95% of the world’s carbon emissions could be cut at a stroke if politicians could resist the temptation to fly all over the globe to attend pointless “climate talks”. The latest one is being held in Tokyo, where mayors or senior officials from the world’s largest 36 cities were gathering for two days of talks. First question – what on earth can “mayors” do to address climate change? Second question – who are these mysterious “senior officials”? Sounds like a first rate jolly to me (if you like sashimi, of course).

Tokyo Governor Shintaro Ishihara (a “celebrated novelist”) used characteristically poetic language to condemn Russia and the US for disputing rights to the North Pole, noting (incorrectly, as we now know) that the polar ice cap was melting at a record pace (who on earth briefs these people?):

“Such is the ego of human beings. It’s such a foolish tale,” Ishihara said.

Commenting on climate change, he said:

“It’s easy to share a sense of crisis, but if you can’t come up with specific measures to deal with this, then the crisis will only get worse,” Ishihara said.

It turns out that the meeting of the C40 climate initiative was started by none other than dear old “Red” Ken Livingstone, erstwhile Mayor of London and full-time Communist. Suddenly it all makes sense. It is typical of our Ken to devise as many pointless opportunities to spend taxpayers’ money whilst at the same time enjoying all-expenses-paid overseas trips to attend utterly pointless conferences. It’s just surprising that so many other apparently sane civic leaders went along with it.

Read it here.

Another great read from Andrew Bolt, who turns the tables on the AGW alarmists’ cries that we should “look at the arctic”, where ice is up over 30% compared to the same time last year. He also discusses the Canadian election:

Voters last week gave the Left-wing Liberal Party its worst hiding in a century, returning the Conservative Party of Stephen Harper.

What hurt the Liberals was their promise of a Green Shift – a global warming tax on carbon dioxide emitters, with compensation to the poor for the higher power bills.
…
Canada’s Prime Minister denounced the Green Shift as a job-killing disaster: forget useless gestures to “save” the planet; save your jobs.

Read it here.

It turns out that the lead author of this letter is a certain Barrie Pittock, who was a contributor to the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report. So we know his agenda…

Former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser is weighing in on the climate debate by supporting a recent letter from 40 scientists (reported here) which urges the Government to blunder on with an ETS regardless of the effects to the economy. Fraser, like most pollies, has no clue about the realities of climate or an ETS, and compares it, like so many others, to an insurance policy:

“Are you going to stop insuring your house against fire because of economic problems?” he asked.

No, because if your house burns down, the insurance will (should) pay up to enable you to build a new one. On the other hand, let’s just remind ourselves, if Australia cuts its emissions to zero tomorrow, it will have zero effect on the climate, even if CO2 drives temperature. It will, however, have a catastrophic effect on our economy and our standards of living.

Politicians, even those with as much experience as Malcolm Fraser, can be unbelievably naïve sometimes.

Read it here.

Climate Penny has admitted that taxpayers are paying $146,000 a day for adverts peddling warnings about climate change. Senator Eric Abetz has been doing a great job of exposing the Environment Department’s outrageous spending on climate change matters.

“No wonder Climate Change Minister Wong refused to reveal the cost of this advertising when the campaign was launched in July,” Senator Abetz said.

“This is an astonishing amount of money to be spent given that the Government legislation has not yet been drafted, let alone gone anywhere near enactment.”

Wong then went into Pavlov’s-Dog mode, and accused Abetz of being a “sceptic”. How predictable. It just goes to show how much money is required to sell the lie of climate change to an increasingly suspicious Australian public.

Read it here.

More on this story. Climate Penny has put the frighteners on the solar industry by spectacularly failing to guarantee the solar rebate will continue, after it proved financially crippling.

Senator Wong repeatedly batted away questions about how long the rebate would continue for.

She would not guarantee the rebate would still be in place in January, or for the full financial year.

And even The Age concedes:

The average solar panel installation cost $14,600, not including the rebate, and is a relatively small 1.22 kilowatt system.

In other words, it’s a huge outlay for a Climate Token Gesture. Read it here.

Whenever these desperate climate bores think their precious agenda is losing public interest, they band together and write a letter. Blatant Self-Interest Alert:

More than 40 of Australia’s top scientists are urging the Federal Government not to let the world financial crisis stop urgent action on climate change.
…
Professor Barry Brook from Adelaide University says scientists are concerned that global warming seems to be slipping off the global agenda.

“So I think it’s disappointing in the sense that right now the interest is not in solving the climate problem in a serious way,” he said.

Prof Brook is head of “climate change studies”, and his career, along with 99.9% of the other signatories to this letter, is on the line if AGW turns out to be a complete hoax.

Read it here.

