UK: Climate indoctrination removed from schools

20 March, 2013 by

"Recite after me: In the beginning, Labor created the Climate Commission..."

“Recite after me: In the beginning, Labor created the Climate Commission and the carbon tax…”

Cue the headbangers going ape in 3, 2, 1… Because it had become impossible to have any kind of sensible teaching of climate change in schools, the UK government is proposing to cut climate change from the syllabus for children up to the age of 14. Huzzah and hooray.

And the headbangers are indeed steamed up, complaining that such a cut is “political interference”, oblivious to the fact that it was their relentless propaganda campaign to indoctrinate climate dogma in the classroom that forced this action in the first place.

The Guardian, naturally, gets hot under the collar:

Debate about climate change has been cut out of the national curriculum for children under 14, prompting claims of political interference in the syllabus by the government that has failed “our duty to future generations”.

The latest draft guidelines for children in key stages 1 to 3 have no mention of climate change under geography teaching and a single reference to how carbon dioxide produced by humans impacts on the climate in the chemistry section. There is also no reference to sustainable development, only to the “efficacy of recycling”, again as a chemistry subject.

The move has caused alarm among climate campaigners and scientists [!] who say teaching about climate change in schools has helped mobilise young people to be the most vociferous advocates of action by governments, business and society to tackle the issue. [!!!]

“What you seem to have is a major political interference with the geography syllabus,” said the government’s former science adviser Prof Sir David King. He said climate change should be taught alongside the history of – successful – past attempts to curb chlorofluorocarbon (CFC), which is blamed for the depletion of the ozone layer, and air pollution caused by coal fires and cars.

The comparison with CFCs is facile, because while there are alternatives to CFCs, there are no genuinely affordable alternatives to burning fossil fuels, especially for the poor and developing countries of the world.

Note that it is the “climate campaigners” who are complaining the most, because they won’t be able to fill impressionable young minds with their environmental propaganda, and they won’t then go home and badger their parents into installing solar panels or recycling tea bags or switching their lights out for Earth Hour (fast approaching once again – stay tuned). See here for more.

In a way, this is a classic own goal, since students should understand the interaction between humanity and the environment, but since such interaction is inevitably portrayed as a one way street (ie. wailing that we’re destroying the planet), the only option was to remove it entirely.

There’s something called balance, and it’s sadly lacking from the climate debate.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: ,

Bigger, badder hurricanes say climate scare-mongers

19 March, 2013 by

Wrong again

Wrong again

A good old fashioned scare story from the Silly Moaning Herald, just like the good old days. Remember the cover of Al Gore’s book (see right), showing multiple hurricanes approaching the US (one even spinning the wrong way for the Northern Hemisphere…!)? Well it’s time for that scare to be recycled once again:

The number of Atlantic storms with magnitude similar to killer Hurricane Katrina, which devastated the U.S. Gulf Coast in 2005, could rise sharply this century, environmental researchers reported on Monday.

Scientists have long studied the relationship between warmer sea surface temperatures and cyclonic, slowly spinning storms in the Atlantic Ocean, but the new study attempts to project how many of the most damaging hurricanes could result from warming air temperatures as well.

The extreme storms are highly sensitive to temperature changes, and the number of Katrina-magnitude events could double due to the increase in global temperatures that occurred in the 20th century, the researchers reported in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

If temperatures continue to warm in the 21st century, as many climate scientists project, the number of Katrina-strength hurricanes could at least double, and possibly rise much more, with every 1.8 degree F (1 degree C) rise in global temperatures, the researchers said. (source)

Funny that the accumulated cyclone energy is now almost as low as in the mid 1970s, when a new Ice Age was the environmental scare du jour. Apparently, 30+ years of man made warming hasn’t made much of an impact on cyclone and hurricane activity. But don’t let the facts get in the way of a good scare, eh?

Catastrophic increase in cyclone energy?

Catastrophic increase in cyclone energy?

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: , ,

Carbon tax the ‘last straw’ for Aussie business

18 March, 2013 by

Australian profits...

Australian profits…

Whilst Europe is paying about $4 a tonne (which is still $4 a tonne too much), Australian businesses are being slugged with $23 a tonne. Added to the raft of other anti-business legislation rolled out by Labor to keep the union vote sweet, this is finishing off businesses at a rate of one an hour:

THE carbon tax is contributing to a record number of firms going to the wall with thousands of employees being laid off and companies forced to close factories that have stood for generations.

Rising energy bills caused by the Government’s climate change scheme have been called the “straw that broke the camel’s back” by company executives and corporate rescue doctors who are trying to save ailing firms.

New data from the corporate regulator reveals insolvencies have hit a record high over the past 12 months, led by widespread failures in manufacturing and construction, which accounted for almost one-fifth of collapses.

