Bwahahahaha! Peter Gleick recommends Skeptical Science

5 March, 2012 by

Recommendation you could do without

In a YouTube video (here), Gleick, he of Fakegate fame, says:

“There are some excellent websites that have debunked them one by one. SkepticalScience.com I believe is one that has a list of the favourite problems and misconceptions about climate change and the scientific refutations of those.”

I really wish I could get an endorsement from someone of Gleick’s standing in the scientific community… But I guess it takes a special kind of website to deserve such a recommendation, and Un-Skeptical Pseudo-Science fits the bill perfectly.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With:

Millions wasted on climate change research

5 March, 2012 by

Your taxpayer dollars at work

Add the words “climate change” or “global warming” into any proposal for research funding, and your chances of success are improved immeasurably. Government agencies are just desperate to throw away precious funds on anything which might help the alarmist “Cause”, and yet again puts the lie to the claim that sceptics are a tightly-knit well-funded team.

Put the words “climate sceptic” in your proposal, it will guarantee to fail, not least because climate sceptics are just one notch above pedophiles in the politically-correct social strata that we presently inhabit.

Wasting money on pointless “climate change” initiatives is standard procedure for this embarrassment of a government (see here), so it’s hardly surprising that millions of taxpayers money is literally flushed down the lavatory on tenuous climate-related research:

MILLIONS of dollars in government research funding is being ploughed into studies of emotion in climate change messages, ancient economic life in Italy and the history of the moon.

Studies of sleeping snails and determining if Australian birds are getting smaller because of climate change have also been allocated funding in the latest round of grants totalling $300 million by the Australian Research Council.

A study of “an ignored credit instrument in Florentine economic, social and religious life from 1570 to 1790” secured $578,792 for a researcher from the University of Western Australia.

The council insists the study was approved because it had modern day relevance to the global financial crisis as it shows how Florence in ancient times recovered from an economic downturn and because no one had studied that element of history before.

Another project titled “Sending and responding to messages about climate change: the role of emotion and morality” by a Queensland university secured $197,302. The council said it was an important psychology project.

The study to determine if birds are shrinking was awarded $314,000 and another of sleeping snails to determine “factors that aid life extension” was given $145,000. Studying the early history of the moon will cost taxpayers $210,000 and another study looking at “William Blake in the 21st century” comes with a $636,904 bill.

“At a time when every available dollar could be put to backing innovation and research and development to make us more competitive, we have seen a growth in support for some real eyebrow-raising activities,” opposition finance spokesman Andrew Robb said. (source)

But who cares about nurses, teachers or policemen? It’s all in aid of “saving the planet”, right? So we don’t need to bother with all that cost/benefit rubbish.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With:

Censorship comes to Australia

3 March, 2012 by

The Australia of the future?

UPDATE: Regarding jurisdictional issues, the following extremely concerning paragraph stands out:

11.69 Another aspect of jurisdiction concerns how the News Media Council will exercise its power over all internet publishers. Foreign publishers who have no connection with Australia will be beyond its reach. However, if an internet news publisher has more than a tenuous connection with Australia then carefully drawn legislation would enable the News Media Council to exercise jurisdiction over it. 

“More than a tenuous connection” with Australia? Wow. This is really scary stuff.

——-

Reposting from Menzies House email from Timothy Andrews:

Late yesterday afternoon, I read something that sent chills down my spine.

Mr. Ray Finkelstein QC, a left-wing former Federal Court Judge with no media experience, at the request of the Gillard Government, issued a 400 page report which calls for a Big Brother Super-Regulator to ‘regulate’ political speech and – among other things – impose new laws with the power to stop climate change realists from speaking up.

Its “recommendations” will sicken every single Australian: They actually call for a Big Brother Super-Regulator to censor not just the newspapers and TV, but websites, personal blogs, and even what you say on Twitter!

This is a proposal that would seem right at home in North Korea or Zibmabwe. I never thought – as dark as things seemed- we could stoop this low here in Australia.

It is clear from the report, in particular paragraphs 4.31-4.42, that silencing climate realists is a major reason for these regulations: it is unashamedly explicit in this (and even uses the dirty trick of using polls from – wait for it – 1966 as evidence the media is pro-climate skeptic, and that – wait for it – only the ABC is unbiased!)

