Not "New Scientist", but "Non Scientist"


Joke publication

Joke publication

Jo Nova takes the global warming alarmist science mag to pieces:

It’s beyond silly. The mindless, irrelevant attacks go on. They attack Nigel Lawson for using a misleadingly short time (eight years) to argue that the world is not warming (which is exactly what the satellite data shows). Eight years is too short for New Scientist to announce a flat trend, but in every other article with a single flood, a single cyclone, or a single heat wave, one week is long enough for New Scientist to imply that global warming might be to blame. So a season of hurricanes is significant, but years of cooling is misleading. Righto. (And Amen).

They attack Christopher Monckton’s paper, not because they can summarize why it was in error, but because another group disagree, and there are some technicalities of whether it jumped through the right hoops to be called “peer review.” Attack the man and not the message eh? New Scientist stands up for the bureaucratic details of “peer review” (only some peers count), but they won’t stand up for the independent scientists, the whistleblowers who want access to data, just to check those “peer reviewed papers” didn’t turn out to be baseless frauds like the Hockey Stick.

We subscribers buy New Scientist in the hope it will impartially give us both sides of the story, in a summary form which is accurate… and the subscribers are rebelling. The comments below the article are 90% skeptics, 2% believers, and the rest are presumably so angry their’s were deleted.

Brilliant. Read it here.

Abbott: ETS is old fashioned socialism


The ETS at work

The ETS at work

Redistributing wealth from “the rich” to “the poor” is what socialism is all about, and oddly, that’s exactly what the ETS would do. Nothing for the climate, of course – don’t forget that. And Tony Abbott is quick to point this out:

The new leader will sharpen his attack on the CPRS, moving beyond attacking it as “a great big tax” to accusing Labor of using it as a wealth-transfer mechanism.

Homing in on Mr Rudd’s assurances that he will compensate low-income earners to the value of 120 per cent of the impact of the CPRS on their living costs, Mr Abbott will say: “This is a redistribution policy dressed up as a climate change policy. The Liberal Party, by contrast, doesn’t like new taxes, doesn’t like politicised handouts and doesn’t like new bureaucracies.”

After winning the Liberal Party leadership by a single vote to end weeks of opposition infighting earlier this month, Mr Abbott turned the party’s policy on its head by reversing Mr Turnbull’s previous support for Labor’s CPRS.

Mr Turnbull had previously insisted that Mr Rudd wanted the opposition to reject his legislation so he could call a double dissolution of parliament and an early election.

But Mr Abbott will tell the NSW’s Liberal Party’s Millennium Forum that he would relish any election on emissions trading because the campaign would be about tax, not the environment.

“Mr Rudd’s policy will be to save the environment by raising the cost of living,” the speech says.

“Oppositions should live for elections because they are the only way to become a government. So I have a clear message for Mr Rudd and the early election that he has threatened us with: Bring it on and we will be ready for you’.”

Read it here.

Copenhagen Day 9 – China vs US again


Day 9

Day 9

The two big hitters in these negotiations are at loggerheads, meaning that the chance of any significant deal is virtually zero. Already there is talk of “failure” and the focus now is on a possible extension of Kyoto, combined with a new deal to bring in the US and developing countries – sounds like a dog’s breakfast to me:

Yu Qingtai, China’s climate ambassador, batted away calls for Beijing to up its pledge.

China’s plan, which entails braking its expected use of energy in relation to economic growth, is not on the table, he told reporters at the climate talks in Copenhagen.

“We announced those targets, we don’t intend to put them up for discussion,” Yu said.

Separately, the United States poured cold water on the notion that it would deepen its offer of cutting greenhouse-gas emissions, as outlined by President Barack Obama in the run-up to the conference.

I am not anticipating any change in the mitigation commitment,” US chief delegate Todd Stern told a press conference.

“Our commitment is tied to our anticipated legislation and there are elements in that legislation that could result in an overall target or an overall reduction amount that could actually be a fair amount higher.

“But we’re not making a commitment to that right now because it’s just uncertain and we don’t want to promise something that we don’t have.”

The roles of China and the United States, the world’s No. 1 and 2 emitters, are pivotal to the negotiations unfolding in Copenhagen on crafting a new global pact on climate change beyond 2012. (source)

For some reason, Australia sees itself as playing an important part in these negotiations, despite not having any emissions trading legislation (thanks, Tony!) and contributing less than 1.5% to global emissions. But Penny and Kevin see themselves as climate crusaders, wading in to try and clinch a deal for the sake of the planet:

ENVIRONMENT ministers in Copenhagen are battling to achieve agreement on a fall-back option of two separate climate change agreements — an extension of the Kyoto Protocol and a separate deal bringing in the US and the developing world.

