] from all of the fields that are relevant to this issue,” he explained. “Over the last 20 years they have conducted the most exhaustive examination ever on a challenge like this. [Or more strictly “the most exhaustive ONE SIDED examination” – Ed]

“They’ve issued four reports — they’ve all been unanimous [Not true again. Dissenters were silenced and the Summary for Policymakers only selected the views that fitted the agenda – Ed], and the last one called the evidence unequivocal. Now, does that mean there are still some people who are gonna have a contrarian view? No, of course there will still be some. But, there are still some people who believe that the moon landing was staged on a movie lot. You know, a significant percentage as it turns out … Or that the Earth is flat. But that doesn’t lead public policy makers to take both sides of that into account.” (source)

Also, Gore is now abandoning facts [how can you abandon something you never embraced before? – Ed] and is appealing to people’s religious beliefs. We all know global warming is a religion, now even Gore agrees.

Gore tells Newsweek magazine in a pre-publication interview, that he has been adapting his fact-based message – now put out by hundreds of volunteers – to appeal to those who believe there is a moral or religious duty to protect the planet.

“I’ve done a Christian [-based] training program; I have a Muslim training program and a Jewish training program coming up, also a Hindu program coming up. I trained 200 Christian ministers and lay leaders here in Nashville in a version of the slide show that is filled with scriptural references. It’s probably my favourite version, but I don’t use it very often because it can come off as proselytising,” Gore tells Newsweek. (source – h/t Andrew Bolt)

Proselytising? Al Gore? Surely not.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: , , ,

US puts climate bill on hold until 2010

4 November, 2009 by

Another nail in the coffin of Hopenchangen, I mean, Copenhagen. The US has confirmed that it will not pass any climate bill before the COP15 summit in December, delaying it by at least five weeks to review the potential costs (which will be huge):

The delay, which would push a Senate vote on a climate change bill into next year, frustrates a last-minute push by the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, and the UN secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, to get America to commit itself at home to cut greenhouse gas emissions before the Copenhagen meeting. World leaders – and US officials – have repeatedly said US legislation is crucial to a deal on global warming.

…

However, the appeals for urgent action were overridden by political concerns in the Senate, which formally began debate on a proposed climate change law last week. The House of Representatives narrowly passed a climate change bill in June. But the Senate version has been repeatedly delayed, first by the battle over healthcare reform and now by Republican demands for more time to study the proposals.

In a move to stem the Republican protest, and quieten Democrat critics, the Democratic leader in the Senate, Harry Reid, said he would ask the Environmental Protection Agency to spend five weeks reviewing the potential costs of the bill. Opponents of the proposal argue the target of a 20% cut in emissions on 2005 levels by 2020 is overly ambitious, and will be too costly for US businesses and families.

The five-week delay would all but rule out passage of a bill before the Copenhagen meeting begins on 7 December.

So just remind me again: why on earth is the Rudd government so desperate to pass the ETS before Copenhagen? Give me one good reason.

Read it here (h/t Watts Up With That)

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: , , , ,

UK tribunal rules climate change is a "philosophical belief"

4 November, 2009 by

Tim Nicholson

Tim Nicholson

A UK employment tribunal has ruled that an employee can take his employer to an unfair dismissal tribunal on the grounds that he was discriminated against because of his views on climate change.

The relevant regulations, the Employment Equality (Religion and Belief) Regulations 2003 state the following:

3. – (1) For the purposes of these Regulations, a person (“A”) discriminates against another person (“B”) if –

(a) on grounds of religion or belief, A treats B less favourably than he treats or would treat other persons; (source)

“Religion or belief” is defined as “any religion, religious belief, or similar philosophical belief” and it is the last part of this definition that is important here, as the judgment confirms that belief in AGW is a belief system, as opposed to an opinion or viewpoint. The BBC manages to report it without drawing any such conclusions, buried in the darkest corner of their website:

Tim Nicholson, 42, of Oxford, was made redundant in 2008 by Grainger Plc in Didcot, as head of sustainability.

He said his beliefs had contributed to his dismissal and in March a judge ruled he could use employment equality laws to claim it was unfair.

But the firm appealed against this as it believed his views were political.

After the hearing on Monday, Mr Nicholson said he was delighted by the judgement for himself and other people who may feel they are discriminated against because of their views on climate change. (source)

To be honest, I hardly think that those who believe in climate change are the ones who can claim to be discriminated against. After all, they are not called flat earthers or Holocaust deniers every day of the week.

Unfortunately, reading the judgment, it is pretty clear that the judge was looking for a way to allow the appellant to fall within the scope of the Regulations:

30. In my judgment, if a person can establish that he holds a philosophical belief which is based on science, as opposed, for example, to religion, then there is no reason to disqualify it from protection by the Regulations. The Employment Judge drew attention to the existence of empiricist philosophers, no doubt such as Hume and Locke. The best example, as it seems to me, which was canvassed during the course of the hearing, is by reference to the clash of two such philosophies, exemplified in the play Inherit the Wind, i.e. one not simply between those who supported Creationism and those who did not, but between those who positively supported, and wished to teach, only Creationism and those who positively supported, and wished to teach, only Darwinism. Darwinism must plainly be capable of being a philosophical belief, albeit that it may be based entirely on scientific conclusions (not all of which may be uncontroversial). (source – Word document)

But the judge did say one very interesting thing, when setting out the criteria for a philosophical belief (my emphasis):

It must be a belief and not … an opinion or viewpoint based on the present state of information available.

That just about sums up the present state of the climate debate!

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: , ,

Climate negotiations "hit snag"

4 November, 2009 by

The climate talks in Barcelona have been stalled by African nations demanding huge and frankly ridiculous emissions cuts from developed countries.

