Amongst all the scaremongering, bad science, alarmism and just downright nonsense in the media at the moment, to read a sensible article is like a breath of fresh air. The first two paragraphs of this article in The Australian by Gary Johns sum up the position perfectly:

THE one certainty of climate change (anthropogenic or not) is that it is unstoppable. Government advertisements suggest worst-case scenarios but they do not concede that these are no less likely should Australia cut its carbon dioxide output. Whether or not you believe in man-made climate change, it’s out of our control.

More significantly, it is out of the control of every political leader. There is no prospect that nations will agree on global action sufficient to reduce the total level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

And that’s the point – reducing CO2 in Australia will achieve nothing (other than economic suicide).

Read it all here.

Cliché of the Week Award: Victoria’s Department of Human Services has commissioned its investigation into the extent to which Victorians’ health will be affected by climate change, amid warnings that it could lead to “heat-related illness”, mosquito-borne viruses, food poisoning and depression (I assume the depression comes from reading acres of alarmist nonsense in The Age):

“Severe heatwaves in Europe have caused deaths in recent years, and we are keen to be well prepared for the impacts that climate change may have upon public health and the challenges it may bring,” DHS spokesman Bram Alexander said.

“Climate change could have varying impacts on public health in different parts of Victoria. Regions like Mildura may need a different approach to that in South Gippsland.”

The investigation was likely to run for several years…

… and cost millions of dollars of Victorian taxpayers’ money.

Read it here.

Reported, as unquestioningly as ever, by the Sydney Morning Herald.

Citing UN date on climate change, two senior German scientists say that previous predictions were far too cautious and optimistic.

Earlier estimates predicted a rise of 18cm to 59cm in sea levels this century.

That estimate is woefully understated, according to Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, who heads the Potsdam Institute for Research on Global Warming Effects, and Jochem Marotzke, a leading meteorologist.

As usual, they cite the Arctic ice loss as the evidence, and ignore the facts that (i) Arctic ice has over 30% greater extent this year than at the same time last year, and (ii) despite Arctic ice decreasing over the past years, Antarctic ice has increased significantly over the same periods, and (iii) global temperatures have remained steady since at least 2001 and possibly earlier.

The earlier post “Climate Change Accelerating – hardly” seems an appropriate read.

Read it here.

In separate stories today, both Victoria and WA feel the potential effects of the ETS. In the West Australian, the State Government has called on the Commonwealth to delay the start of its emissions trading scheme, warning that a 2010 roll-out could force industries overseas resulting in massive job losses.

Treasurer Troy Buswell said yesterday that imposing a “half-baked” scheme could increase overall global emissions because it was likely to force industries to move to places with fewer environmental rules and lower costs.

The Herald Sun on the other hand cites hard figures regarding the effects of an ETS: up to 29,000 jobs lost in Victoria by 2020, and 45,000 by 2030. Victorian Employers’ Chamber of Commerce and Industry said:

“The 10 per cent model would amplify a downturn, as industrial production costs and consumer spending respond to higher energy prices pushed up by the rising cost of carbon.”

But guess what “Climate” Penny Wong thinks that delaying will just make it harder:

“Delaying now, and then trying to catch up later, will deliver a sharper shock in the years ahead,” he said. “Acting now gives certainty for business at a time when they need certainty.”

Penny is nothing if not predictable. Read it here, and here.

The Daily Telegraph has reported the results of the Climate Institute poll conducted recently, drawing a number of conclusions from its results. The trouble is, the poll was anything but impartial (not surprisingly given by whom the poll was conducted), as you may remember from a previous post that looked carefully at the wording of the questions. But the Telegraph doesn’t bother to investigate further, treating the results as gospel:

One interpretation of the Climate Institute survey results is that voters locked into action on global warming [“climate change”? – Ed] believe the Government is dithering. It is all reports – and no action.
…
It [the Government] claimed the title of environmental champion and then seemed to believe half the job was thus complete. That leaves a political door open for the Opposition.

The suggestion being that the Opposition should go further than the government, and be more decisive in its actions. That would be a huge mistake. Polling questions that were impartially phrased would have produced a very different result. The Opposition should resist the implementation of any kind of emissions reductions, even assuming a link between CO2 and “climate change”, until or unless the major emitters do likewise.

Read it here.

More alarmism from The Australian as it gives dire warnings for our cities.

The world’s top 20 megacities use 75 per cent of the world’s energy.

If the planet is to be saved from the ravages of greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, the experts agree, cities and the people in them are going to have to change.

Cutting carbon emissions by 15 per cent globally by 2020, or one tonne per capita, would save $US946 billion, one expert said.

That’s almost enough, on its own, to make up for Wall Street’s recent worst day in history.

Carbon-cutting could involve measures as simple as ditching the car more often and getting on your bike, or walking.

Personally, I don’t understand the logic in that argument, i.e. how stifling economies by cutting emissions will save money. Perhaps someone could enlighten me.

Nicky Gavron, an environmental extremist and socialist, and former deputy mayor of London under Ken Livingstone chimes in:

“With a rise in the sea level of just a few metres (caused by global warming), London would cease to function.