The Australian Securities & Investments Commission reports there were 10,632 company collapses for the 12 months to March 1 – averaging 886 a month – with the number of firms being placed in administration more than 12 per cent higher than during the global financial crisis.

While the high Australian dollar is seen as the main factor behind manufacturing closures, experts say the carbon tax is adding to increasing cost burdens for many firms struggling to stay afloat.

Peter Macks, principal of Adelaide-based insolvency firm Macks Advisory, said the carbon tax was “quite debilitating” for a number of hotel operators who he said had been “struggling for a long time”.

“It is very tough operating at a profit,” Mr Macks said.

Todd Gammel, a partner with HLB Mann Judd, likened the carbon tax to pulling a leg out from underneath a chair.

“For companies which have exposure to energy, and other factors which are affected by the carbon tax in a significant way, the carbon tax and the costs related to it are having a significant impact on the ability of these companies to continue,” Mr Gammel said. (Source)

And of course, if Conroy’s draconian media laws pass next week (because you only need a few days to consider thousands of lines of legislation, right? And there’s no room for negotiation…) you won’t be able to read any criticism of the government. In case you haven’t seen it, you must watch Piers Akerman on Insiders surrounded by lefty apologists for this muzzling of free speech.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With:

Original web address should now be working

16 March, 2013 by

Just to let you know that the switch has been flicked on the original domain. You should now be able to access ACM at:

http://australianclimatemadness.com

as before.

Filed Under: Climate

Channel Islands snow ‘worst in 24 years’

16 March, 2013 by

Plenty of snow...!

Plenty of snow…!

From the Weather Isn’t Climate Department. I have relatives on the picturesque island of Jersey, in the Channel Islands, and they have just experienced the worst snow in decades. Jersey is close to the Normandy coast, and the maritime influence of the Atlantic ocean keeps winters generally mild.

However, as the Jersey Evening Post reports, the recent weather is certainly unusual:

ISLANDERS woke to a white-out this morning after Jersey was battered by the worst snow storm in 24 years.

Roads were blocked, power lines ripped down, several pedestrians and motorists were injured  by falling trees and much of the Island ground to a halt as blizzards carpeted the Island in six inches of snow and drifts of more than ten feet.

Schools are closed for a second day, the Airport is shut and no buses are running. A decision on whether schools will open tomorrow will  be taken at 6 am and will be published here at http://www.thisisjersey.com. (source)

jersey_snow_2

Not a common sight on Jersey

More photos are available at the link.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With:

Migration complete

16 March, 2013 by

A few teething troubles!

A few teething troubles!

After a number of teething troubles, we are now back online at WordPress.com. As before it will take a while for the DNS settings to propagate, and the site can also be reached at:

australianclimatemadness.wordpress.com

which will be more reliable over the next few days.

Thank you for your patience during this process!

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With:

Bloggies 2013

10 March, 2013 by

Cook takes his bat and ball home...

Not playing any more…

Thanks to everyone who nominated this blog again for the Bloggies – this time without any cajoling from me. Now Jo Nova’s been kicked upstairs, as it were, to the Best Science Blog category, I guess I may be in with a shot!

Laugh of the week was once again thanks to John Cook over at Un-Sk Ps-S, who threw a bit of a tantrum at being nominated in such filthy company as WUWT and Jo Nova, and promptly flounced off and “withdrew”. He then proceeded to write a pompous and self-serving article to his disciples wailing about how unfair it all was:

In an inversion of reality, the Science and Technology category is dominated by anti-science blogs that post conspiracy theories about the scientific community, deny the full body of evidence and reject the scientific consensus. The fact that 4 out of 5 science finalists are anti-science demonstrates that the integrity of the Bloggies Award has been compromised. I, like any pro-science blogger, am not comfortable with the notion of competing for an award that has previously been won by anti-science blogs.

Cook uses the term “anti-science” no less than nine times in the space of just four paragraphs, each time revealing his lack of understanding of “proper” science, as opposed to propaganda, which is the stock in trade of Un-Sk Ps-S.

In fact, it is Un-Sk Ps-S that is the only genuinely “anti-science” blog in the line-up, because it isn’t sceptical at all. Cook never acknowledges the uncertainties surrounding any area of climate science, and thus reduces his site to pure dogma. He’s abandoned the “question everything” concept of science and is simply spreading environmental spin. And the only option for him is to smear those who dare do what he can’t (or won’t).

And, of course, we all know the real reason he withdrew. He’d lose.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: ,

Lewandowsky and Cook lose the plot

6 February, 2013 by

It's Lew, no it's Cook, no Lew, Cook, Lew, er, hang on...

It’s Lew, no it’s Cook, no Lew, Cook, Lew, er, hang on…

[UPDATE 3 [8 Feb, 07.30 AEST]: Jo Nova has more on Mr Hubble Marriott here.