The size and scope of the proposed Super-Regulator is breathtaking. They will have the power to impose a “code of ethics”, force you to print views you don’t agree with as part of a ‘right of reply’, take you to court, and even make you take pieces down! Even personal blogs that get only 40 hits a day will be covered! To make matters worse, the SuperRegulator “would not have to give reasons for its decisions” and the decisions “would not be subject to appeal.” Even climate change websites in other countries like Watt’s Up With That will be covered by this!

We need to speak out now – while we are still allowed.

This is why I just created www.FreeSpeechAustralia.com so we can work together to help stop this nightmare from becoming a reality. .

It includes an online petition, which I STRONGLY urge you all to sign and to pass onto all your family and friends, as well as an “Action Centre” detailing what other activities you can take, a resource toolkit, and links to a Facebook page and Twitter account.

It certainly looks like we should be very concerned by this move. Commenter Baldrick kindly pointed me to some key sections of the report, namely this on bias:

4.25  To deal with the difficulties of identifying and measuring bias the polls reported here attempted to measure bias as diversions from fairness and diversity of opinion, on a scale presenting bias as a polar opposite to ‘balance’. On this basis:

  • bias is much more commonly perceived to exist in the conduct of newspapers than in television or radio
  • the ABC is perceived to be the least biased media organisation in Australia, and
  • there is perception of persistent bias against the Labor Party particularly in pollsconducted in the earlier years of the period covered by this analysis. 

If ABC is perceived as balanced, then the report’s authors must be more deluded than we could possibly give them credit for. Balanced if you’re a lefty ex-judge, I guess? It also reports favourably on criticism of News Ltd’s tabloids on climate change issues:

4.33  One of the conclusions reached in the report was this:

The two biggest News Ltd tabloids—the Herald Sun and the Daily Telegraph—have been so biased in their coverage that it is fair to say they ‘campaigned’ against the policy rather than covered it. 

Furthermore, and in a clear indication that the report is horribly skewed, it cites Robert Manne, a well known alarmist and sympathiser towards the climate consensus when discussing the coverage of climate issues in the media:

4.40  For instance, the Inquiry heard from Professor Robert Manne who, earlier in 2011, had written an extensive critique of The Australian newspaper in Quarterly Essay entitled ‘Bad News: Murdoch’s Australian and the Shaping of the Nation’ that examined seven case studies of the newspaper’s coverage of issues.
4.41  One of his case studies concerned coverage of climate change policy and his findings mirrored those of the Australian Centre for Independent Journalism. Professor Manne’s research found that articles unfavourable to action on climate change outnumbered favourable articles by a ratio of four to one.
4.42  In his response to Professor Manne’s work, Paul Kelly who is The Australian’s editor-­‐at-­‐large, did not refute Manne’s statistics. Instead, he argued that Manne’s position was based on a ‘rejection of debate’ about the science of climate change:

One reason for the public’s backlash making carbon pricing so unpopular was the precise attitude [Manne] took. While pretending to be rational his rejection of debate was really faith-­‐based dogmatism and the Australian public didn’t like being told what to think by patronising experts. 

All this will amount to little short of censorship of views which criticise the Government, and it will apply to blogs as well. I highly recommend getting behind the Menzies House campaign if you wish to see free speech remain as a fundamental right in Australia.

I haven’t yet had a chance to read it in full, and I won’t be doing so in the near future, but there are jurisdictional issues here which I would be very interested to understand further. Despite what is said above, the Australian government cannot legislate regulations to take effect over media organisations outside Australian jurisdiction, without bipartisan agreements between those other states. I do not foresee this happening – for example in the US, the First Amendment prohibits any law infringing on the freedom of speech or the press.

I therefore would have thought that overseas organisations, or blogs hosted overseas, cannot be subject to domestic Australian legislation. Further information required to determine its precise effect.

The report is online here.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: , ,

VIDEO: Warragamba Dam – all gates open

3 March, 2012 by

All four radial gates and the central drum gate are open on Warragamba dam:

I’m hoping to make a trip out there on Monday, and will post video and images.

Video from Channel 7 (link)

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With:

Bureau of Meteorology's summer forecasts: 'hopeless again'

3 March, 2012 by

Max anomaly predictions

Anecdotally, from my weather station here on the Upper North Shore in Sydney, this has been the Year without a Summer. Mean temperatures for December, January and February were 18.6C, 21.5C and 21.6C, significantly lower than 2010/11 (21.7, 23.9, 24.1) and 2009/10 (22.9, 23.9, 23.4).

Overall summer means for the three months December, January and February were 20.5C for 2011/12, down 2.8C compared to 2010/11 and 2.9C compared to 2009/10. All totally meaningless in terms of climate, of course, but interesting none the less.

