UK Telegraph's hysterical alarmism

22 February, 2010 by

Still there?

The Telegraph is the home of those formidable sceptics Christopher Booker and James Delingpole. Unfortunately, it is also the home of some moonbat environmental reporters who will regurgitate any old rubbish that flops onto their desks. This is an example of the latter:

Climate change could be accelerated by ‘methane time bomb’

Climate change could be accelerated dramatically by rising levels of methane in the Earth’s atmosphere, scientists will warn today.

Atmospheric levels of the greenhouse gas, which is as much as 60 times more potent than carbon dioxide, appear to have risen significantly for the past three years running, scientists say.

Experts have long feared that vast amounts of the natural gas trapped in the frozen tundra of the Arctic could be unlocked as the permafrost is melted by rising temperatures, triggering a “methane time bomb” that could cause temperatures to soar.

More melting of the Arctic ice caused by accelerating warming would release further gases, setting off a “feedback” mechanism which could send climate change spinning out of control.

A brilliant example of irresponsible, hysterical, unfounded scaremongering, especially considering the final sentence:

Professor Nisbet told The Independent at the weekend that the new figures did not necessarily mark a departure from the trend. “It may just be a couple of years of high growth, and it may drop back to what it was,” he said.

Shame on the Telegraph for printing it.

Read it here.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: , ,

Sea-level rise paper withdrawn from journal

22 February, 2010 by

Pure science fiction

From The Science is Settled Department. The UK Guardian [staggers back in amazement – Ed] reports that scary predictions of sea-level rises in a Nature paper have been withdrawn, with the author admitting to “mistakes”:

Scientists have been forced to withdraw a study on projected sea level rise due to global warming after finding mistakes that undermined the findings.

The study, published in 2009 in Nature Geoscience, one of the top journals in its field, confirmed the conclusions of the 2007 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It used data over the last 22,000 years to predict that sea level would rise by between 7cm and 82cm by the end of the century.

At the time, Mark Siddall, from the Earth Sciences Department at the University of Bristol, said the study “strengthens the confidence with which one may interpret the IPCC results“. The IPCC said that sea level would probably rise by 18cm-59cm by 2100, though stressed this was based on incomplete information about ice sheet melting and that the true rise could be higher. [Isn’t it strange that they didn’t say “it could be lower” as well? Cynics may say that shows evidence of bias… – Ed]

Many scientists [alarmists – Ed] criticised the IPCC approach as too conservative, and several papers since have suggested that sea level could rise more [If you torture the data long enough, it will confess – Ed]. Martin Vermeer of the Helsinki University of Technology, Finland and Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany published a study in December that projected a rise of 0.75m to 1.9m by 2100.

Siddall said that he did not know whether the retracted paper’s estimate of sea level rise was an overestimate or an underestimate. [But I bet we can guess which he hoped it was – Ed]

And then the poor chap does his best to put a brave face on it (three times):

  • “It’s one of those things that happens. People make mistakes and mistakes happen in science.”
  • “Retraction is a regular part of the publication process.”
  • “Science is a complicated game and there are set procedures in place that act as checks and balances.”

Read it here. (h/t Climate Change Fraud)

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With:

SMH: valiantly plugging the warmist agenda

22 February, 2010 by

The Sydney Moonbat Herald will print any old rubbish as long as it supports their conclusion (formed years ago) that global warming is real and dangerous. In this case, they publish an article from AFP that fits the bill perfectly:

Tropical storms to be more intense

Tropical cyclones may become less frequent this century but pack a stronger punch as a result of global warming, a new study says.

The study published on Sunday is an overview of work into one of the scariest yet also one of the least understood aspects of climate change.

Known in the Atlantic as hurricanes and in eastern Asia as typhoons, tropical storms are driven by the raw fuel of warm seas, which raises the question about what may happen when temperatures rise as a result of greenhouse gases.

Tom Knutson and colleagues from the UN’s World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) looked at peer-reviewed investigations that have appeared over the past four years, when the issue began to hit the headlines.

Their benchmark for warming is the “A1B” scenario, a middle-of-the-road computer simulation which predicts a global average surface temperature rise of 2.8 degrees Celsius over the 21st century.

“It is likely that the global frequency of tropical cyclones will either decrease or remain essentially unchanged,” says the paper.

But storms could have more powerful winds – an increase of between two and 11 per cent – and dump more water, it warns.

