New blog: RCS Audit

22 March, 2010 by

Regular ACM commenter Eloi has started a superb site, which has already been blogged by Anthony Watts and Andrew Bolt, looking at the quality of the Australian Bureau of Meteorology Reference Climate Station network – and not a moment too soon. These sites are supposed to be the gold standard by which we measure our nation’s climate, but looking at this photo, it is a crock:

Spot the weather station in the junk…

As Eloi puts it:

This has to be one of the favourites so far – the station is just dumped in a lot along with corrugated iron fences and builders’ rubble. CRN1 status: Fail.

Visit the site at RCS-audit.blogspot.com.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With:

Pointless climate gestures of the week

22 March, 2010 by

Switch 'em back on

Yes, it’s that time again, where everyone in the entire universe [surely some mistake?] switches off their lights for sixty minutes in the utterly pointless gesture that we all know as Earth Hour. The Sydney Morning Herald is a sponsor of this nonsense, so they’re plugging it for all its worth:

Earth Hour will again encourage people to turn off lights this Saturday at 8.30pm to raise awareness of climate change.

From humble beginnings in Sydney in 2007, Earth Hour has grown to become an international event, with famous locations like Times Square and the Eiffel Tower joining in last year. Millions of people in more than 80 nations are expected to participate this year. (source)

Just to demonstrate the global commitment to this, here’s a photo from Times Square (one of the locations mentioned above), showing the huge difference Earth Hour 2009 made there:

Spot the one missing bulb

So as usual, ACM is asking all its readers to use as much electricity as possible during Earth Hour to cancel out the efforts of thousands of hippies sitting in the dark. Maybe we could even get an upwards blip in the power usage – now that would be funny!

"Bonkers" doesn't come close

Whilst we’re on the subject of pointless gestures, the announcer on ABC Classic FM annoyingly drew my attention to some “artist” who has put a metal sculpture on an iceberg (no, really):

By creating a gigantic and unprecedented art project, cool(E)motion™ wants to re-engage the public on the topic of climate change. It wants to do so in a positive manner, contrary to the fault-finding impulses or the accusing finger.

We will demonstrate the inextricable link between climate and culture and visualize what the consequences of that link are. To illustrate this we will travel into the areas around the North Pole. The impressive dynamic natural elements that are typical of this area speak to everyone’s imagination: a virginal white stage with unimaginable forces, such as rapidly receding glaciers, floating icebergs, drifting ice. On these dynamic stages we will place huge sculptures, which derive their inspiration from the local culture. These almost majestic sculptures will be propelled by their stages at high speeds toward their final destruction. In order to reach our audience with this magnificent theatrical drama, we will broadcast it live into people’s living rooms.

Because cool(E)motion™ is very concerned about the effects of climate change moving south, we will give the very first victims of climate change a voice: the Inuit, a group of people who currently have no voice. Their story can become ours. But Inuit culture has always dealt with adaptation to harsh circumstances. Because our culture is based on more stable circumstances, we are not used to short-term change. We, with our more structured culture, will have a tougher time. But nonetheless, climate change means culture change.

You can sample the full barminess of this here.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: ,

Richard Glover spouts climate nonsense

20 March, 2010 by

Tedious sceptic bashing (and not funny either)

I’ve waited a long time for this – an opportunity to sink my teeth into Richard Glover, another ABC lefty who presents the Drive programme on ABC local radio in Sydney. Unfortunately, living in Sydney I often have the misfortune to listen to Glover, and whilst most of his stuff is harmless enough, his comedy-based Thank god it’s Friday section from 5 – 6 every Friday is toe-curling in the extreme. The trouble with Glover is that he thinks he’s a natural comedian, but in reality, he’s about as funny as haemorrhoids, as will be evidenced shortly.

So it gives me enormous pleasure to relate that he’s also a climate alarmist, or at least someone completely unsympathetic to any sceptical viewpoint [What a surprise. Yet another ABC lefty who’s a climate alarmist to boot. Knock me down with a feather. Add them to the list – Ed], writing a tedious piece in the Sydney Moonbat Herald dissing sceptics, entitled The Lara Bingle of Climate Change. If you don’t immediately get the reference (I certainly didn’t), he’s referring to the IPCC’s Himalayan glaciers error, which, as he puts it, “gets more attention than it deserves”. Right.

