ACM’s favourite journo, from the “it’s all happening faster than we expected” department, all based on flaky models, of course:

Climate change is occurring faster than predicted across the Snowy Mountains, but little research is being funded by governments and universities to track its impact, scientists say.

CSIRO climate modelling predicts an 8 per cent decline in rain and snowfall across the mountains by 2020, with an average temperature rise of up to 1 degree.

Under this ”worst-case” trend, temperature would rise by 2.6 degrees by 2050, with a 97 per cent loss of snow cover lasting at least two months.

But studies of snow records by NSW parks scientist Ken Green show average snow depths in some areas are already tracking at, or close to, levels predicted for 2020.

”We’ve arrived roughly a decade before we were supposed to get there,” he said.

Yawn. Read it here.

But don’t expect anything important to be decided – these are just talks about talks, after all. Still, it’s a nice jolly to Italy in the Northern hemisphere summer, where Rudd can pretend that he’s important, rubbing shoulders with leaders of the other 16 countries in the Major Economies Forum. It doesn’t change the fact that the whole thing is a pointless waste of effort, and spews more CO2 into the air than any agreement will probably ever save:

The MEF leaders will consider signing an agreement to stop global temperatures rising by more than two degrees Celsius, a level many scientists consider potentially disastrous for the environment.

The MEF, which includes emerging economies of China, India, South Africa, Mexico and Brazil as well as the powerful G8 members, will also be asked to back the “aspirational” goal of halving emissions by 2050.

But after holding talks in Berlin yesterday, Mr Rudd and Ms Merkel said while they hoped the MEF would make progress towards a global goal for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, it would be up to leaders at the United Nations climate change meeting in Copenhagen in December to sign off on a new pact to limit global emissions.

Mr Rudd said it was “highly unlikely” the MEF would come up with a detailed plan to slash emissions by a certain time.

“That is what Copenhagen is about,” he said.

So what exactly is all this about? Answers on a postcard… no don’t bother.

Read it here.

I wonder if the people that write these reports ever look out the window? Or look at the global temperature record? As is common today in climate science, the output from flaky models replaces empirical observation – it’s true: models actually replace reality. And of course, Fairytale-facts prints it all, unquestioningly.

MOST of the gains made by the world’s poorest countries over the past half a century will be lost unless action is taken on climate change, Oxfam says.

A report by the international aid agency says up to 375 million people may be affected by climate-related disasters by 2015.

“Climate change is becoming quite rapidly the central issue to do with poverty today“, Oxfam Australia’s chief, Andrew Hewett, told the Herald. “That also raises deep ethical dilemmas because the people least responsible for this crisis have the least resources to deal with it, and they are also those who are on the front line.”

We will have to suffer the endless reports from the G8 summit in the days ahead. All the usual climate clowns will be there – Obama, UK’s Gordon Brown, Rudd & Wong – spouting their usual brand of nonsense, including laughably regarding the climate as if a quick twiddle on the ‘CO2 dial’ will miraculously adjust the temperature, like turning down the electric blanket:

A key issue at both [G8 and major “polluters”] meetings will be whether the US President, Barack Obama, publicly embraces the scientific goal [Scientific? Don’t make me laugh – Ed] of keeping the world’s temperature from rising above 2 degrees Celsius in order to avoid dangerous climate change.

Note the use of the word “polluters” again, in order to obfuscate and mislead the public (and, clearly, the media). I am all for reducing pollution. CO2 is not pollution. CO2 is plant food. Got it? Barking madness.

Read it here.

Those readers in Melbourne are invited by the Climate Sceptics Party to attend a protest against Al Gore’s Safe Climate breakfast next Monday.

Press Release – The Climate Sceptics
Monday 6th July, 2009

Those attending the “Safe Climate” 7am breakfast with Al Gore on Monday July 13th will be met by a peaceful educational protest where they will be greeted by signs showing graphs and reasons why CO2 is not the main cause of climate change.

Leon Ashby, president of the new political party “The Climate Sceptics” is organising the event for anyone doubting CO2 is the cause of climate changes to attend and put their voice to say the science is not settled and a proper debate must occur before any country signs up to an emissions trading scheme.

The centenary medal recipient for services to the environment will lead the educational protest calling for Al Gore to admit his movie contained significant factual errors and, since Arctic ice is now back at 1980 levels and the Earth has stopped warming, the idea that rising CO2 causes runaway global warming is false.

Mr Ashby is asking for members of the public who are doubtful that human carbon emissions are causing catastrophic global warming to join the protest with their own placards. Leaflets with 10 questions that Al Gore needs to answer will be handed to those attending the breakfast with Al Gore.

Anyone wanting to attend the protest can visit The Climate Sceptics web site (www.climatesceptics.com.au) for more details or meet on Harbor Esplanade outside Etihad Stadium in Melbourne Docklands at 6.15 am on Monday 13th July.

http://www.climatesceptics.com.au
contact: info@climatesceptics.com.au
—
Steve Murphy
The Climate Sceptics – advocating open scientific debate.
http://www.climatesceptics.com.au

Another week, another round of pointless climate talks, this time in the earthquake ravaged town of L’Aquila in Italy (you’d have thought they had suffered enough…). Rudd will be spreading his own special brand of “toxic boredom” around, however. I think these poor unfortunates should be warned in advance, and given a secret stash of “No Doz” caffeine tablets:

After a meeting with German Chancellor Angela Merkel on Tuesday, he will stop briefly in Zurich to lobby world soccer body FIFA chief Sepp Blatter on Australia’s bid to host the world cup in 2018 or 2020.