Warwick Hughes on the warmist BoM predictions for the Year:

This summer has been cooler than average across vast areas of Australia. Which has been a surprise to the BoM.

The BoM 3 month summer temperature outlooks were issued in November – actual daytime temperature anomalies were cooler over vastly more area of Australia than the BoM predicted. The actual warmth along the Perth to Pilbara coast and Sth Aust & Vic turned out to be miniscule compared to the BoM predictions. Ditto for the Far North which turned out near average. The BoM scores some marks for their Eastern and Central Australian cool predict but all of their hot predictions turned out cooler and smaller.

Source.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: ,

Sydney's largest dam set to spill

1 March, 2012 by

Warragamba's drum and radial gates open in 1973 (Panoramio)

A slowly moving trough, which is expected to take as much as three days to clear New South Wales, will dump enough rainfall into the catchments to ensure that Warragamba Dam, Sydney will spill for the first time in 14 years.

The floodgates of Sydney’s Warragamba dam are being tested as heavy rains put it on the verge of filling up for the first time in 14 years.

As the State Emergency Service keeps an eye on overflowing rivers, the Sydney Catchment Authority is expecting Warragamba to reach full capacity for the first time since August 1998.

Floodgates are scheduled to be tested for two hours from 8am (AEDT), with staff anticipating dam levels at one metre below full storage.

Sydney Catchment Authority acting chief executive Sarah Dinning says preparations are being made to release excess water.

‘Due to the variable weather conditions, we have staff available around the clock and the test will occur as soon as the dam reaches one metre below full storage,’ she said.

‘Once Warragamba Dam is 80mm above its full storage level the drum gate opens automatically.’

Evacuations are underway in one town and emergency crews are standing by in others as large parts of NSW continue to be deluged with the heaviest rains in more than 80 years. (source)

Perhaps it’s time to visit one of the dire predictions of Tim Flannery, Climate Commissioner (salary $180,000 for 3 days work), from 2007:

“Even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and river systems. In Adelaide, Sydney and Brisbane, water supplies are so low they need desalinated water urgently, possibly in as little as 18 months.”

 

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: ,

Ignorant, patronising climate propaganda

29 February, 2012 by

“Feisty carbon particle”

The Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency plugs a propaganda drive by ClimateWorks Australia, which plumbs new depths of inanity and ignorance:

Today, ClimateWorks Australia (link here) launched its national public engagement program aimed at showing how Australia can reduce its greenhouse gas emissions.

The Empower campaign is aimed at raising awareness of how business and households can take up low cost opportunities to reduce their emissions and save money.

The actions highlighted in the program involve energy efficiency measures (such as retrofitting buildings, upgrading equipment, reducing waste and the use of co-generation), land sector measures (such as reforestation and soil carbon sequestration), and power sector measures (such as wind and solar).  It outlines simple measures households and businesses can adopt to reduce their emissions and save money on their power bills.

The program involves presentations to industry and community groups, train-the-trainer sessions and on-line video materials.

As part of the program, a YouTube video animation has been developed starring a feisty character called CP, which is short for carbon particle. CP has a dual nature; in moderate quantities he can be good (Dr Jekyll), but in large quantities he turns bad (Mr Hyde).  Using easy to understand graphics and dialogue, the video shows how Australia can achieve a clean energy future. (source)

I really wish I was making this up, but I’m not.

Once again, the population is treated like total morons. “CP”, or carbon particle, lectures us on how we should cut emissions and lead virtuous low carbon lives. Unfortunately, particulate carbon has NOTHING to do with global warming, climate change or whatever. Carbon dioxide, the alleged part-cause of the modern warming, is a harmless, invisible, trace gas.

And the level of the accompanying video would insult a six-year-old. It is unbelievably patronising, juvenile, unfunny (despite trying desperately to be so) and deeply painful to endure. I’ve embedded it below, watch it and weep. Actually you only need to watch about the first minute. That’s really enough.

