Cancun heading for a train wreck

11 October, 2010 by

Climate talks

Could it be worse than Copenhagen? Very possibly, says the UK Telegraph, under the headline ‘Global warming summit heads for failure amid snub by world leaders’:

World leaders have snubbed the next round of international climate change negotiations in Mexico next month amid fears the talks will collapse.

The last United Nations summit on global warming in Copenhagen, at the end of last year, ended in failure and recrimination. More than 100 heads of state turned up hoping to be part of a deal that would “save the world” [ha, ha, my aching sides], but failed to get any legal agreement to stop rising temperatures [or should we say, more accurately: “to redistribute global wealth by forcing developed countries to shut down their economies and pay climate debt to the developing world in order to cut emissions of carbon dioxide which might, but probably won’t, stop rising temperatures, which are in all likelihood part of the planet’s natural climate cycles…”].

This year, they are declining even to attend, instead sending environment ministers and playing down the talks as much as possible.

The process is dogged by a disagreement over the best way to limit the growth in greenhouse gases, which are blamed by scientists for rising temperatures. Environmentalists believe the best approach is a binding treaty that will force all countries to cut carbon emissions. But at the last major meeting before the Cancun summit, held in China last week, delegates were still in dispute.

So, Julia and Greg, just explain to me again why Australia is rushing headlong into a unilateral price on carbon when the rest of the world has no intention of following suit. I’d love to hear the answers.

Read it here.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: , ,

ACM Poll Results

9 October, 2010 by

Poll results

Thanks to all of you who voted in the ACM poll. The results are as follows:

  • 60.5% – full post text on home page (as currently)
  • 39.5% – excerpt from post on home page with link to full article

So for the time being, things will remain unchanged, with each post in full on the home page.

Simon, ACM

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With:

NZ: temperature records thrown under a bus

8 October, 2010 by

The NZTR

New Zealand’s National Institute for Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) has denied any responsibility for the “official” New Zealand temperature record (NZTR). This staggering admission comes as part of NIWA’s defence to a legal action for judicial review brought by the New Zealand Climate Science Education Trust. The action sought orders:

  1. to set aside NIWA’s decisions to rely upon its Seven Station Series (7SS) and Eleven Station Series (11SS), and to find the current NZTR to be invalid;
  2. to prevent NIWA from using the current NZTR (or information originally derived from it) for the purpose of advice to any governmental authority or to the public; and
  3. to require NIWA to produce a full and accurate NZTR.

Richard Treadgold explains [caveat: I cannot find the NIWA statement of defence online, so haven’t been able to verify the conclusions in the following report. I am trying to obtain a copy]:

Three weeks ago NIWA released their Statement of Defence in response to the NZ Climate Science Coalition’s Statement of Claim regarding an Application for a Judicial Review. You have to be a lawyer (which I’m not) to see the ramifications and it’s taking a while to work through it, but these are my first reactions and I can’t hold them back any longer.

Most of this will upset NIWA’s supporters. If you’re a NIWA supporter, go find a buddy to hug before reading on. This will rock your world.

Because NIWA formally denies all responsibility for the national temperature record (NZTR).

…

They’re not defending the temperature record or the mistakes in it, they’re virtually saying: “You’re right, the dataset could be shonky, so we’re washing our hands of it.” Which gives us no confidence in the “science” they might have applied to it. What the hell’s going on? I actually hope their lawyers know a cunning trick to get them out of this, and it’s not what it seems. Because it’s my NIWA too!

But it gets worse.

NIWA has formally stated that, in their opinion, they are not required to use the best available information nor to apply the best scientific practices and techniques available at any given time. They don’t think that forms any part of their statutory obligation to pursue “excellence”.

And that little bombshell just does my head in. For how can they pursue excellence without using the best techniques?

NIWA denies there is any such thing as an “official” NZ Temperature Record, although they’re happy to create an acronym for it (NZTR). The famous “Seven-station series” (7SS) is completely unofficial and strictly for internal research purposes. Nobody else should rely on it.

Read the rest here.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With:

But the science is settled, isn't it?

