From the ABC – an interesting circular argument, maybe, or perhaps just a typo? Who knows?

Link here.

A couple of particularly amusing lines which caught my attention in a Herald article about Hollywood’s incorporation of environmental issues, particularly “climate change”, in its many films. The director of Happy Feet, George Miller, opines:

“It’s not too long a bow to draw that in Titanic, one of the many elements … was environmental. The ship was metaphorically the most powerful, most advanced, most privileged ship – a microcosm of the world with the rich and the poor who were all on this great ark – and, because of hubris, it was brought down. You don’t have to dig too deep to see the environmental analogy in the most successful film of all time.”

The planet exacts its revenge on the evils of humanity by carefully positioning an iceberg in the path of an oncoming ship. If nature were to attempt the same trick today, it may find it would have to look harder to find icebergs lying around, of course!

And my favourite:

Two years ago the Oscar-winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth became a rare film for literally changing the world by inspiring political and social change. But can a fictional movie have a similar impact?

Apart from the dubious claim that it “changed the world”, An Inconvenient Truth was fiction…

Read it here.

The Herald Sun can barely conceal its glee at the fact the US Congress is introducing draft legislation to cut greenhouse emissions, thundering:

CLIMATE change sceptics would do well to choke on their own emissions now that a draft bill for a carbon trading scheme has emerged from the US House of Representatives.

The subsequent reduction of hot air will help American legislators get on with the job of framing a cap and trade program in the single most important economy capable of attempting to reverse global warming.

If the bill succeeds and the US shows leadership on climate change mitigation, China will follow.

Assuming that the bill is passed, and that is by no means certain given the US public’s concern with the economy and the cautiousness of their representatives in Congress, it will do little to curb emissions from cars and trucks, one of the largest sources of emissions in the US. As the Wall Street Journal says:

For drivers who’ve already seen gasoline prices double in the last two years, a 25-cent increase is a drop in the bucket and probably wouldn’t lead to many additional changes in the way people drive, the CBO [Congressional Budget Office] concludes. Even with pump prices (and crude oil) slipping a bit now, 25 cents remains a pretty tiny slice.

When gasoline spiked from about $2 a gallon to around $4 a gallon, demand for gasoline fell—but it didn’t collapse. In any event, the CBO says, new fuel-economy standards passed in late 2007 will do more to spur more fuel-efficient vehicles in coming decades than any carbon pricetag that comes out of Congress.

From Climate Change Fraud.

The alleged decline of the polar bear was the ultimate symbol of the evils that capitalism, and its unending lust for growth and development, are wreaking on the planet as a result of “global warming”. However, since polar bears seem to be doing OK, and reports of their demise a little premature, the AGW alarmists have had to find another icon to threaten with extinction as a result of climate change.

HALF to three-quarters of major Antarctic penguin colonies could be damaged or wiped out if global temperatures are allowed to climb by more than two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit), according to a report released today.

Conveniently leaving aside the fact that temperatures haven’t risen since 2001…

“Penguins are very well adapted to living in the cold and extreme conditions of Antarctica,” said the WWF’s Juan Casavelos, noting that warming has already contributed to a reduction in populations.

“If temperatures increase by another two degrees these icons of the Antarctic will be seriously threatened,” he said.

Read it here.

Don’t need the Mersey Tunnel anymore…

I know this isn’t Australian news, but I’m allowed a bit of licence when it comes to the most bizarre stories from my old homeland. That bastion of intelligent and considered reporting, the “Wirral Globe” (who they? Ed) have given us a vision of a post-climate change Britain, and their graphic design department have had a field day creating a photoshopped picture of the skyline of Liverpool, UK with a crusty, dried up River Mersey pasted into the foreground. Note the ferry stuck halfway across – I would have thought they may have managed to get into dock before it all evaporated, but hey, who knows? It could happen in days, hours, minutes!!