The SMH will love this of course, since it bolsters the IPCC’s position on hurricanes and cyclones. But it’s all based on model projections and speculation: may, likely, could. We already have 30 years of low-level warming since the late 1970s to use as an empirical test of change in cyclone energy, and what do we find (click for full size):

No change…

And that’s the point – we now regard the projections of climate models as being more “truthful” than empirical observations.

Read it here.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: ,

Idiotic Comment of the Day: Martin Rees

21 February, 2010 by

Rees in Great Court, Trinity

“Lord” Rees is the President of the Royal Society, which used to be a highly respected scientific organisation, but which is now reduced to a hysterical advocacy group for global warming. This is demonstrated admirably by Rees, who tries to sweep the entire Climategate, Hurricanegate, every-other-kind-of-gate, under the rug with this one sentence:

‘My personal take is the key bit of evidence is the rise in CO2 concentration plus simple physics. If we had no data other than that, that would be enough.’

Phew, thanks for clearing that up. We can all go home now.

Read it here.

P.S. I am ashamed to say that Rees is currently Master of Trinity College, Cambridge, which is my old college. I cringe with embarrassment.

Filed Under: Climate

Obama's climate plans in tatters

21 February, 2010 by

All going wrong

You wait ages for an Obama story, then two come along at once. The UK Telegraph reports on Obama’s woes in pursuing his deep green agenda. Not only is the cap-n-trade bill going nowhere, but the EPA’s endangerment finding (that labels the essential, harmless trace gas CO2 a “pollutant”) is being challenged in the courts:

President Barack Obama’s climate change policy is in crisis amid a barrage of US lawsuits challenging goverment directives and the defection of major corporate backers for his ambitious green programmes.

The legal challenges and splits in the US climate consensus follow revelations of major flaws in the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, which declared that global warming was no longer scientifically contestable.

Critics of America’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are now mounting a series of legal challenges to its so-called “endangerment finding” that greenhouse gases are a threat to human health.

That ruling, based in part on the IPCC’s work, gave the agency sweeping powers to force business to curb emissions under the Clean Air Act. An initial showdown is expected over rules on vehicle emissions.

Oil-rich Texas, the Lone Star home state of Mr Obama’s predecessor George W Bush, is mounting one of the most prominent challenges to the EPA, claiming new regulations will impose a crippling financial toll on agriculture and energy producers.

“With billions of dollars at stake, EPA outsourced the scientific basis for its greenhouse gas regulation to a scandal-plagued international organization that cannot be considered objective or trustworthy,” said Greg Abbott, Texas’s attorney general.

“Prominent climate scientists associated with the IPCC were engaged in an ongoing, orchestrated effort to violate freedom of information laws, exclude scientific research, and manipulate temperature data.

“In light of the parade of controversies and improper conduct that has been uncovered, we know that the IPCC cannot be relied upon for objective, unbiased science – so EPA should not rely upon it to reach a decision that will hurt small businesses, farmers, ranchers, and the larger Texas economy.”

Makes Penny Wong’s claim that there is a global trend towards greater climate action even more ludicrous.

Read it here.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: ,

Idiotic Comment of the Day: Barack Obama

20 February, 2010 by

Clueless

Just like Rudd and Wong, Obama is utterly clueless on climate:

US President Barack Obama has rebuked climate change sceptics who argue that piles of snow dumped on the United States during a frigid winter cast doubt on global warming science.

‘We just got five feet (1.5 metres) of snow in Washington,’ said Obama, when asked about alternative energy projects during a town hall meeting in Nevada.

‘Opponents of climate change, they say — ‘see look at that, there is all this snow on the ground — this doesn’t mean anything’.’

‘I want to just be clear that the science of climate change doesn’t mean every place is getting warmer — it means the planet as a whole is getting warmer.’

Obama cited the lack of snow in Vancouver during the current winter Olympics and unusual snowstorms in places like Dallas in the southern United States as examples of violent weather patterns brought on by climate change.

By the garbled language of those quotes, he didn’t have his teleprompter to rely on.

Read it here.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: ,

Wong: fully duped

20 February, 2010 by

The Wong-bot gets the Jo Nova treatment

Reaction to Penny Wong’s recent speech (see here) has been astonishing:

Jo Nova brilliantly takes it apart piece by piece (and gives us a great graphic – see right):

Get ready for the startling Proof by Motherhood Statements & WhiteWash. I’m loosely Paraphrasing Penny, taking the liberty of including the fuller more accurate message (that I’m sure she would want to share)… [then adding a few thoughts].