[UPDATE 2 [7 Feb, 18.40 AEST]: This is all in the public domain now, so I am sharing it here. The fourth author on this paper, Michael Hubble-Marriott, is the “Mike” who is responsible for the Watching the Deniers site (sorry, what are we denying again? Duh). Mike couldn’t contain his glee at being asked to be part of the team, so he revealed it all on his blog. I guess you judge people by the company they keep…]

[UPDATE: John Cook responds in the comments below.]

It’s typical isn’t it? You take a break and then, well, stuff happens. But this particular ‘stuff’ is too good to pass up.

The University of Western Australia’s very own Nutty Professor, Stephan Lewandowsky, goes full-on stupid, with best buddy John Cook of Un-Skeptical Pseudo-Science, by publishing another risible paper on the ludicrous “moon landing denier theory” previously discussed widely here and on the net (see here and here and here and here and plenty more).

But wait… This time, instead of labelling anyone daring to question any part of the climate consensus as a crazy conspiracy theorist, it’s anyone who questions Lewandowsky’s moon landing denier paper, who’s, er… a crazy conspiracy theorist.

It’s snappily entitled Recursive fury: Conspiracist ideation in the blogosphere in response to research on conspiracist ideation, but what it actually represents isn’t recursive fury, but recursive idiocy: rational, if sometimes irritated, responses to an idiotic paper confected into yet another, this time doubly idiotic, paper. It’s bullshit squared, in other words.

So I assume that this post on ACM will be used as evidence to show that because I dare question this paper, I am (yet again) a crazy conspiracy theorist – and Lew will write a paper about that in due course. Will it ever end? [No – Ed]

Here’s part of the abstract:

This article analyzes the response of the climate blogosphere to the publication of LOG12 [shorthand for the ‘moon landing denier paper’]. We identify and trace the hypotheses that emerged in response to LOG12 and that questioned the validity of the paper’s conclusions. Using established criteria to identify conspiracist ideation, we show that many of the hypotheses exhibited conspiratorial content and counterfactual thinking. For example, whereas hypotheses were initially narrowly focused on LOG12, some ultimately grew in scope to include actors beyond the authors of LOG12, such as university executives, a media organization, and the Australian government. The overall pattern of the blogosphere’s response to LOG12 illustrates the possible role of conspiracist ideation in the rejection of science, although alternative scholarly interpretations may be advanced in the future.

No acknowledgement of the multitude of obvious failures in the original paper’s methodology, just more of the same ideology, plugged as science.

The full text is here (PDF). I’m proud to say that this humble blog gets three mentions – I will wear those mentions as a badge of honour.

I can’t be arsed (or assed for our American readers) to bother even reading it let alone wasting my time responding (I used the search function in my PDF app to find out where ACM was mentioned, by the way), it’s so laughable. I’ll leave it to the incomparable Ben Pile at Climate Resistance to eviscerate this latest steaming heap of ‘research’:

I have little interest in parsing the 57 pages of the new paper [yep, with you there, bro], to get the measure of the remainder of what Lewandowsky believes are conspiracy theories. It seems sufficient to say that, whether or not the comments in question do betray a tendency of the authors towards conspiracy theorising, they were a response to a poorly-conceived research exercise which was transparently intended to frame the debate as one between science on the one hand, and idology/conspiracy theorists on the other. If the internet has a gutter, in which thrive conspiracy theories and pointless interminable flame wars between people who have little grasp on the real world, Lewandowsky’s work is amongst it.

But what is remarkable, however, is that seemingly academic research should have fallen to this level. Lewandowsky reduces academia to a silly blog comment war. He drags journals, and research organisations into this war, undermining the value of research in general and trust in it. The thrust of Lewandowsky’s paper is ‘I picked a fight on the Internet, and this is what people said about me’, which, of course, omits any criticism of his work that may enable him to develop a better argument.

And that’s the point. Lewandowsky’s research is intended to reduce the phenomenon of ‘scepticism’ and ‘denial’ without taking any notice of what sceptics say, except when it confirms to the stereotype Lewandowsky wants to demonstrate the existence of. No doubt that’s a ‘conspiracy theory’ on his view, but the truth is much simpler: either his mediocre talents aren’t sufficient for the critical self-reflection necessary to produce robust research, or an inflated ego precludes critical self-reflection.

…

Ultimately, ‘research’ of this kind will bring the academy down with it, because drawing attention to, and publishing Lewandowsky’s work means demonstrating to the world the fact that quite often, academic researchers are as petty-minded, ‘idologically-motivated’, and pig ignorant as the worst of online commentary.

Are you hearing this, UWA?

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: , ,

ACM taking a 'well earned break' (© ABC)

5 February, 2013 by

ACM taking a WEB

ACM taking a WEB

Virtually all the ABC seems to disappear off for two months over Christmas, on what has become colloquially known as a ‘well earned break’, so now ACM is doing the same.

