Ian Plimer: "Not one great climate change in the past has actually been driven by carbon dioxide."

13 November, 2009 by

Ian Plimer

Ian Plimer

Ian Plimer is in the UK at present, and The Telegraph has a short article about five tenets central to his view of climate change, although the article author does his best to ensure that the “consensus” view is represented as well:

  • The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has no effect on climate above 50 parts per million (ppm).
  • Extraterrestrial events like solar flares have driven major climate change episodes in the geological past.
  • Global warming should be welcomed because humans ‘thrive’ in a warmer planet.
  • Climate change scientists push global warming theory because it is good for their careers.
  • A belief in man-made climate change is a “fundamentalist religion.”

Read it all here.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: ,

Headline of the Day

13 November, 2009 by

‘Ring church bells against climate change’

Given that climate change is a religion, this seems entirely appropriate.

Read it here.

Filed Under: Climate

Who are the real "fruit loops"?

13 November, 2009 by

IPCC meeting

IPCC meeting

A royal brouhaha is developing over Nick Minchin being branded a “fruit loop” by an anonymous Liberal insider, after his performance on ABC’s Four Corners this week (see here for previous coverage).

A newspaper report on Wednesday quoted an unnamed Liberal frontbencher saying Senator Minchin came across as a “complete fruit loop” for suggesting climate change was a left-wing conspiracy.

“Border control is going along a treat and they come out behaving like total f…wits. They don’t know how crazy they look, because crazy people never do,” The Australian quoted the Liberal as saying.

And of course, never a party to pass up the opportunity to score cheap points, Labor wade in:

Finance Minister Lindsay Tanner last night accused Mr Pyne of being the unnamed source.

“Leading figures in the Liberal Party are starting to talk a bit like members of those nutty militias in the United States who go on about one world government and global conspiracies,” he told ABC television.

“Pretty soon they’ll be talking about UFOs or something, it’s really just off the planet some of this stuff.”

But who are the real “fruit loops” here? Those, like Senator Minchin, who express the views of a growing proportion of the population concerning doubts about the causes of “global warming”? Or maybe, on the other hand, it’s those who would resort to name calling in order to stifle debate on the single biggest issue to face Australia for a generation? Or maybe it’s those who unquestioningly believe every single word that the IPCC, with its consensus of 2500, 4000 or maybe 10,000 scientists, utters? Or even those who think that negotiating with the government in order to pass the ETS is a sensible course of action? Or those who compare climate realists to people who see UFOs? Or those who think that we should pass an ETS into law before we have a clue what the rest of the world will do?

I think I know the answer.

Read it here.

Filed Under: Climate

The Daily Bayonet – GW Hoax Weekly Round-up

13 November, 2009 by

As always a great read!

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With:

The "Children and Grandchildren" Report #1

12 November, 2009 by

climate_clicheInspired by Kevin Rudd’s assault on sceptics, in which he said:

“It is time to be totally blunt about the agenda of the climate change skeptics in all their colours – some more sophisticated than others.

“It is to destroy the CPRS at home, and it is to destroy agreed global action on climate change abroad, and our children’s fate – and our grandchildren’s fate – will lie entirely with them”

ACM will present on an occasional basis, a round-up of the mawkish and emotive references to children and grandchildren in relation to climate change or global warming. So without further ado, here is the first edition:

Travel Daily News International – 12 November 2009

Launching the third World Travel Market World Responsible Tourism Day, Fiona Jeffery, Chairman of World Travel Market, said: “December’s climate summit is vital to more than just our industry. It’s essential for the future of our children and our grandchildren.” (source)

Hillary Clinton – US Department of State Remarks at APEC Singapore – 11 November 2009

But under any circumstance, Copenhagen is not the end of the process. It is part of our larger collective commitment to hold ourselves and others accountable, to speed the transition to a low-carbon global economy, and to leave a cleaner, greener planet for our children and grandchildren. So as we emerge from Copenhagen, we have to continue on this course with urgency and resolve. (source)