“As we suffered, so would other world financial centres.

“Of the 30 largest financial centres in the world, 22 are on coasts or estuaries.

“Whatever you are talking about now (in the financial crisis) would pale into insignificance.“

And it seems to have rubbed off on our own Clover Moore, Lord Mayor of Sydney:

“We don’t have a choice – we must urgently deal with climate change or there won’t be an economy.

“Successful businesses and governments will be the smart, nimble ones who see the opportunity for change and quickly adapt to the new green economy. The others will become dinosaurs.”

Watermelon politics at its best: green on the outside, red on the inside.

Read it here.

Thanks to Climate Change Fraud.

An entertaining read for a Sunday, from the Canada Free Press:

Upon closer examination, I realized that – like any other self respecting Religion – the necessary building blocks and quasi-spiritual tenets that ensure its survival are also present in this well entrenched belief system.

There is, for example, Mother Earth, the Religion’s primary object of devotion, sometimes also referred to as Mother Nature. According to garden variety environmentalists, this God must be worshiped and respected. The more hard core adherents believe that it should also be feared, for it is a rather unpredictable deity which indiscriminately indulges its thirst for wholesale revenge; ergo the standard compulsory tithes (or sacrifices) to appease its rather capricious wrath.
…
Ultimately all of these different alliances answer to the one presiding representative of the deity here on earth; his name is Al Gore – the current prime mover of this spiritual revolution of sorts, from whom foundational precepts and oracles emanate on an almost daily basis.

But come to think of it, it is really a misnomer to call this movement a Religion, rather than what it should properly be labeled as: a cult.

Read it here.

EU Commission chief Jose Manuel Barroso has plenty of problems in his own backyard with many EU countries understandably reluctant to cripple their economies with emissions reductions which will make virtually no difference to the climate (even if CO2 drives temperature). Add to that the problems of India and China (both of which have indicated that they put other things, like reducing poverty and increasing standards of living and health, ahead of nebulous climate change), and indeed the US, and he is clearly delusional if he believes a global deal possible in 2009.

The Age reports:

A crucial global pact on climate change is possible by next year, European Commission chief Jose Manuel Barroso said in Beijing following two days of talks between Asian and European leaders.

Speaking after two days of ASEM talks in Beijing that were dominated by the global economic turmoil, Barroso urged the world not to neglect the issue of climate change.

“The financial crisis is not a reason and it should not be a pretext to postpone our commitment to the fight against climate change,” he said.

“Because we have a financial crisis does not mean that climate change disappears.”

Read it here.

Exit CO2, enter CH4 and NF3, the new darlings of the climate change alarmists. Methane we’ve had on the radar for a while, but Nitrogen Trifluoride is the new kid on the block. The Sydney Morning Herald reports:

Methane comes from landfills, natural gas, coal mining, animal waste and decaying plants – but it is the decaying plants that worry scientists most. Thousands of years ago, billions of tonnes of methane were created by decaying Arctic plants. It lies frozen in permafrost wetlands trapped in the ocean floor. As the Arctic melts, the worry is that this methane will be freed.

In terms of global methane production (natural and anthropogenic), landfills contribute 7% and by contrast, ruminants contribute 19% and natural wetlands 37%. Also, given that the Arctic ice is over 30% greater than this time last year, that seems unlikely.

In contrast, nitrogen trifluoride has been considered such a small problem that it generally has been ignored. The gas is used as a cleaning agent during the manufacture of liquid crystal display television and computer monitors and for thin-film solar panels.

Earlier efforts to determine how much nitrogen trifluoride is in the air dramatically underestimated the amounts, said Ray Weiss, a geochemistry professor with Scripps Institution of Oceanography in California and lead author on a nitrogen trifluoride paper to be published next month.

The level of nitrogen trifluoride in the air has quadrupled during the past decade, said Weiss, who is also a co-author of the methane paper. Nitrogen trifluoride is one of the more potent gases, thousands of times stronger in trapping heat than carbon dioxide.

Read it here.

Years ago, Tuvalu was one of the symbols of the evils of Western society, spewing endless CO2 into the atmosphere, causing the earth to warm, glaciers to melt and sea levels to rise (© IPCC and Al Gore). Given that Tuvalu was only just above sea level, this would force its inhabitants to evacuate the island. However, as always, the truth is somewhat different. Sea levels have been rising at 1 – 2 mm per year for hundreds of years, with no appreciable acceleration linked to CO2 emissions, and it is generally accepted that Tuvalu is itself sinking due to tectonic influences.

However, none of this prevents a Greens Senator in South Australia, Sarah Hanson-Young, proposing a “new class of visa for climate refugees”:

“We cannot deny Australia’s complicity in this environmental crisis that is now impacting most dramatically on those whose homeland is more vulnerable to sea level rise,” she said.

” As the wealthiest country in the Pacific, Australia can lead the global community on this humanitarian issue.

“Australia must be proactive in establishing a new class of visa for climate change refugees.”

Who cares if the story is out of date, as long as it can be used to advance the Greens’ agenda.

Read it here.