A carbon-fuelled jolly which puts more CO2 into the atmosphere than their policies could ever hope to save. This year, they’ve all descended on Seoul, South Korea, for the C40 Large Cities Climate Summit – I’m guessing they flew there, rather than arriving on solar-powered bikes?

Former US president Bill Clinton [as clueless on climate as Hillary – Ed], whose Clinton Climate Initiative develops programs [and probably reaps huge profits – Ed] to help cities cut greenhouse gas emissions, called for commitments and concrete action at the meeting that ends on Thursday.

The issue of how cities “find a way to continue to thrive and prosper while reducing greenhouse gas emissions is one of the central questions in the whole struggle,” Clinton told a press conference.

The answer is they probably can’t – given there are no real alternatives to fossil fuels at this stage… And then there’s always one who’s delusional:

Mayor David Miller of Toronto, who chairs this year’s summit, said he was confident it could find balanced ways to combat climate change.

“We will be able to demonstrate not only how you can fight greenhouse gas emissions but how you can also build green sustainable neighbourhoods, create green jobs and contribute back to the fight against climate change,” Miller said.

I think a (swine-flu-infected) pig just shot past my window.

Read it here.

A real cracker here from Joshy in the Daily Telegraph, for trying to link the climate change debate to the Matthew Johns fiasco:

The current debate about behaviour in rugby league is a lot like the one surrounding climate change. Although global warming is scientifically undisputed, stubborn naysayers are often granted equal airtime, which gives the impression that the issue is somehow in dispute.

Congratulations on your win.

Read it here.

Professor Ian Enting, of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Mathematics and Statistics of Complex Systems (what a mouthful) at the University of Melbourne, has written to The Australian complaining about Ian Plimer’s book Heaven + Earth, and praising Michael Ashley’s “excellent” (shonky) review (see here), so we know where this is going:

Of the 2311 footnotes (not all referring to different sources), many either contradict Plimer’s claims or are irrelevant to the point that he makes. Particularly blatant is footnote 2056 where the cited study reports New Orleans sinking by 15mm to 18mm in the three years prior to Hurricane Katrina, while Plimer cites this reference to support his claim that New Orleans sank by about 1 metre.

Once again, the warm-mongers choose a single point, and extrapolate it out to the entire book. And in this case, Plimer’s point is very possibly correct. A comment on my post on Michael Ashley’s review has pointed out the following:

Plimer does indeed cite work by Tim Dixon et al (2006) and they do indeed give a figure of 15mm-18mm in their paper but on June 12, 2006 Professor Dixon ALSO reported as follows and used the plural to cover each of his co-authors:

“in some cases, the ground had subsided a minimum of 3 feet“.

I reckon this is very close to Plimer’s “about a metre”.

Enting has even started a web page pointing out the supposed “errors” in Plimer’s book (see here) in which the points range from plausible to downright silly, such as this one:

IPCC computers don’t do clouds — totally unsurprising — IPCC computers don’t do climate modelling—presumably they do things like e-mail, desktop publishing, accounting etc. The climate modelling used by the IPCC is done by major research groups using models that do include clouds.

But the real issue, of course, as pointed out in one of the comments on Enting’s letter, is the hypocrisy of subjecting Plimer’s work to microscopic scrutiny whilst Al Gore’s utterly fictional book/movie An Inconvenient Truth is treated as gospel.

Read it here.

The US Democrats have unveiled their climate change bill – 932 pages of pointless legislation, much like the draft ETS legislation here. Despite climate scientists having spent over $50 billion on climate research since the 1990s, they have still been unable to show evidence of a definitive link between anthropogenic CO2 and the late 20th century warming. Attempts to regulate CO2 such as this, and like the ETS in Australia, will wreck economies, lower standards of living, make most of the population worse off, make a few very rich (e.g. Al Gore), and do precisely nothing to “tackle climate change”.

But the best part, by far, is the hyperbole, the misrepresentations and the spin that the Dems are pushing:

The Bill “will create millions of new clean energy jobs, save consumers hundreds of billions of dollars in energy costs, promote America’s energy independence and security, and cut global warming pollution,” said [Henry] Waxman [chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee].

Translation: the bill will cost millions of jobs, punish consumers through higher energy costs and do nothing for global warming “pollution”, and wreck our economy (and thereby our security) into the bargain. Next:

“This Bill marks the dawn of the clean energy age,” said Democratic Representative Ed Markey, who chairs the panel’s subcommittee on energy and the environment, co-author with Waxman of the sweeping Bill.

It’s incredible that elected officials of the worlds only remaining superpower can spout such utter nonsense, and not be laughed out of the room. Such is the power and influence of the AGW religion. Fortunately, however, the bill has virtually zero chance of ever making it into law – the Republicans and a significant number of Democrats who can see through this charade will see to that.

Bjorn Lomborg, in The Australian yesterday spelled out some home truths about reducing reliance on fossil fuels:

There are two fundamental reasons a focus on reducing carbon emissions is the wrong response to global warming.

First, using fossil fuels remains the only way out of poverty for developing countries. Coal provides half of the world’s energy. In China and India, it accounts for about 80 per cent of power generation and is helping labourers in those countries enjoy a quality of life that their parents could barely imagine.

Capping emissions means, effectively, ending this success story for hundreds of millions of people. There is no green energy source that is affordable enough to replace coal in the near future. Instead, our increased research will make green energy cheaper than fossil fuels by mid-century.

Second, immediate carbon cuts are expensive and the cost significantly outweighs the benefits. If the Kyoto agreement had been fully implemented throughout this century, it would have cut temperatures by only an insignificant 0.2C, at a cost of $180 billion every year. In economic terms, Kyoto does only about 30c worth of good for each dollar spent.