The compromise is an attempt to break the deadlock between developing countries which want a continuation of the Kyoto Protocol for rich nations, and the US and other developed countries, which say global warming cannot be slowed without binding and verifiable promises from major developing countries as well.

After a day when the stand-off initially brought the negotiations to a halt, Danish Environment Minister Connie Hedegaard has appointed key ministers, including Climate Change Minister Penny Wong, to try to break particular deadlocked issues and save the talks from failure.

But some developing countries labelled that process “totally undemocratic and totally untransparent” and indicated they would continue to resist it.

Australian business groups in Copenhagen warned that the “two-agreement” solution posed regulatory risks.

“Having a two-speed approach might get us through this week, but if it institutionalises different rules it could mean we end up playing by different rules to China and the United States,” said the Mineral Council of Australia’s Brendan Pearson. (source)

The Indians have clearly had enough of Wong’s meddling:

India has labelled Australia an “ayatollah” because of its strident advocacy of a one-track approach at the UN climate talks that will eventually force all countries to be bound by a single treaty.

In frank comments to the Herald at the Copenhagen summit, India’s Environment Minister, Jairam Ramesh, said bluntly: “Australia is sort of the ayatollah of the single track”.

Developing countries are arguing that Australia and its allies are trying to push the outcome of the talks away from the Kyoto Protocol. Mr Ramesh warned that this was “a recipe for disaster at the talks”.

The Indian Environment Minister had just pulled out of a crucial meeting with Australia’s Climate Change Minister, Penny Wong, aimed at breaking the deadlock in the climate talks. (source)

Keep up the good work Penny! I looks like you are singlehandedly wrecking any chance of a deal – I’m starting to admire you! And she’s openly talking of failure at Copenhagen, and is worried for the sake of the planet if it happens:

“All of us are concerned about what would happen if we fail,” Senator Wong told reporters from the summit on Tuesday afternoon.

“But can I say that the possibility of failure is not so much a political problem, it’s a problem for the world.”

Despite the possibility of failure Senator Wong was upbeat the climate change summit could turn a corner and be a success.

That’s because world leaders – including Australia’s Kevin Rudd – fly in from Tuesday to take over the talks. [Yeah, that’ll make all the difference. A Krudd-speak filled homily from our PM – Ed]

“We’re moving into what I hope will be a more constructive phase,” Senator Wong said.

“We’ve got to get out of the trenches and get around the negotiating table, and that’s what we intend to do.”

I think Penny’s been at the happy pills. On a lighter note, the best advert for the abolition of the British monarchy, Prince Charles, has delivered a bonkers speech at Copenhagen – always good for a laugh:

“The future of mankind can be assured only if we rediscover ways in which to live as a part of nature, not apart from her,” he said. “The grim reality is that our planet has reached a point of crisis and we have only seven years before we lose the levers of control.” [Seven years – mark it in the diary along with all the others – Ed]

He pointed out that climate change is a “risk multiplier”.

“Reducing poverty, increasing food production, combating terrorism and sustaining economic development are all vital priorities, but it is increasingly clear how rapid climate change will make them even more difficult to address,” he warned. (source)

Don’t forget – this is a guy who talks to trees.

UK Daily Express: 100 reasons why climate change is natural


Climate sense

Climate sense

Like its cousin, The Daily Mail, the Daily Express is rapidly becoming a beacon of sanity in the sea of alarmism and gullibility, and today presents Climate Change is Natural: 100 Reasons Why:

HERE are the 100 reasons, released in a dossier issued by the European Foundation, why climate change is natural and not man-made:

  1. There is “no real scientific proof” that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from man’s activity.
  2. Man-made carbon dioxide emissions throughout human history constitute less than 0.00022 percent of the total naturally emitted from the mantle of the earth during geological history.
  3. Warmer periods of the Earth’s history came around 800 years before rises in CO2 levels.
  4. After World War II, there was a huge surge in recorded CO2 emissions but global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940.
  5. Throughout the Earth’s history, temperatures have often been warmer than now and CO2 levels have often been higher – more than ten times as high.
  6. Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time.
  7. The 0.7C increase in the average global temperature over the last hundred years is entirely consistent with well-established, long-term, natural climate trends.
  8. The IPCC theory is driven by just 60 scientists and favourable reviewers not the 4,000 usually cited.
  9. Leaked e-mails from British climate scientists – in a scandal known as “Climate-gate” – suggest that that has been manipulated to exaggerate global warming
  10. A large body of scientific research suggests that the sun is responsible for the greater share of climate change during the past hundred years.