Do climate-change sceptics have the same attitude to other pieces of expert advice? When their car develops a fault and the local mechanic says the brake pads are shot, do they seek a second opinion? And having been told by the second mechanic that, yes, the brake pads are shot, do they then trawl around town until on the 99th visit, they strike a mechanic who says “no, the brake pads are fine”? And then driving at high speed up the F3, do they entrust their lives to this last opinion?

No. Because it would be mental.

What happens when Maurice Newman, climate agnostic and ABC chairman, goes to the doctor? Does he storm from the office when they diagnose chickenpox and seek second, third and 99th opinions until he finds a doctor who will give him the all clear? And does he then decry the first 98 doctors as victims of “group-think”?

No. Because it would be mental.

This kind of reasoning is so childish as to be laughable. Because the science of climate is obviously completely equivalent to checking whether your brake pads are worn down, or whether you have spots and a temperature, isn’t it? And then having bowled us over with the power of his logic, the ad homs begin:

As a non-scientist, I cannot directly evaluate the evidence for anthropomorphic [can’t even get the word right – Ed] global warming; I cannot clamber up a glacier and take readings, just as, when I visit the doctor, I can’t check my own prostate (even though, according to some readers, I’ve spent a lifetime with my head stuck up there [and those, dear reader, are the only true words spoken in this entire article – Ed]).

I can, however, evaluate the debating techniques used by both sides. And here, the global-warming sceptics are very, very annoying.

I’m sorry, I can’t go on. As I’m writing this, I can feel the very will to live draining away, so if you really want to read it, go here. I’d rather spend my time doing something more pleasant, like have my wisdom teeth extracted without anaesthetic.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: ,

Daily Bayonet GW Hoax Weekly Roundup

20 March, 2010 by

Skewering the clueless

With apologies for the late arrival, here is the weekly skewering.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With:

Obama cites healthcare to avoid the toxic bore

19 March, 2010 by

Look, Obama needs to have a credible sounding reason for cancelling his trip to Australia. And “pushing the healthcare bill through” sounds pretty good, but we all know the real reason, don’t we?

Rudd’s like the nerdy kid in the playground who hangs around the cool kids, but the cool kids wish he would just go away…

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: ,

NSW electricity bills to rise 60% in 3 years

18 March, 2010 by

Shocking price rises

And well over a third of that increase will be thanks to the government’s pointless ETS (if it ever gets through):

NSW residents will be slapped with a 60 per cent electricity price hike over three years, to be announced today, more than a third of which will be to pay for Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s emissions trading scheme.

The power price rise will add at least $100 to the average annual bill for households in Sydney. [If you live in a box with a single 60w lightbulb perhaps, but for average homes, a 60% increase is going to be way more than this – it’s so wrong I wonder if this is a typo? – Ed]

Country residents will be hit even harder, with the annual power bill for homes expected to increase by $170-$200 a year. [Again, this seems ridiculously small – Ed]

The Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal will release its final determination into NSW power pricing this morning.

It has told the State Government that to pay for the anticipated climate change policy of the Federal Government, charges need to be increased in NSW by significantly more than they otherwise would have been.

And in a surprise move by the independent regulator, the price rises are due to come into effect as early as July 1 this year.

…

The report, details of which have been provided to The Daily Telegraph, states that a third of the increase was directly attributable to CPRS.

“It is to pay for the fact that the country is so heavily reliant on coal,” a source in the energy industry said.

Yet again, we find the effect of the Rudd ETS is completely at variance with the spin and misrepresentations coming from the government.

Read it here.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: , , ,

SA Labor's "pact with the Devil"

18 March, 2010 by

Feel those preferences flow…

According to Kevin Rudd, climate change is the greatest moral challenge since the Big Bang (or something), but obviously his mates in South Australia don’t worry about that when their electoral future is at stake. Massive Hypocrisy Alert as SA Labor directs preferences to … (drum roll please) … the Climate Sceptics Party:

South Australian federal Liberal MP Jamie Briggs said he was amazed that Premier Mike Rann would sanction such a deal when his friend Kevin Rudd had declared that he viewed climate change as the greatest moral challenge of our time.

The sceptics’ lead candidate in its bid for a seat in the state Legislative Council, Nathan Ashby, says the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has been shown to be untrustworthy and produced conclusions based on fraudulent science.

…

“It seems to be a very desperate move from the Premier to be preferencing the climate sceptics ahead of the Liberal Party when his very good friend the Prime Minister has stressed the danger Australia faces from climate change,” Mr Briggs said.