Jonathan Dimbleby – Regen South West’s Annual Conference – 11 November 2009

Mr Dimbleby commented on the severity of global warming and said: “We need to press the need for a radical shift in the consumption of energy. We are sleepwalking into this future catastrophe which we know is simply unbelievable to contemplate for our children and grandchildren in 40-50 years time.” (source)

Jamie Reed, UK MP for Copeland – 11 November 2009

“I have spoken with international climate change scientists and I have seen for myself the nature of the challenge in the Arctic Circle and I know that we have no time to delay if we are to secure the future of our planet for our children and grandchildren.” (source)

Adam Sacks – Grist – 10 November 2009

We’re deniers every time we say “80 percent by 2050,” or even “80 percent by 2020”; every time we refer to tipping points in the future tense; every time we advocate substituting “clean” energy for “dirty” energy; every time we buy a squiggly light bulb or a hybrid vehicle; every time we advocate for cap-and-trade, or even a carbon tax; every time we countenance the mention of loopy geoengineering schemes; every time we invoke the future of our children and grandchildren and ignore the widespread suffering from global climate disruption today. (source)

More, many more, to come in the future.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With:

UPDATED: NZ Antarctic research "debunks sceptics", claims 1.5m sea level rise

12 November, 2009 by

It will be interesting to see what the sceptic community makes of this:

New Zealand scientists say massive ice shelves are protecting Antarctica from experiencing the same rapid decline in sea ice as the Arctic.

The research team says the discovery further debunks the claims of sceptics who have pointed to the continent’s growth as evidence against global warming.

The team was led by Otago University physics researcher Andrew Mahoney, who said the eight-month study focused on a topic scientists understood little about.

Dr Mahoney said findings would help climate scientists make predictions about the future.

National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research oceanographer Mike Williams said the research explained why Antarctic sea ice was not decreasing at a similar rate to that of the Arctic.

Figures from America’s National Snow and Ice Data Center show that Arctic sea ice shrank by about 4 per cent of 500,000 square kilometres each decade during the past 30 years. By contrast, Antarctic sea ice was not believed to have changed much in size and may have increased slightly.

However, Antarctic Research Centre director Tim Naish, who was not part of the research team, said the latest data issued in a report by Nasa indicated that the amount of Antarctic sea ice lost since 2003 could have doubled.

…

WHAT THE SCIENTISTS FOUND

  • Massive ice shelves make up half the Antarctic coastline
  • Cold water melts from these ice shelves
  • The melted water protects the ice sheets from the warming effects of climate change
  • This causes ice sheets to grow in winter, although they still melt in summer
  • This is why Antarctic sea ice has not declined as quickly as Arctic sea ice in response to global warming

Read it here.

UPDATE: Tim Naish is also in the news for predicting dramatic sea level rises:

Sea levels may rise an average of as much as 1.5m by 2100, the latest figures show.

The range indicated by several new studies is between 50cm and 150cm, said Dr Tim Naish, director of the Antarctic Research Centre at Victoria University in Wellington, New Zealand.

A glaciologist who was chief scientist on a major Antarctic drill-core project, Naish said the latest “range of plausible sea level rise” was based on observations to calculate how much water would come from polar ice sheets.

Read it here.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: , ,

Sceptical letters in SMH? Whatever next!

12 November, 2009 by

The Sydney Morning Herald scored a bit of an own goal by publishing a letter from an alarmist citing a survey of climate change scientists, not foreseeing the inevitable:

In January Eos, arguably the most widely circulated earth science newsletter in the world, published a summary of a survey on global climate change.

Two questions were: ”When compared with pre-1980 levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen or remained relatively constant?” And: ”Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”

Those surveyed were 10,257 earth scientists listed in the directory of geoscience departments of the American Geological Institute, plus researchers at US federal facilities such as the US Geological Survey and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

The response rate was 30.7 per cent. More than 90 per cent of respondents had doctorates, in such fields as geochemistry (15.5 per cent), geophysics (12 per cent) and oceanography (10.5 per cent). About 5 per cent were climate scientists and 8.5 per cent indicated that more than half their peer-reviewed publications in the past five years had been on climate change. The survey included participants with well-known dissenting opinions on global warming theory.

Overall, 90 per cent of participants answered “risen” to question one, and 82 per cent answered ”yes” to question two. The proportion giving those answers rose with climate science expertise.