Deeper emissions cuts such as those proposed by the European Union – 20per cent below 1990 levels within 12 years – would reduce global temperatures by only 1/60th of 1C by 2100, at a cost of $10 trillion.

For every dollar spent, we would do just 4c worth of good.

Read it here and here.

Ashamed to say it, having trained as a lawyer as well as a scientist, but this is how the law works. There are armies of new “climate lawyers” waiting in the wings for the ETS to become law, so they can get to work charging huge sums for interpreting it and advising on it. Unfortunately, they are all a little bit nervous that their future cash cow may be delayed, as The New Lawyer reports:

CLIMATE change lawyers keen to get a new flow of work are waiting with fingers crossed for the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) to pass through Parliament.

While firms are getting some work from both existing and new clients around the possibility of an upcoming CPRS, the real goldmine will be if it is actually implemented.

“If it’s passed in parliament, that is when we know whether it will affect the work. If it is passed, companies will want to know what their obligations are and they will want to start preparing for it,” said Charmain Barton, environment and climate change partner at DLA Phillips Fox.

“Goldmine” – that says it all! Virtually all corporates of any size will, when the ETS become law, require advice on their obligations under it, which will no doubt be convoluted and labyrinthine. And where do these corporates get the money to pay the lawyers bills? By charging their customers more for their products and services, which, at the end of a very long line, means you and me paying more for our products and services.

Although there is another side to the story, especially in the current financial crisis:

Another mid-tier Sydney law firm recently made the decision to close to its new climate change practice after the sole partner failed to make the practice profitable.

Speaking anonymously to The New Lawyer, that firm’s chief executive said the firm had given the partner eight months to bring in new clients and find means to make the practice profitable.

Read it here.

As always, a great read!

No time to precis just yet, but here’s the link.

Climate alarmism is running wild in the New South Wales government, as they legislate against (and waste your taxpayer dollars on) things predicted by hopelessly incomplete and unreliable computer models. The latest scare is about sea level rises, but there’s a problem here – for some reason only Nathan Rees understands, sea level rises will be greater in NSW than in Queensland or South Australia – go figure:

The Government has predicted the state will be hit by 40cm-higher seas by 2050.

But that is at least 10cm higher than the level predicted by neighbouring states Queensland, Victoria and South Australia.

However, lobby group Urban Taskforce isn’t letting the government off the hook, as revealed in a leaked letter:

“How can you be standing in ankle-deep water in Coolangatta and be knee-deep in Tweed Heads?” Taskforce chief Aaron Gadiel said. “It’s ridiculous for anyone to suggest water levels will change on the state boundaries. Proposed sea-level benchmarks in NSW are the most extreme scenario.”

The Department of Environment and Climate Change predicts that by 2100 NSW sea levels will rise by 90cm even though the CSIRO’s website said the “average global sea level is expected to be 28-34cm higher than 1990 levels by 2100“.

“It doesn’t give anyone confidence when we have (these) significant differences against something as artificial as state boundaries,” Mr Gadiel said.

Even the CSIRO prediction is likely to be way off beam. Sea levels have been rising steadily (and slowly) for the last few thousand years at a rate of about 2mm per year, with no measurable acceleration due to the late 20th century “global warming”. This would mean that in 40 years we could expect a rise of just 8 cm, and by the end of the century, 18 cm.

And it’s not just hot air – this kind of legislation costs you and me money.

Climate madness.

Read it here.

… because they cause “climate change” of course. The greenies will be in their element this year, especially with Copenhagen fast approaching, scolding us about how we should restrict our use of 21st century technology, the products of a highly developed economy, and all go back to living in the Dark Ages, in order to “tackle climate change”.

Demand for power-thirsty gadgets like mobile phones, iPods and big-screen TVs is undoing efficiency gains elsewhere, the International Energy Agency said today.

The agency urged developed governments to keep pace with the invention of new consumer devices when crafting efficiency standards and implored people to make thriftier choices.
…
Rising home energy use underlines how dramatic action on climate change would require action by individuals as well as governments. The report underlined the difficulty of cutting greenhouse gases as people’s lifestyles became increasingly affluent.

“Thriftier choices” and barely concealed envy at “affluent lifestyles” – that sums up the enviro-headbangers attitude, pursuing pointless emissions reductions in order to stifle developed “capitalist” economies. Watermelon politics – green on the outside, red on the inside.

Read it here.

Despite delaying the introduction of the ETS, the government is still desperate to have the legislation passed before the end of the year. Why? Two reasons, both of them ludicrous:

1. Business certainty: because business needs to know how much of their profits will go towards an utterly pointless emissions reduction scheme; and
2. Taking a lead: because clearly China, and India and the US are all going to look at what Australia’s doing and think, gee, we can’t not follow Australia (global emissions 1.5% of total) so let’s savagely cut our emissions and cripple our economies just so we don’t look bad compared to … er, who was it again? And why not read this article to see just how little chance there is of Copenhagen achieving anything.

Greg Combet was talking it up, of course (but where’s our Pen?):

Combet said the Government accepted the science on climate change [more fool the government – Ed] that growing carbon pollution was causing global warming.

“The carbon pollution reduction scheme [two errors in four words, Greg – Ed] is one of the most significant environmental and economic reforms in the history of our nation,” he told Parliament.

“Global action is needed to reduce carbon pollution to avoid the dangerous impacts of climate change [that’s despite temperatures having fallen since 2001 and continuing to fall – Ed] and Australia must play its part in this international action.”

Pure 100% Australian climate madness.

Read it here.

UPDATE: Barnaby Joyce has the correct response to this nonsense here:

“You can go to Copenhagen, you can go to Disneyland, you can go wherever you like, but the position of the National Party on this will be quite clear,” he said.

Why isn’t Malcolm Turnbull saying this too?