“You would have thought that if Mike Rann were really concerned about this issue he would have put them last. I couldn’t believe they’ve done that given all the hype we’ve heard from the PM on this issue. It seems extraordinary.”

It sure does. But not when you stop to consider what Labor actually stands for: nothing. As has been said on these pages before, Labor has no principles whatsoever. It is a principle vacuum. It’s just a weathervane, twisting here and there, helplessly following the winds of public opinion, and desperate to stay in power at any cost.

Read it here.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With:

Quotes of the Day: Stephen Conroy on Lateline

18 March, 2010 by

Quote of the Day

I woke up this morning to hear Stephen Conroy’s lamentable, blustering performance on Lateline last night, repeated on News Radio. Now there’s a fine way to start the day … There was all the usual spin and hot air, but the funniest bit came when Tony Jones (who is one of the ABC’s most vocal climate change alarmists) held up his hands in horror at Maurice Newman’s accusation that the ABC was less than balanced on the issue of climate change. It was a classic “What, me?” moment. And then he successfully bullied Conroy into saying “No, no, it’s all fine you’re doing a great job”, and Conroy didn’t have the balls to resist:

TONY JONES: Alright, a final question. You’ve refused to comment in any detail on the claims by the ABC’s chairman Morris Newman that coverage of the global warming climate change issue is an example of “group think” where contrary views have not been tolerated.

Do you see any evidence of that?

STEPHEN CONROY: Well, look, the chairman… The ABC is an independent statutory authority. The chairman is entitled to his views and I understand from discussions that I’ve had over the last 24 hours it was a very robust discussion that followed that, uh, that speech and I think that is a healthy thing for all involved.

TONY JONES: Do you see any evidence? I am asking for your opinion. Whether you see- because it is a serious accusation he’s making: “Should there be a view that the ABC was sheltering particular beliefs from scrutiny or failing to question the consensus, I would consider it to be a dangerous perception that could lead to the public’s trust in us being undermined”.

That is the suggestion. Do you see any evidence that that has been happening?

STEPHEN CONROY: Well, I do remember that the ABC screened the documentary the Global Warming Scandal, I think last year.

TONY JONES: Swindle.

STEPHEN CONROY: Swindle, sorry, yes. So I think the ABC can point to a whole range of areas where it has given all sides of the debate a fair run.

TONY JONES: So you don’t see any examples or signs of “group think” in the ABC?

STEPHEN CONROY: Well, I am not sure that Mr Newman pointed his finger at any particular area. I don’t think he was speaking in a general sense but on an issue that you’ve mentioned like climate change, I think you’ve got a proud record where you can point to the screening of that documentary and there’s been plenty of debate over the last 12 months on this topic on the ABC. (source)

Ah, so showing the Great Global Warming Swindle is balance is it? Let’s remember what happened there, shall we? Firstly, Tony Jones himself, who was presenting the film, proclaimed before it was shown:

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

Which means that the public service broadcaster has “views” on climate change – and I don’t need to tell you what they are. Hardly balance there. And following the screening, there was a round table debate in which TGGWS was thoroughly ripped to shreds by a typical ABC left-leaning audience. The hypocrisy is breathtaking. Why did the ABC take TGGWS apart, and yet never raise a finger to the partisan, innaccurate propaganda film An Inconvenient Truth? Where were the round table discussions picking that apart, Tony? No, wait. You’ve already explained. TGGWS doesn’t represent the views of the ABC, because AIT does, right?

If you want to see ABC bias at work for yourself, just go to the ABC’s Great Global Warming Swindle pages here and especially the nauseating article by Bernie Hobbs (ABC science broadcaster) here – it’s all there in black and white.

ABC balance on climate change? Don’t make me laugh.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: , , , ,

Butterfly study hijacked by AGW

17 March, 2010 by

Ever felt used?

Here’s an innocent little story about butterflies [which is now plastered all over the ABC and will no doubt be on the 7 o’clock News and 7.30 Report and Lateline and every ABC web site under the sun – Ed]. Apparently they are getting impatient and are now emerging from their cocoons ten days earlier than 65 years ago. But who does the ABC choose to interview on The World Today? Firstly Michael Kearney, biologist from Melbourne University, but then, oddly, David “Asteroid” Karoly, who is a fully paid up climate alarmist (link to audio and transcript here):

Professor David Karoly of the University of Melbourne, says the study breaks new ground on the impact climate change has on the natural environment.