7 October, 2010 by

"Poorly studied"

Our ignorant, spin-laden Australian government, via its climate mouthpiece Greg Combet, continues to push the line, “the science on climate is settled”, because they don’t wish to engage with the possibility that it isn’t. They have all their eggs in the IPCC basket, despite the fact that most of those eggs are cracked, rotten and leaking through the bottom, and they aren’t interested in anything else. They simply want to move on, pander to their redistributive instincts and impose an emissions trading scheme or carbon tax which, even if the science were settled, wouldn’t make an iota of difference to the climate, but would “spread the wealth around”, as someone once said.

So it’s ironic when a story breaks that shows so clearly that the science is not settled. Something as fundamental as the effect of the sun on climate during solar cycles is still uncertain, let alone complex feedbacks, clouds, precipitation etc, etc. As the New Scientist (gasp) reports:

IF NEW satellite data can be trusted, changes in solar activity warmed the Earth when they should have cooled it.

Joanna Haigh of Imperial College London studied satellite measurements of solar radiation between 2004 and 2007, when overall solar activity was in decline. The sun puts out less energy when its activity is low, but different types of radiation vary to different degrees. Until now, this had been poorly studied. [“Poorly studied”, notice. Because, thanks to massive government and big green investment, all the research has been directed towards finding the tenuous link between anthropogenic CO2 and climate instead.]

Haigh’s measurements showed that visible radiation increased between 2004 and 2007, when it was expected to decrease, and ultraviolet radiation dropped four times as much as predicted.

Haigh then plugged her data into an atmospheric model to calculate how the patterns affected energy filtering through the atmosphere. Previous studies have shown that Earth is normally cooler during solar minima.Yet the model suggested that more solar energy reached the planet’s surface during the period, warming it by about 0.05 °C (Nature, DOI: 10.1038/nature09426).

The effect is slight, but it could call into question our understanding of the sun’s subtle effects on climate.

But don’t forget, this is New Scientist, so…

Or could it? Stefan Brönnimann of the University of Bern in Switzerland says Haigh’s study shows the importance of looking at radiation changes in detail but cautions that her the results could be a one-off. He points out that the sun’s most recent cycle is known to have been atypical.

Whatever. But to continue to repeat ad nauseam that the science is settled is nonsensical. Take note, Julia and Greg.

Read it here.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: ,

Run for the hills! Oakeshott's on the climate committee!

6 October, 2010 by

Imbecilic

Who could be better suited to a blinkered, imbecilic climate committee than a blinkered, imbecilic independent? Drum Roll please: Rob “I’ll be in even if I fall in” Oakeshott is the latest member (after he failed to make the grade for speaker and couldn’t think of any better way to stay in the political limelight). Rob’s interminable speeches will mean another load of unwanted gaseous emissions the committee will have to tackle. And another reason why the Opposition should avoid it like the plague.

Read it here.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: ,

Postcards from the future of climate change

6 October, 2010 by

Buckingham Palace surrounded by shanty towns full of "climate refugees"

Another post that had to interrupt my short break. The UK Telegraph, which used to be a respectable newspaper, but which has been changing slowly into little more than an upmarket gossip rag, has lost its mind completely and has published a gallery of ridiculous postcards depicting a post-climate change London. There are the hackneyed images of a flooded River Thames and “extreme weather”, but the two “artists” have here gone much further. From the introduction:

A display of photomontages imagining how London could be affected by climate change is on display at the Museum of London from 1 October 2010 to 6 March 2011. The display and events form part of the Mayor’s Story of London festival and the events are funded by Renaissance London. Like postcards from the future, familiar views of the capital have been digitally transformed by illustrators Robert Graves and Didier Madoc-Jones. They bring home the full impact of global warming, food scarcity, rising sea levels and how all Londoners will need to innovate and adapt to survive.

That the Telegraph chose to publish, with serious and weighty captions, and without any rational comment or criticism, these fictitious, alarmist images, whose purpose is solely to advance by fear the agenda of taking urgent action climate change, shows clearly how far journalism has sunk.