And I particularly like number 95:

Australia has stated it wants to slash greenhouse emissions by up to 25 percent below 2000 levels by 2020, but the pledges were so unpopular that the country’s Senate has voted against the carbon trading Bill, and the Opposition’s Party leader has now been ousted by a climate change sceptic.

Go the Express! Read the remaining 90 here! (h/t Climate Realists)

NSW electricity prices could rise 62% by 2013


Shocking price rises

Shocking price rises

And much of that increase would be due to the ETS (if it were implemented). Even the Energy Minister is shocked. Let’s hope it stays dead, then:

The Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART) said in a draft determination released in Sydney today the unprecedented fee increases would be needed to cope with higher network costs and a federal scheme to reduce carbon emissions.

IPART CEO Jim Cox said he had never seen price rises like the ones he now proposed.

“I think this is the biggest increase we have seen,” he said. “I don’t think this (price increases) is something that we particularly like.”

Under the proposal, consumers could be paying between $554 and $893 a year more for electricity by July 2013.

“The important point to note here is almost 90 per cent of the increases are due (to an) increase in network charges to pay for higher reliability standards, and also … the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS), if indeed it is implemented,” he said.

If the CPRS is not introduced, consumers could still expect their annual power bills to jump by between $242 and $594 by 2013, IPART said.

But $594 is a damn sight less than $893, and the difference ($300) is thanks to the CPRS.

Read it here.

Greenpeace deface Sydney Opera House


Throw away the key…

Throw away the key…

In the cause of global socialism and anti-capitalism. Remember, this hasn’t got anything to do with climate change (© Tony Blair):

Five environmental activists hung a banner on one of the sails of the Sydney Opera House today with the message: “Stop the politics, climate treaty now”.

A Herald photographer said the campaigners took down the banner as police escorted them down the sail.

The protest, which started about 8am, was timed to coincide with the global climate conference in Copenhagen.

“Australians have made it clear that we want strong action taken in Copenhagen,” Greenpeace chief executive Linda Selvey said in a statement.

“Greenpeace is taking this message to world leaders and demanding they come home with nothing less than a legally binding treaty that safeguards our future.”

As if Greenpeace represents the views of the Australian public! I don’t think so.

Read it here.

UPDATED: When the going gets desperate…


Clearly stressed by so much climate spin…

Clearly stressed by so much climate spin…

… the desperate get going. In this case, Al Gore, who is wheeled out like some old relic to peddle more meaningless alarmism based on hopeless computer models to the gullible twits at Copenhagen:

Gore cited new scientific work at the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School, whose Arctic ice research is important for planning polar voyages by Navy submarines. The computer modeling there stresses the “volumetric,” looking not just at the surface extent of ice but its thickness as well.

“Some of the models suggest that there is a 75 percent chance that the entire north polar ice cap during some of the summer months will be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years,” Gore said. His office later said he meant nearly ice-free, because ice would be expected to survive in island channels and other locations. [“Some” of the models? So I guess “others” didn’t – guess which ones Al chooses – Ed]

Asked for comment, one U.S. government scientist questioned what he called this “aggressive” projection.

“It’s possible but not likely,” said Mark Serreze of the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colorado. “We’re sticking with 2030.”

Even the US government is embarrassed by Gore’s wild predictions. And anyway, what’s the big deal about Arctic ice anyway? If the planet is warming, there’ll be less ice – it doesn’t prove human causation. Gore sounds like Frank Drebin in The Naked Gun: “There’s a 50:50 chance of no ice in 5 years, but there’s only a 10% chance of that.”

Read it here.

Update: The Times picks up Gore’s error, and as Marc Morano says, Gore is no longer getting a “free ride” from the media:

However, the climatologist whose work Mr Gore was relying upon dropped the former Vice-President in the water with an icy blast.

“It’s unclear to me how this figure was arrived at,” Dr Maslowski said. “I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this.”

Mr Gore’s office later admitted that the 75 per cent figure was one used by Dr Maslowksi as a “ballpark figure” several years ago in a conversation with Mr Gore.

The embarrassing error cast another shadow over the conference after the controversy over the hacked e-mails from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit, which appeared to suggest that scientists had manipulated data to strengthen their argument that human activities were causing global warming.

[…]

Perhaps Mr Gore had felt the need to gild the lily to buttress resolve. But his speech was roundly criticised by members of the climate science community. “This is an exaggeration that opens the science up to criticism from sceptics,” Professor Jim Overland, a leading oceanographer at the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said.

[…]

Richard Lindzen, a climate scientist at the Massachusets Institute of Technology who does not believe that global warming is largely caused by man, said: “He’s just extrapolated from 2007, when there was a big retreat, and got zero.”

Rudd ducks question on ETS cost… three times!