Later in the week, Mr Rudd will spend two days in Italy where he will meet Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi in Rome.

Mr Rudd will also visit the Vatican for an audience with Pope Benedict XVI where they are expected to discuss the potential canonisation of Josephite order founder, the Blessed Mary MacKillop.

Rudd and the Pope? Knowing his flair for protocol and dignity (see here for a truly awful video of him with Obama), Rudd will probably slap him on the back and say “G’day mate” and make some kind of cringeworthy attempt at a joke …

Read it here.

So much is talked about “green jobs” and the “green economy”, and how damaging emissions reductions schemes can somehow “create” wealth and employment out of thin air (or as it happens, carbon dioxide), that it is refreshing to see the whole myth so thoroughly debunked:

Given the pain (and public backlash) the EU has experienced from two years’ experience with its Emissions Trading Scheme, why would our politicians ignore that foreign experience, as well as popular sentiment against cap-and-trade here at home, and run full-steam with eyes closed into this regulatory quagmire?

The only answer I can come up with is: more money and more power for government. As a former government employee, I am familiar with the mindset. While the goal of a private sector job is to create wealth, the government employee’s main job is to spend as much of that wealth as possible. A government agency’s foremost goal is self preservation, which means perpetuating a public need for the agency. The idea that our government exists to help enable a better life for its citizens might have been true 100 years ago, but today it is hopelessly naïve.

Read it ALL!

How the media hate “big oil”. After yesterday’s Quote of the Day, the ABC gleefully trumpets that Exxon Mobil are funding “deniers”:

The world’s biggest oil company, Exxon Mobil, is reported to be funding the work of climate change deniers.

Company records show Exxon Mobil handed over hundreds of thousands of dollars to lobby groups that question the facts of global warming.
…
The [London School of Economics’] research institute on climate change and the environment says both organisations have published misleading and inaccurate information about climate change.

Well they would say that, wouldn’t they? Anything that doesn’t meekly submit to the consensus is “misleading and inaccurate” according to climate alarmists. And they also fail to mention that “big oil” hands over millions of dollars to green groups as well, but hey, that’s OK, because it’s all fine, dandy and politically correct. And they also fail to mention that the alarmist industry has been funded to the tune of about $50 billion by Western governments since 1990. How does that stack up next to a bunch of loose change for “deniers”?

Climate hypocrisy.

Read it here.

UPDATE: Andrew Bolt exposes the hypocrisy here.

That doesn’t quite fit with the Rudd government’s climate policy, does it? Once again, the realities of life seem to get in the way of high minded ideals.

THE Rees Government has dumped key elements of its plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, including promises to force big businesses to use less energy and to set a statewide energy efficiency target.
…
The promise to force big companies to make and implement energy-saving plans was announced by the former premier, Morris Iemma. Yesterday the Government agreed to make this voluntary, after the tribunal recommended the mandatory program be terminated.

The Australian Industry Greenhouse Network, a lobby group for heavy greenhouse gas polluters, told the tribunal it opposed mandatory energy efficiency standards for businesses because they “impose an unnecessary compliance burden on industry” and were not economically efficient.

And pointelss feel-good gestures still dominate:

Funding for switching schools to low-energy lighting will also continue despite the review finding that was “not a cost-effective way of saving energy and reducing greenhouse gas emissions“.

Personally, I am sick of CFLs. They flicker, take ages to warm up, cost a fortune, and Australia has no national plan for safe recycling. CFLs get chucked in the dumpster, releasing mercury into the environment (which is a highly toxic heavy metal, rather than a harmless trace gas). In this case, it seems green ideology overcomes reality.

Read it here.

As always, a great read!

Interviewing geoscientist Michael Asten on Radio National’s Counterpoint, Paul Comrie-Thomson couldn’t resist plugging the ABC’s alarmist agenda by trying to smear Asten as being in the pay of “big oil”. I’m glad to report that he got it all back from Asten, with interest:

Paul Comrie-Thomson: Michael Asten, I’m going to ask you a question from left field; are geologists influenced in this debate by their connection to mining and petroleum industries?

Michael Asten: Oh yes, the bogey of being funded by big oil, Paul. The reality is that geologists are exposed from about their second week of first-year studies to the Earth’s history of climate change. Climate changes on a daily cycle and dozens of other cycles all the way through to some cosmic cycles a couple of hundred million years long. So geologists are not surprised that we’re seeing a change in climate.

Hey, do you think Al Gore may stand to benefit a teensy-weensy little bit from scaring people witless about climate change? No one ever mentions that, of course, but when a scientist gets some loose change from an oil company and it’s scandal, outrage, shock horror…

Read the transcript here (the whole thing is an interesting read).