Note: CEO of ClimateWorks is Professor David Griggs, who is a fully paid-up alarmist, formerly director of the Met Office’s Hadley Centre (appears in a few of the Climategate emails as well), head of IPCC Scientific Assessment Unit, and recently spoke at the Four Degrees or More conference (link). So none of this should be a surprise. Embarrassing that an organisation led by someone of his pedigree would intentionally confuse carbon dioxide with particulate carbon, but in the propaganda game, anything goes.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With:

Ben Pile on Gleick and environmentalism

29 February, 2012 by

Ben Pile

A brilliant piece of writing, as always, by Ben Pile (Climate Resistance) at Spiked Online:

The environmental movement is as promiscuous with its ‘ethics’ as it is with ‘The Science’. You can make stuff up, apparently, just so long as you do so in order to ‘save the planet’. And this is why sums as paltry and insignificant as $1,000 are so important to their perspective. It is only by amplifying the trivial that the myth of ‘networks’ of ‘well-funded deniers’ can be sustained. It’s only when you lose a sense of proportion that a few million dollars can stop global action on climate change. 

Read it all.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With:

Richard Lindzen at the House of Commons

29 February, 2012 by

UPDATE: Unfortunately, only the first half of the talk is available. I will post a link when the second half is uploaded.

Professor Lindzen was speaking at the UK House of Commons at the invitation of a group seeking to repeal the UK’s barking mad Climate Change Act, which is guaranteed to send the UK’s economy into a terminal nose dive.

PDF of the presentation can be downloaded here.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With:

John Cook's climate myth-information evening

28 February, 2012 by

Fully un-sceptical

John Cook of Un-Skeptical Pseudo-Science  is at a “climate Q & A” tonight which is, quote, “brought to you by sustainme on behalf of Lane Cove Council”. Sustainme, I think, is a firm of “sustainability consultants” from what I can gather, so that kind of sets the tone.

In front of a (no doubt friendly and sympathetic) audience of twenty or so, Cook will bust all the filthy deniers myths, just like wot ‘e does on ‘is web site, innit?

He’s even got a companion puff piece on ABC Environment (where else) illustrated with a photo of the real Mythbusters:

Tonight, I’ve been asked to present a climate myth busting evening at Lane Cove in Sydney. However, instead of giving a prepared talk with a slideshow, the organisers plan to break the audience up into groups who will select the most persuasive climate myths they’ve heard. I will then attempt to debunk the myths. To add a little edge to the evening, the audience will vote to determine whether the myths have been successfully busted or not.

It feels a bit like going back to school and sitting exams. I don’t know what questions will be asked and I’ll be graded afterwards. Except this time, the examination and grading will occur in front of an audience. The result will depend not just on knowing the science but also successfully negotiating the psychological pitfalls and backfire effects. The evening could be a highly engaging, interactive and educational experience. Or it might be a train wreck. Either way, bring popcorn! (source)

You can guarantee the “myths” will all be the so-called “myths” of realists, rather than the thousands of myths perpetrated by alarmists.

Here are a few such alarmist myths, which you can bet the farm Cook won’t be busting tonight:

  • That Un-skeptical Pseudo-Science presents a balanced view of the current state of climate science, not a smug partisan sycophantic repetition of IPCC propaganda
  • That all those computer models can make accurate projections of climate 100 years from now, not hopelessly incomplete and flaky and which couldn’t predict their way out of a paper bag
  • That the IPCC is a fair and balanced organisation, dispassionately reviewing climate science, and not a hopelessly compromised and politicised organisation that made up its mind CO2 was to blame before it even began work back in 1990
  • That grey literature is just fine and dandy, as long as it helps The Cause
  • That WWF and Greenpeace are reasonable and balanced organisations which can appreciate both sides of the climate debate, so they should be entitled to write half of the IPCC reports
  • That climate scientists understand the magnitude and sign of all climate feedbacks to at least two decimal places
  • That CO2 swamps all natural climate drivers, including the Sun (we don’t know how, it just DOES, OK?!!)
  • That Henrik Svensmark is the devil incarnate, but James Hansen is the model to which every climate scientist should aspire
  • That consensus scientists uphold the highest standards of integrity and Climategate was “all taken out of context”, and not that they were caught red handed fudging data, deleting emails, skewing peer-review and avoiding FOI requests
  • That Peter Gleick is not guilty of scientific misconduct and possible criminal deception and is just a valiant whistleblower (© MeDog’sGob)
  • That sceptics really are better funded and better organised than the entire Big Green movement bankrolled by national governments and the UN
  • That Al Gore really knows what he’s talking about and his film was a balanced scientific documentary, rather than a bad fairy tale
  • That global warming really does cause everything you could think of on this list (and plenty more besides)
  • That black really is white, if you look at it long enough

Readers are invited to submit in the comments other “myths” that Cook wouldn’t touch with a ten-foot barge pole.

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