To paraphrase Mandy Rice Davies, “They would, wouldn’t they.” To demonstrate to yourself that the ABC is completely biased, in particular on climate change, all you need to do is go to the ABC web site here, get yourself a stiff drink (because believe me, you’ll need it) and watch the debate that followed the screening of the film “The Great Global Warming Swindle.” The audience was partisan and biased, just as alleged by Senator Eric Abetz:

Figures released by the ABC show 32% are Labor supporters, 24% support the coalition and a further 17% are in favour of The Greens.

All of which means, of course, given the Greens make Labor look positively right wing, that there was 24% for the Coalition and 49% against the Coalition. Seems pretty biased to me. The videos on the site don’t show the fact that Tony Jones felt it necessary to issue a “public health warning” prior to the showing of the main film:

I am bound to say The Great Global Warming Swindle does not represent the views of the ABC.

Why on earth would he be “bound” to say that? Should a public service broadcaster have such a blatant editorial agenda? And then, before the debate had even started, he took the opportunity to discredit the film and its director. Reeks of impartiality. You can find it on YouTube if you really want to.

If that’s not enough, check out the “Global Warming Links” (black mark for the ABC there, it should read “Climate Change Links” because, as any fule kno, there ain’t been no warming since 2001), all of which are parroting IPCC propaganda down to the letter.

“Award winning” science writer Bernie Hobbs (that’s the award for Most Patronising Pile of AGW Alarmist Claptrap, 2007)

But it is Bernie Hobbs’ article, entitled “The Great Warming Swindle Swindle” – oh witty title, Bernie – which is the worst piece of patronising BS. It just falls over itself in a desperate attempt to ridicule the film and its presenters. Puke Alert if you dare read it:

There’s nothing like an accurate, well researched documentary to help make sense of a complex issue like global warming. It’s a shame that The Great Global Warming Swindle isn’t one.

The Swindle is a one-sided anti-global warming argument put together by a film maker with a name for skewing the facts, and featuring greenhouse skeptics with media profiles that far exceed their scientific publishing records.

Are you seriously suggesting An Inconvenient Truth isn’t one-sided? Or that Al Gore isn’t the definitive AGW alarmist with a “media profile that far exceeds his scientific publishing record”? It isn’t difficult to exceed zero. She then insults viewers by spouting, in the most condescending fashion:

If you didn’t have access to the net, or a higher degree in climatology, it’d be all too easy to swallow the straight-forward graphs and expert evidence that The Great Global Warming Swindle bases its case on.

Where’s your higher degree in climatology? Nauseating and patronising. The rest of the article is filled with misrepresentations à la AIT, quoting Goddard Institute temperatures (i.e. James Hansen – AGW crackpot), claiming the climate models reflect reality (sorry, but where did the models predict nearly a decade of cooling?) and she tops it all off with this:

Balanced? No. Accurate? No. On the right track? Not even close. What this film’s really got going for it is an alarming number of variants on the scientist as balding white guy theme, and the fact that it’ll make a great teaching tool in documentary-making classes.

But don’t take my word for it – watch the film and then, more importantly, watch the panel discussion airing immediately after it. Only then will you be in a position to do what the film’s spruikers say – make up your own mind.

Yes that’s right, Bernie – watch the discussion afterwards, as that completely abandons any pretence of fairness or balance. And where in those links is any contrary view expressed? Nowhere – as would be expected from the ever impartial ABC.

With journalists like this on board, don’t insult my intelligence by saying the ABC isn’t biased when it comes to “climate change” – it’s like every other public service broadcaster (the BBC being another good example), with the science desk staffed with Left-wing, environmental extremists.

(Link dead)

Whilst climate change is the most obvious example of debate being restricted or stifled in order to advance a political agenda, it is by no means the only one. An article in the SMH today exposes the left-wing “radical orthodoxy” that pervades our institutions of higher learning, and which is insidiously indoctrinating our future generations.

Pick any controversial issue today – Work Choices, anti-terror laws, Israel-Palestine, or climate change – and in academia these issues have been decided. There is only one accepted view on each – no debate is allowed.
…
Heaven help anyone on campus, academic or student, who dares to question what [academic] Dr Mervyn Bendle calls a “radical orthodoxy”, characterised by “theories associated with neo-Marxism, postmodernism, feminism, radical environmentalism, anti-Americanism, anti-Christianity, and related ideologies”.
…
Many Australian educators are activists masquerading as academics, agitating for radical far-left causes well outside, and profoundly hostile to, the values of mainstream Australia.

Read it all here.

The Bureau of Meteorology is converting a number of weather stations to single-person or computerised operation, which seems a reasonable decision, given the fact that a considerable number of stations worldwide are now remotely monitored. However, it unfortunately gives the Community and Public Sector Union the opportunity to wheel out the “climate change” line:

“Climate change is arguably the biggest challenge the Federal Government and decision makers face,” the union’s national president, Louise Persse, said.

“The decisions our leaders make need to be evidence-based. Now is not the time to be cutting jobs and slashing funding in an area critical to meeting this massive challenge. What we need are the best people working with the best technology to ensure we achieve the best outcomes in the fight against climate change.”

Read it here.