A number of other projects are demanding my time, and will do for a while, so new posts will be infrequent (or non-existent) for the time being.

As always, visit the sites in the Live Blog Roll to the right for your climate needs.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With:

ABC plugs Greenpeace alarmism

23 January, 2013 by

greenpeace_logoGreenpeace is an extremist environmental activist organisation. It cares little for the plight of humanity, which it no doubt regards as a plague of locusts upon Gaia’s unblemished cheek, and is only concerned about “saving the planet”:

Greenpeace exists because this fragile Earth deserves a voice. It needs solutions. It needs change. It needs action! (source)

Fragile. Hmm. It’s been here 4.5 billion years… Ask the people of Pompeii or Krakatoa if they thought the planet was fragile.

Given that, it is extremely unlikely that any report issued by such an organisation on environmental matters would be balanced, fair or impartial, taking, as it necessarily would, the worst case scenarios to advance their fanatical crusades.

Their latest publication evidences this:

For more than two decades, climate scientists have warned that, unless heat-trapping emissions are reduced significantly, severe consequences from climate change will follow. Avoiding the worst impacts means limiting the rise in global temperatures to below 2°C – in itself an extremely rapid change compared with the Earth’s past. In November 2012, both the International Energy Agency (IEA) and the World Bank cautioned that the world is heading to a temperature increase of between 3.6°C and 4°C. With the additional CO2 from these 14 projects, the average global temperature will more likely exceed 4°C and quite possibly 6°C – the worst scenarios identified by climate scientists.

…

The impact on people if we trigger catastrophic climate change will be terrible. In September 2012, a new report, commissioned by 20 governments, gave an insight into the disaster that is coming. It estimated that climate change is already taking 5 million lives a year. By 2030, deaths could total 100 million.

…

Clean and safe renewable energy [with the exception of clean, safe nuclear generation, of course, the only real alternative to fossil fuels, because that is ideologically forbidden – Ed], coupled with a much-increased implementation of energy efficiency, can provide the power needed to run the planet and avoid the risks of pushing us ever closer to catastrophic climate change. That is abundantly clear from the astounding progress in the development of renewable energy over the past decade.

…

The world is clearly at a Point of No Return: either replace coal, oil and gas with renewable energy, or face a future turned upside down by climate change.

So it is surprising that the ABC chooses to bestow respectability on this alarmism by soberly reporting on it in a mainstream news item, even going as far as embedding the PDF for easy access and download:

A new report has warned Australia to stop expanding coal exports or risk inflicting “catastrophic” effects of climate change on the world.

The Greenpeace-commissioned study identifies the expansion of Australian coal exports as one of 14 proposed coal, oil and gas projects around the world that will raise greenhouse gas emissions by 20 per cent by 2020.

The study predicts Australia will increase coal exports to 408 million tonnes a year, producing an estimated 1,200 million tonnes of carbon dioxide.

Greenpeace’s Georgina Woods says if the projects go ahead, they will warm the globe more than two degrees Celsius.

Whilst it seems that it is perfectly acceptable ABC editorial policy to plug an environmental activist group’s agenda, without any counterbalancing views, I think we can all imagine the howls of protest that would result if the ABC did the same with a report from, say, the sceptical Global Warming Policy Foundation.

Not only that, but the ABC would ensure that they lined up a series of “experts” to debunk anything the GWPF claimed, and would make sure that the organisation was ridiculed and humiliated in the process (think about the ABC’s treatment of The Great Global Warming Swindle, where Tony Jones commented “I am bound to say The Great Global Warming Swindle does not represent the views of the ABC”).

Where is the statement that the Greenpeace report cited “does not represent the views of the ABC”? We must assume therefore that it does.

By such selective and unbalanced reporting, the ABC advances its own alarmist agenda, in clear and obvious contravention of its duty as a public broadcaster to be impartial (PDF):

The ABC has a statutory duty to ensure that the gathering and presentation of news and information is impartial according to the recognised standards of objective journalism.

Aiming to equip audiences to make up their own minds is consistent with the public service character of the ABC. A democratic society depends on diverse sources of reliable information and contending opinions. A broadcaster operating under statute with public funds is legitimately expected to contribute in ways that may differ from commercial media, which are free to be partial to private interests.

Judgements about whether impartiality was achieved in any given circumstances can vary among individuals according to their personal and subjective view of any given matter of contention. Acknowledging this fact of life does not change the ABC’s obligation to apply its impartiality standard as objectively as possible. In doing so, the ABC is guided by these hallmarks of impartiality:

  • a balance that follows the weight of evidence;
  • fair treatment;
  • open-mindedness; and
  • opportunities over time for principal relevant perspectives on matters of contention to be expressed. 

Except where climate change is concerned.

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