Brian Williams (source)

The next day, the SMH postbag was stuffed to the gills with responses:

[Read more…]

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: ,

This is what your scare tactics do

12 November, 2009 by

Governments across the world realise that indoctrinating children and young people with climate change alarmism is a clever tactic. They are far less experienced in the ways of the world, less sceptical and suspicious, and they will believe much more of what they are told by figures in authority (teachers in particular). They will then take these messages home to their parents and the job is done.

However, scaring our children witless about climate change isn’t without serious consequences, as demonstrated by the following case, and there will no doubt be many more:

Fears about the environment have been linked to a growing number of mental health issues in young people, writes Mary Fallon.

Last year a 17-year-old boy in Melbourne became the world’s first person to be diagnosed with “climate change delusion”.

Dr Robert Salo at the Royal Children’s Hospital reported that his patient believed his water consumption would deplete water supplies, leading to the deaths of millions of people, and that he had internet research to prove this.

He had attempted to stop drinking and checked for leaking taps to prevent the catastrophe.

The boy had a major depressive disorder with delusions specifically relating to climate change.

Salo has also seen worries about climate change in a number of young people with anxiety disorders, including obsessive compulsive and generalised anxiety disorder.

“They feel anxious about their own contributions to climate change and usually have concerns related to water usage,” he says. (source)

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: ,

Climate sense from Miranda Devine

12 November, 2009 by

Climate sense

Climate sense

As always, virtually the only journalist with the courage to question the AGW dogma. This week she lays into Rudd’s tirade at the Lowy Institute, and the costs of the ETS:

Kevin Rudd went over the top last week in a speech to the Lowy institute, declaring it was “time to remove any polite veneer” from the climate change debate, which he claims is the “moral challenge of our generation”.

Then he launched an extraordinary tirade against “the climate change sceptics, the climate change deniers” who he claims are “powerful”, “too dangerous to be ignored”, “driven by vested interests … quite literally holding the world to ransom … Our children’s fate – and our grandchildren’s fate – will lie entirely with them.”

If he had any shame, the Prime Minister would be mortified to be associated with such a hysterical, undergraduate piece of ad hominem hyperbole. History will record his embarrassment and the debasing of his office. But the speech shows Rudd’s desperation in the week before his Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (Emissions Trading Scheme) is debated in Parliament and less than a month before the Copenhagen climate summit at which he wants to parade a signed-off scheme. As the public cools towards this new energy tax, politicians, green groups and other alarmists with the real “vested interest” in this debate are stooping ever lower in their attempts to shun dissenters.

One of the few public figures with the courage not to conform, the Liberal senator Nick Minchin, was smeared by anonymous sources in his own party this week as “crazy” for expressing scepticism about the extent of man-made climate change.

Actually, I think they called him a “fruit loop”, which is almost more offensive.

Read it all.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: , ,

Jo Nova: Rudd the global bully

11 November, 2009 by

Rudd the bully

Rudd the bully

In response to Kevin Rudd’s extraordinary tirade at the Lowy Institute last week, Jo Nova has crafted a brilliant article:

In 6000 words Rudd uses ad hominem attacks, baseless allegations, argument from authority, mindless inflammatory rhetoric and quotes not a single piece of evidence that carbon drives our climate. He repeats quote after quote of sensible, ordinary points from his opponents as if it shows they are confused. Yet he can’t point out how any of them are wrong. It shows the depth of his own delusions—that he thinks merely questioning “the UN committee” is a flaw in itself.

It’s as if being a sceptic is a bad thing, yet the opposite of sceptical is gullible.

Rudd throws baseless innuendo when he claims vested interests are at work. The truth is the exact opposite. Exxon spent $23 million on sceptics, but the US government spent $79 billion on the climate industry. Big Government outspent big-oil 3000 to 1. Worse, carbon trading last year was $126 billion dollars. That’s for just one year. The real vested interests stand in the open like signposted black holes hidden in plain view by a legal disclaimer. The singularities at the centre of the climate change galaxy have names like Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, ABN Amro, Deutche Bank, and HSBC.

Read it all.

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