A strong global agreement is apparently “manifestly in Australia’s own national interest” (and worth paying billions upon billions for). Why?

Roger Pielke Jr gives her the full treatment:

The bottom line is that there is no scientific evidence linking rising global temperatures to the increasing catastrophe losses around the world. Ironically enough, the scientific evidence includes the paper cited by Wong to suggest the opposite.

Climategate.com is also less than complimentary:

Our Australian skeptic friend, Val Majkus, has sent me a link to a speech made yesterday by Australian nutjob, Penny Wong, who is the Aussie Federal Minister for Climate Change and Water.

Wong somehow kept a straight face when she told the crowd: “Climate change [is] happening more quickly than we previously thought.”

Another great performance from Penny Wrong.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: ,

More flannel from Flannery

20 February, 2010 by

Flannelly

The reason the “sceptics are winning” is because the scientists are not explaining climate science to the public well enough. Of course, that’s it – makes sense. Nothing to do with the scandal ridden and corrupt IPCC, or the fact that the world continues to ignore the dire predictions of the climate models, of course.

Environmentalist Tim Flannery has blamed scientists for a rise in climate scepticism, saying they had not clearly explained the science to a ”confused Australian public”.

Professor Flannery, a long-time climate campaigner [so no bias there, clearly – Ed], told The Age that scientists needed to get back into the community and explain the link between greenhouse gas emissions and climate change.

He said a lack of simple communication to the public about the science of climate change meant sceptics had been able to fill the void with misinformation.

Professor Flannery also supported comments by Climate Change Minister Penny Wong that there was a concerted world effort by sceptics to stop action on global warming.

”We’ve got a big problem with the gap between scientific information and a very confused public here in Australia,” Professor Flannery said.

”The only way to solve that is to listen to the Australian people’s questions and talk to them about it, and they [the scientists] have been rather poor at doing that.”

Unfortunately for you, the public are hell of a lot smarter than you give them credit for, Tim, and they can see straight through your flannel.

Read it here.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With:

UN alarmist-in-chief Yvo De Boer resigns

19 February, 2010 by

"I'm not depressed, I'm just dreaming about my KPMG pay cheques"

I guess he wants to secure his future by going off to make gazillions of dollars from KPMG out of the carbon market fiasco that he himself helped create. As Biased-BBC puts it, snouts in the trough:

The UN’s top climate change official, Yvo de Boer, has resigned in the latest blow to the debate over global warming.

As Secretary General of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), Mr de Boer was in charge of negotiating a new international deal to stop global temperature rise. [As simple as that. The UN speaks, the planet obeys – Ed]

However after four years in the post he has decided to step down to go and work for global accounting firm KPMG.

The former Dutch civil servant insisted he had been planning to stand down for some time but already there are questions over the nature of his departure and his possible replacement. [Andrew Bolt? – Ed]

Many blamed Mr de Boer for the failure of the recent UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen that ended in a weak accord.

His departure will also be a blow to the UN at a time when the science behind climate change is increasingly under fire after a series of scandals.

Read it here.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With:

Vote on "greatest moral challenge of our time" delayed

19 February, 2010 by

"For my next trick, the backflip."

Because now there’s something more important – pushing through a vote on health reform that will give Krudd a double-dissolution trigger that’s not climate change. And he’ll pull it, I think, because his ratings are plummeting and if he leaves it until later in the year, he will be a dead duck. But there’s a risk with that – the people aren’t stupid, they’ll see he’s trying to sneak in under the wire, and hopefully they’ll give him the bloody nose at the polls that he so richly deserves. Could Rudd & Co be the worst government since…? When?

THE Rudd government will delay pushing ahead with its emissions trading scheme, prompting an accusation by Opposition Leader Tony Abbott that it is planning one of the “all-time great political backflips”.

In a surprise move, the long-expected reintroduction of the emissions trading legislation to Parliament next week has now been stalled. Instead, the government is shifting its priorities to force a vote on its proposed changes to the private health insurance means test, potentially creating a trigger for a double-dissolution election, as health looks set to be a key battleground in this year’s election.

It means it is almost certain that the next vote on the controversial emissions trading scheme will be pushed back until at least next month.

Mr Abbott yesterday seized on the release of a draft parliamentary order of business that did not list the emissions trading scheme, saying Prime Minister Kevin Rudd seemed to be “running away from his own legislation”.

“Let’s face it, this was just a few months ago not just an important political issue, it was the greatest moral issue of our time,” he said.

Read it here.

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