“Butterflies and many other natural systems are responding to warming both in Australia and around the world,” he said.

“This is the first time we’ve been able to link the change in a natural system, like a butterfly, to regional warming and then link that regional warming to increase in green house gases as a result of human activity.”

Why would they interview Karoly? So I did a bit of research, and tracked down the original home page at Monash for the study here. Firstly, it should be noted that this is a research project within the school of Biosciences (not Earth Sciences or Climate Change) and there is no mention of Karoly as part of the project. Here is the project summary from a project update dated August 2008 :

Climate change and habitat fragmentation are together a major threat to the continued survival of a vast number of species. Correlative bioclimatic models are often used for predicting future suitable habitats, but currently do not take into account whether species are able to colonise new regions, nor the mechanisms by which they interact with and adapt to their environment. We will use a butterfly model species to investigate the relationship between genetic polymorphisms, physiological capacity for dispersal, and environmental constraints at the landscape scale. This will allow truly mechanistic and more accurate predictions of how novel climatic environments will affect species distributions. (source – PDF)

Again, no mention of anthropogenic climate change or greenhouse gases or carbon dioxide (or Karoly). They are simply looking at how butterflies react to increasing temperatures – you only need to read the PDF to see that. But wait, look what’s happened. Suddenly there is a “final step”, oddly not mentioned in any of the project’s earlier documentation, where Karoly steps in and neatly links the whole thing to human caused climate change:

The final step taken by the researchers was to link the regional temperature changes with human-induced global warming.

Team member [since when? – Ed] climatologist, Professor David Karoly applied global circulation models to the Melbourne region, taking into account local factors that influence climate.

This suggested that the regional temperature changes observed over the decade were unlikely to be observed without the influence of human greenhouse emissions, says Kearney. (source)

And hey presto, an avowed climate alarmist manages to show that Melbourne’s temperature rise can only be cause by human factors [because we don’t know what else could have caused it – brilliant – Ed]. What a surprise. So somebody, at present unknown, had the brilliant idea “if we can tie this butterfly study into AGW, we might get some air time from the ABC,” and that somebody was dead right, because it fits the ABC’s unashamedly alarmist agenda.

UPDATE: The Australian Research Council lists the grants made for this study (a total of $240,000 over three years), and it too mentions nothing about Karoly or the anthropogenic nature of the climate change in question. Here is the extract from the ARC’s PDF for funding grants made to Monash (not Melbourne) in 2006 for research commencing in 2007:

Extract from ARC's funding

So Karoly has simply been wheeled in to add the alarmist perspective. The difficult questions to ask would be:

  • When did Karoly become part of the project?
  • On whose instigation?
  • Were all the funding bodies notified of the change in emphasis of the study towards human-induced climate change?
Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: , ,

Another museum falls prey to climate dogma

17 March, 2010 by

Another one bites the dust

Indoctrination Alert as another climate change disciple takes on a senior role at a museum. From the Sydney Morning Herald:

A LEADING Australian businesswoman with a keen interest in climate change and sustainability will be the new president of the Australian Museum Trust.

Samantha Mostyn, the second woman to hold the position, said she was incredibly proud to take the helm of the governing body of the natural history museum. ”The museum is one of the most cherished institutions in Sydney, if not the country,” she said.

Ms Mostyn is the director of the Institute for Sustainable Solutions at the University of Sydney. A lawyer, she has a long history in the business sector and was once a political adviser to the former prime minister Paul Keating. She is also an adviser on the board of ClimateWorks, a partnership between Monash University and the Myer Foundation.

The Herald reported on a study by ClimateWorks yesterday that suggested the federal opposition climate policy would reduce carbon emissions by only half the amount it had claimed. [And ABC NewsWatch pointed out that ClimateWorks is just a cheap shill for Labor, see here – Ed]

Ms Mostyn said while the museum did not have a background in climate science it did have an extensive natural history collection that illustrated Australia’s unique biodiversity.

”It shows what we stand to lose if we don’t think carefully about the impact of the change in climate,” she said. ”I would like the museum to continue to play a role in helping [the public] understand some of the big science and nature debates that we are currently dealing with.’‘ (source)

Soon there won’t be a museum left in Australia that won’t brainwash its visitors about climate change…

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With:
«Previous Page
Next Page»