Thanks to Climate Depot:

The recent global cooling has now been happening for so long that the cooling is even admitted by the pro-AGW-propaganda web site which calls itself RealClimate.org.

Here they say:

Excerpt: “We hypothesize that the established pre-1998 trend is the true forced warming signal, and that the climate system effectively overshot this signal in response to the 1997/98 El Niño. This overshoot is in the process of radiatively dissipating, and the climate will return to its earlier defined, greenhouse gas-forced warming signal. If this hypothesis is correct, the era of consistent record-breaking global mean temperatures will not resume until roughly 2020.”

So, even RealClimate (i.e. the Alamo of discredited so-called climate scientists) now admits the fact that the Earth is experiencing global cooling and suggests that global warming will not resume “until roughly 2020.” And they are trying to provide excuses for the cooling.

In other words, these global warming propagandists have recognized that their natural climate change denial of the last decade is not sustainable anymore. So, they have abandoned any pretence that global warming exists at the moment, and they are presenting their excuses for why the globe is cooling together with their assertions of when global warming will resume (presumably they will claim with a vengeance).

Simply, nobody can now plausibly deny that the globe is cooling while the emissions and the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide both continue to increase.

Read it here.

Bjørn Lomborg writes yet another excellent article in The Australian today, exposing the anti-democratic ways in which climate alarmists wish to push their own agenda, and the pointlessness of emissions reductions schemes:

The Nobel laureate in economics Paul Krugman goes further. After the narrow passage of the Waxman-Markey climate change bill in the US House of Representatives, Krugman said that there was no justification for a vote against it. He called virtually all of the members who voted against it “climate deniers” who were committing “treason against the planet”.

Krugman said that the “irresponsibility and immorality” of the representatives’ democratic viewpoints were “unforgivable” and a “betrayal”. He thus accused almost half of the democratically elected members of the house, from both parties, of treason for holding the views that they do, thereby essentially negating democracy.

Less well-known pundits make similar points, suggesting that people with “incorrect” views on global warming should face Nuremberg-style trials or be tried for crimes against humanity. There is clearly a trend. The climate threat is so great — and democracies are doing so little about it — that people conclude that maybe democracy is part of the problem, and that perhaps people ought not be allowed to express heterodox opinions on such an important topic.

And then nails the key point squarely:

Even if every Kyoto-obligated country passed its own, duplicate Waxman-Markey bills — which is implausible and would incur significantly higher costs — the global reduction would amount to just 0.22C by the end of this century. The reduction in global temperature would not be measurable in 100 years, yet the cost would be significant and payable now.

Is it really treason against the planet to express some scepticism about whether this is the right way forward? Is it treason to question throwing huge sums of money at a policy that will do virtually no good in 100 years? Is it unreasonable to point out that the inevitable creation of trade barriers that will ensue from Waxman-Markey could eventually cost the world 10 times more than the damage climate change could ever have wrought?

Read it here.

Steve Fielding certainly isn’t convinced by the woolly thinking of Rudd & Wong on climate change, and is now encouraging other senators to do their own research:

In a letter to senators yesterday, Senator Fielding — who has recently emerged as parliament’s most vocal climate change sceptic — said carbon emissions had “skyrocketed” over the past 15 years, but temperatures had remained steady.

Senator Fielding said Climate Change Minister Penny Wong and Australia’s chief scientist had failed to explain why this was the case.

He said it ran counter to assumptions underpinning the carbon pollution reduction scheme that carbon emissions were the leading cause of global warming.

“Therefore, I ask you to think carefully before voting on the CPRS legislation, a multi-billion-dollar tax that could cripple our economy with little benefit to environment,” he wrote.

He has also asked Al Gore for a meeting to discuss the science. All I can say to that is he’ll be waiting an awful long time. Gore doesn’t “do” science, or debates for that matter. Just propaganda.

Read it here.

Al Gore is spreading his own special brand of lies and alarmism around Australia at the moment, and the sooner he clears off the better. Check out the blatant untruths in the following, and note that none of those who jump down the throats of sceptics has anything to say about this lot:

“The planet now has a fever,” Mr Gore warned today’s breakfast gathering [Odd comment, given that “global warming” stopped in 2001 – Ed].

“We have to act [Because I want my money – Ed].”

“It’s difficult to ignore the fact that cyclones are getting stronger , that the fires are getting bigger , that the sea level is rising [yeah, at the same rate, if not slower, than it has for thousands of years – Ed], that the refugees are beginning to move from places they have long called home [because their islands are sinking, you idiot – Ed]” he said.

Excuse the gratutious ad hom there, but this man talks nothing but unadulterated CRAP.

Two words: GO HOME.

Read it here.

The excellent Mark Steyn takes apart the latest barking mad announcement from Bonnie Prince Charlie:

It takes a prince, heir to the thrones of Britain and Canada and Australia, Jamaica, Papua New Guinea, and a bunch of other places, to tell it like it is: You pampered consumerists are ruining the joint. In the old days, we didn’t have these kinds of problems. But then Mr. and Mrs. Peasant start remodeling the hovel, adding a rec room and indoor plumbing, replacing the emaciated old nag with a Honda Civic and driving to the mall in it, and next thing you know, instead of just having an extra yard of mead every Boxing Day at the local tavern and adding a couple more pustules to the escutcheon with the local trollop, they begin taking vacations in Florida. When it was just medieval dukes swanking about like that, the planet worked fine: That was “sustainable” consumerism. But now the masses want in. And, once you do that, there goes the global neighborhood.