After all the scaremongering, Dr Neil MacDonald, lecturer in geography at the University of Liverpool said:

“The general rule is that there will be a reduction in river flows throughout the summer months but there is considerable uncertainty as to the actual amount. I certainly wouldn’t be worrying too much that we are going to wake up and find our river gone.”

So that’s OK then, phew.

Read it here.

More crazy alarmism from the UN, whose Secretary-General today reminded the world that whilst financial problems may come and go, “climate change” will be here for all eternity…

Global warming “remains the defining challenge of our era,” Mr. Ban told reporters at his monthly press conference at UN Headquarters. “The danger is that, as with the [Millennium Development Goals], the magnitude of the threat will be obscured by shorter-term problems, and in particular the deepening financial crisis.”

“Grave as it may be, today’s financial crisis is a passing storm from which we will recover,” he said. But he warned that “we cannot say that about the potential catastrophe of global warming.”

Tell that to the millions across the globe currently struggling to pay their mortgages…

Read it here.

This is precisely the reason why it is now so difficult to put the brakes on the AGW bandwagon and get anyone in government or in the climate change industry to actually debate its causes in any rational way.

Companies providing goods and services that tackle climate change now form a bigger industry grouping than global software and biotechnology sectors combined, according to new research.

Global annual revenues from such businesses – which include renewable energy companies, nuclear power and energy management specialists – have surpassed $300bn for the first time, HSBC’s global banking and markets research team have found.

$300 BILLION! Let’s just pause and think about that for a moment – more than global software AND biotech sectors combined – that is a phenomenal statistic. If there had been no “global warming” scare over the past twenty years, most of these companies wouldn’t even exist!

There are now so many vested interests in maintaining the alarmist agenda (just think of our friend Al Gore) that when it finally comes off the rails, in other words when businesses and individuals wise up to the swindle that has been perpetrated on them, the decline in the climate change industry is likely to have a significant effect on the global economy.

Read it here.

Still lurking in the shadows after his previous report to the UK government has been largely forgotten, “Lord” (formerly plain old Sir Nicholas) Stern is using bizarre logic in the Guardian to argue that the current economic crisis is even more reason why we should throw billions of dollars, pounds, Euros, you name it, at reducing CO2 emissions.

He said that the current financial crisis demonstrated the consequences of not dealing with dangerous risks early enough and with sufficient international co-operation.

Warning that there were “two kinds of danger” posed to efforts to tackle climate change by the present fear of recession, Lord Stern said: “One is people can only concentrate on a limited number of things at the same time.

“The second is people will be sensitive to cost increases, and those will have to be managed carefully… There’s a danger: it needs leadership.”

Given a choice between managing a global economic meltdown and spurious claims about tinkering with a harmless trace gas in the atmosphere, I think I know which most people would choose.

Read it here.

More common sense from Australia’s farming communities, as reported in the North Queensland Register.

IN the face of calls from climate change “experts” to farm kangaroos instead of cattle, the Northern Territory Cattlemen’s Association has called for a return to sanity in the debate on global warming.

Well said. Luke Bowen, of the NTCA said:

“We all support the need to reduce greenhouse gases, but imagine trying to master a herd of kangaroos, and the fuel emissions generated with all the extra driving around around after them.

“I doubt if it is possible to muster and transport kangaroos in the first place.”

Can’t expect Prof Garnaut to understand the niceties of roo farming, of course…

Read the rest here.

From the Department of Desperate Scare Stories (otherwise known as that organ of impartiality, The Age). Apparently, newborn babies who are exposed to air pollution in the womb have to breathe faster to get more oxygen into their lungs, according to research confirming environmental fumes can damage a child’s lungs before birth. Let me make it quite clear that I am all in favour of cutting pollution (by which I mean real pollution such as particulates and toxins, as opposed to non-pollution, such as CO2) from our towns and cities to improve quality of life and health, but guess what:

“Climate change is going to increase humidity and make the situation worse so we need to get smart about it now.”

Who’d have thunk it?

Read it here.