Talks were suspended in one of the twin tracks of negotiations under the 192-nation UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) as intermediaries grappled for a solution behind the scenes, they said.

African countries pointed the finger at advanced economies, accusing them of backsliding on showing how deep they would rein in their greenhouse-gas pollution.

They demanded emissions curbs of 40 per cent by 2020, compared to 1990 levels, as a sign of good faith in the complex negotiations to craft a post-2012 climate treaty.

“Annex 1 countries must take the lead and put the numbers on the table,” said Kenyan delegate Grace Akumu.

The protest affected negotiations in several groups meeting under the banner of the Kyoto Protocol, the cornerstone treaty of the UNFCCC.

40% by 2020, i.e just ten years time, and compared to 1990 levels? Are they serious? That would literally put Western economies back into the Dark Ages. The chances of any agreement at Copenhagen just gets more and more remote.

Read it here.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: ,

"It's wool's time to help the planet"

3 November, 2009 by

Yes, you read that right. The latest crazy scheme to “save the planet” requires us all to wear more clothes, in particular of the woollen variety, so that we can turn our heating down and reduce our emissions. Not very helpful in Australia, however, which is, like, a hot country? And especially on days like today in Sydney, when the temperature is 38°C and we’re all wearing shorts, the aircon is on full blast, the little disk in the electricity meter is whizzing round at a hundred miles an hour about to fly off its bearings, and all the Hunter Valley power stations are chewing through coal like it’s going out of fashion and spewing out hundreds of tonnes of CO2 every second, but still, let’s stick with it.

AUSTRALIAN Wool Innovation (AWI) today launched the Wool Carbon Alliance to market the natural benefits of wool as the ideal fibre to help reduce global warming.

The alliance, a group of Australian and international wool industry representatives, says that international research shows a household can significantly reduce its carbon emissions by living with wool: insulating with wool, wearing wool, walking, sleeping and sitting on wool.

The European Commission reports that a household can cut its CO2 emissions by up to 300kg a year and energy bill by 5-10 per cent simply by reducing its heating by a mere 1°C, it says.

“Wool has an important role to play as part of the everyday carbon solution,” alliance chair and AWI board member Chick Olsson said.

“Ours is an ambitious plan to let the world know just how versatile our great natural fibre is. It’s wool’s time to help the planet and for us to sell more wool in the process.”

If I were cynical, I would say this is nothing but a shameless marketing ploy to benefit from a free ride on the climate change and global warming bandwagon. But I’m not, so I won’t.

Read it here.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: ,

OT: Coalition claws back 14% in Newspoll

3 November, 2009 by

Probably due to Rudd’s disastrous policy on asylum seekers. Slightly less reason then to pander to Rudd’s demands on the ETS.

Read it here.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: , ,

Fairfax Fantasy: Kilimanjaro glaciers shrinking due to global warming

3 November, 2009 by

Like a bad penny, this story just keeps cropping up. It started in Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, and has been repeated thousands of time since. Trouble is, it’s just not true:

The snows capping Mount Kilimanjaro, Africa’s tallest peak, are shrinking rapidly and could vanish altogether in 20 years, most likely due to global warming, a US study says. [“Most likely”? Or should that be “most conveniently”? – Ed]

The ice sheet that capped Kilimanjaro in 1912 was 85 per cent smaller by 2007, and since 2000 the existing ice sheet has shrunk by 26 per cent, the paleoclimatologists said.

The findings point to the rise in global temperatures as the most likely cause of the ice loss. Changes in cloudiness and precipitation may have also played a smaller, less important role, especially in recent decades, they added. [Yeah, of course, it would be less important now, especially since we have an AGW agenda to plug – Ed]

The reality is that the peak of Kilimanjaro has remained below freezing, and that temperatures have not risen in 30 years. Whatever is causing the retreat of glaciers on Kilimanjaro, it ain’t “global warming”. But as usual, don’t let that get in the way of a good story.

Read it here.

UPDATE: Anthony Watts sets the record straight: It’s evapotranspiration, stupid

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: , ,

ETS amendments unaffordable

3 November, 2009 by

Well there’s a surprise. Because of the high dollar value and the low price of carbon, the government is making excuses in advance for rejecting many of the Opposition’s proposed amendments to the ETS – not that I’m bothered, however. It will then force the Opposition to do what they should have done from the start: vote the abysmal scheme down.

THE Government has flagged it may reject several Coalition amendments to its emissions trading scheme because it will now cost $2.5 billion by 2020.

The Government’s scheme was expected to make $208 million by 2020, but yesterday’s mid-year budget outlook from Treasurer Wayne Swan revealed a big turnaround because of lower likely carbon prices and a soaring Australian dollar.

The Government’s releasing of the figures is a message to the Opposition that not all the proposed amendments, including more free permits to heavy polluting industry and the coal industry, are affordable.

Climate Change Minister Penny Wong is believed to have conveyed this message to shadow resources minister Ian Macfarlane in talks last week.

Notes accompanying yesterday’s release state: ”This [the $2.5 billion black hole] underscores the need for caution in designing assistance measures, particularly those that lead to a permanent increase in scheme costs.”

Opposition spokesman Ian Macfarlane is not surprisingly pretty annoyed at having this dropped in at the last minute:

“This really stretches the friendship … dropping these numbers at a minute to midnight,” said Mr Macfarlane, who has been charged with doing a deal with the government on the ETS before the vote scheduled for late this month.

“It will certainly make the negotiation more difficult – there are areas we are working on where a lack of money could make a difference.“

Read it here and here.

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