By contrast, as an example of an exemplary environmentalist, the prince hailed his forebear, King Henry VIII. True, he had a lot of wives, but he did dramatically reduce Anne Boleyn’s carbon footprint.

Brilliant stuff.

Read it all.

“The Kids” are the new climate warriors. Funny how when a sceptic with serious credentials publishes a book, the alarmists are all over it like a rash. But when a bunch of kids and pollies get together to whine about climate, nobody bats an eyelid, before we even start on the whole indoctrination aspect of this. And the Fairytale-facts media goes into full slaver mode:

THEY are the new generation of climate warriors. They are smart, politically savvy, idealistic, apparently indefatigable and very young. They have more technology in their mobiles and laptops than NASA had when it sent men to the moon, and they are “beginning to use them for tools, not toys”, as one campaigner said.

For the next three days they will be at Power Shift, the Australian Youth Climate Coalition’s first major summit.

About 1500 Australians aged 16 to 26 are descending on the University of Western Sydney to learn about organising and to hear speeches from Tim Flannery, senators Nick Xenophon and Christine Milne, the NSW Premier, Nathan Rees, and via video link from Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the United Nations panel on climate change, and the former US vice-president Al Gore, who is training an older generation of climate change campaigners in Melbourne this weekend.

Here’s an extract from the web site:

Conference attendees will learn the best practices of climate organising, including campaign and event planning, recruitment, media liaison, public speaking, lobbying, leadership development, coalition-building, campaign strategy and community and campus organising. (source)

What’s the very important thing missing from all this? Any discussion of the actual science of climate change. In fact, “science” just one tiny session out of nearly 60, but there are the following sessions (I’m not making these up):

• Graphic design and climate change
• Media training
• Gender and climate change [useful one that – Ed]
• Climate change & Hip Hop workshop [seriously]

This workshop will ask participants to explore an issue around climate change using hip hop. The hip hop debate combines traditional debating with the MC Battle and is an interesting and challenging platform for exploring different sides of an issue. The young ‘Eco Ninjas’ crew from Alstonville High School will be performing their hip hop debate piece at Powershift and will also be assisting with facilitating the workshop. (source)

They’re not interested in boring old stuff like science, of course – hey, the debate’s over, you denier you. What they are interested in is something quite different, as this session indicates:

Civil disobedience – It’s Role in the Movement
Non violent direct action has played a crucial role in creating social change throughout history. This session will reflect on the history and discuss the future of non-violent direct action in the climate movement.

In other words, non-democratic means to force “social change”. This conference has little if anything to do with averting climate change, just imposing “social change” through the back door of environmentalism. It stinks.

Read it here (“Sick Bag Required” Alert – you have been warned…!)

The Wall Street Journal expertly pulls apart the climate change hubris at the G8 in an excellent opinion piece. Not only have the G8 moved away from setting emissions targets in favour of setting nebulous climate targets (2˚C temperature rise above pre-industrial levels), but there are so many caveats and exclusions that the end result is basically the square root of sweet FA.

When King Canute of lore wanted to teach his citizens a lesson, he set his throne by the seashore and commanded the tides to roll out. Canute’s spirit was back in business this week at the G-8 summit in Italy, where the assembled leaders declared that the world’s temperature shall not rise: “We recognize the scientific view that the increase in global average temperature above pre-industrial levels ought not to exceed 2 degrees [Celsius],” or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit, said the summit declaration.

So let it be written, so let it be done.

As for how they will achieve this climate-defying feat, well, the leaders were somewhat less definitive: “we will work . . . to identify a global goal for substantially reducing global emissions by 2050.”

Translation: Since the heads of the world’s leading economies couldn’t agree on an actual policy on climate change, they opted instead to command the clouds, the seas and all of the Earth to cool. Or maybe they were finally admitting that this whole climate business is getting too expensive, so let’s just throw out a goal that everyone knows is beyond the reach of kings, much less democratic leaders.

Read it all here.

Picked up by a stray microphone at L’Aquila, Rudd’s unguarded comment to Danish Prime Minister, Lars Lokke Rasmussen:

Right now I don’t think we are on track to get an agreement at Copenhagen.

Read it here.

I heard this in the middle of the night on ABC News Radio, and I should have written it down, because guess what, it isn’t anywhere to be found in the mainstream media. All the stories are talking about how IPCC head Rajendra Pachauri was “cautiously optimistic” about progress at L’Aquila.

But this is the quote nobody wants you to read, which I found as a transcript on a Chinese web site. In it Pachauri refers to the lack of a baseline against which to measure the 80% cut by 2050:

“It’s pretty ridiculous if you ask me, I mean I’m surprised I didn’t see the fallacy that they were introducing in this pledge by not defining the baseline at least. How can you say you will achieve a cut of ‘x’ amount if you don’t even define what the baseline is, what the benchmark is?”

If anyone can find a reliable source of this quote, please let me know. You can listen to an MP3 of the quote here.

As always, a great read!