"You're dithpicable, Kev"

"You're dithpicable, Kev"

Thanks to Tony Abbott, the government actually has a fight on its hands to persuade the Australian people of the merits of the ETS. If Turnbull had been leader, this would have been waved through without a second thought. How stupid does that look now, eh, Malcolm?

KEVIN Rudd has refused to directly address Tony Abbott’s claim that Labor’s proposed carbon emissions trading system will cost average Australian families $1100 a year.

Instead, the Prime Minister has forecast a Coalition government’s response to climate change would wrap Australians in red tape by allowing Canberra bureaucrats to dictate individual behaviour. [Yeah, Kev, you’d know all about red tape. That’s what Labor does best, isn’t it – big government, red tape, regulation, interference in every aspect of our lives, and massive taxes, just like the ETS – Ed]

In a television interview yesterday, Mr Rudd was asked three times to respond to Mr Abbott’s $1100 claim, which has been at the centre of the Opposition Leader’s political attack since he won the Liberal leadership a fortnight ago.

Each time, he refused to address the figure.

Later yesterday, as Mr Rudd prepared to leave Australia for the UN-organised climate change conference in Copenhagen, Mr Abbott accused him of squirming on questions about his “great big new tax”.

Finally, finally, Rudd is on the ropes.

Read it here.

The Daily Bayonet – Climategate Round-ups


Skewering the clueless

Skewering the clueless

Another instalment, with links to all the previous ones:

Don’t know how you do it, Paul!

Copenhagen Day 8 – African nations walk out


Day 8

Day 8

It’s all going worse [better? – Ed] than we thought, as a bunch of African nations lead a 5-hour boycott of working groups and Nigeria warns that the talks are on “red alert”:

Sources at the marathon talks said Africa led a five-hour boycott of working groups, with the backing of the Group of 77 developing nations, and only returned after securing guarantees that the summit would not sideline talks about the future of the Kyoto Protocol.

The Kyoto Protocol ties rich countries – but not developing countries – that have ratified it to legally binding emissions curbs.

It also has an important mechanism enabling the transfer of clean-energy technology to poorer nations.

Yet it does not include the United States, which says the Protocol is unfair as the binding targets do not apply to developing giants that are already huge emitters of greenhouse gases.

Algeria, speaking at a press briefing on behalf of the 53-member African Union, demanded that there should be a special plenary session devoted to Kyoto.

“Otherwise we are going to lose everything,” Algeria’s chief negotiator Kemal Djemouia told reporters.

Asked about the state of negotiations, Nigeria’s pointman rang the alarm bell.

It is ‘climate code red’ right now, we are in code red right now, we stand at the crossroads of either hope for Africa or hope dashed in ‘Hopenhagen’,” Victor Ayodeji Fodeke told AFP. (source)

And right on cue, there is the Point-Gun-At-Head-of-Cuddly-Creature moment, to add an emotional frisson to the proceedings:

Emotional blackmail

Emotional blackmail

Climate change threatens the survival of dozens of animal species from the emperor penguin to Australia’s koalas, according to a report released at the UN climate summit.

Australia’s iconic koala faces malnutrition and ultimate starvation as the nutritional quality of eucalyptus leaves declines as CO2 levels increase, said the study from the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), an intergovernmental group.

Rising sea levels, ocean acidification and shrinking polar ice [all dodgy claims – Ed] are taking a heavy toll on species already struggling to cope with pollution and shrinking habitats, the report added.

“Humans are not the only ones whose fate is at stake here in Copenhagen – some of our favourite species are also taking the fall for our CO2 emissions,” said Wendy Foden, an IUCN researcher and co-author of the study. (source)

And there are yet more misrepresentations and spin about natural disasters. The UN grudgingly had to concede that natural disasters were the lowest for a decade, but Margareta Wahstrom, UN disaster risk wonk, quickly played the “climate change joker”:

The figures showed that weather related disasters accounts for 91.4 percent of all natural disasters recorded this year.

To be specific, out of the 245 disasters in 2009, 224 were weather related, accounting for 55 million people out of 58 million people affected, 7000 out of 8900 of those killed, and 15 billion US dollars out of the 19 billion dollars in economic damages.

Because of more effective prediction and mitigation, the death and economic loss due to natural disasters are lower than previous years. Wahlstrom said it’s a good news for people and countries.

“However extreme weather disasters remain top of the list and will continue to affect more people in the future”, said Wahlstrom when talking about the increasing trend of weather related disasters and the background of climate change behind it. (source)

As we all know, there is no demonstrated link between climate change and increased storm activity. This is “Al Gore science”, but presented as hard fact. But who cares about the facts when we have to blackmail the planet into pointless action on climate change?