You can view the gallery here, but I couldn’t resist posting one more – the Houses of Parliament surrounded by rice paddies (honestly, you couldn’t make this stuff up):

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: , ,

Alarmists' PR own goal

3 October, 2010 by

Sickening

Interrupting my short break to comment on Richard Curtis’s truly sickening video – which you will no doubt have heard about elsewhere – which shows children who do not go along with the requirement to cut their emissions being blown up in a nauseating and gory way. Despite the creators issuing a worthless apology and withdrawing it, copies are appearing on YouTube faster than they can be removed, such is the viral nature of this video – do your own search if you wish to view it (discretion advised).

This kind of stunning own goal is very welcome, since it lays bare, for all to see, the totalitarian nature of the climate alarmism, where dissent is met with violence, albeit in a “humorous” context. I hope that this video will have disgusted many people who are in the global warming camp by default, and as a result may be spurred into making their own enquiries about the kind of movement they are associating with… a movement which now includes Osama bin Laden!

The timing is interesting, since the Royal Society, which has previously abandoned scientific impartiality and jumped aboard the alarmist bandwagon, has been forced to tone down its warmist rhetoric, admitting that there are areas of climate science where doubt exists:

Climate change continues to be a subject of intense public and political debate. Because of the level of interest in the topic the Royal Society has produced a new guide to the science of climate change. The guide summarises the current scientific evidence on climate change and its drivers, highlighting the areas where the science is well established, where there is still some debate, and where substantial uncertainties remain. (source)

One thing we can be sure of is that as more doubts are acknowledged in the science, the more desperate the alarmist machine will become to keep the ship afloat.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: ,

Short break from blogging

20 September, 2010 by

Posts will be few and far between for the next couple of weeks. Hope to be back posting regularly in early October.

Don’t forget to check out the Live Blog Roll in the right side-bar of the home page.

Simon, ACM

Filed Under: Climate

Abbott: carbon tax is "economic self-harm"

18 September, 2010 by

No ETS or carbon (dioxide) tax

In this sea of climate madness which we are currently drowning, only Tony Abbott speaks the blindingly obvious truth: a carbon tax would be damaging to Australia’s economy for no benefit to the climate whatsoever. And the majority of business thinks the same (take note Moonbat Marius):

Opposition Leader Tony Abbott is sticking to his guns that he will “never” endorse Australia going it alone by putting a price on carbon, a stance supported by a new business survey.

Mr Abbott said on Friday that he will “never” put a price on carbon unless this becomes part of an enforceable international system.

“A go-it-alone carbon tax would be another act of economic self harm and it’s the last thing Australia needs,” Mr Abbott told Macquarie radio.

“The price of your power, the price of your petrol, the price of everything you do goes up under a carbon tax.”

He also attacked the government for a change of heart having “emphatically ruled out a carbon tax pre-election”.

“Now, apparently they’re ruling it in. It just goes to show you can’t trust these guys,” he said.

A survey of 1000 business owners conducted by the Australian Chamber of Commerce of Industry (ACCI) found that 75 per cent oppose the unilateral adoption of an emissions trading scheme (ETS) or carbon tax.

“Calls for a carbon tax or ETS in the name of business certainty certainly don’t represent the general view of business owners,” the chamber’s director of economics and industry policy, Greg Evans, said in releasing the survey results on Friday.

“The reality is business and consumers (would) face the prospect of a doubling of energy prices by 2015 with little global gain.”

Read it here.

UPDATE: Julia Gillard’s excuse for the backflip on the carbon tax is that it’s no longer her decision what happens on climate change, because the “committee” will tell her. No, seriously.

She told Fairfax that what she said before the federal election on climate change no longer applies because a committee of politicians and experts will now develop the policy.

“We laboured long and hard to develop a market-based mechanism,” she said of the emissions trading scheme. [Waffle]

“But I’m recognising the political reality. I campaigned as Prime Minister in an election campaign with policies for the Government. [More waffle]

“We are in a new environment where in order for any action to happen in this Parliament, you need more consensus than the views and policies of the Government and this committee is the way of recognising that.” (source)

No it’s not. It’s a stacked team of warmists who have made up their minds already.

Those independents who handed this incompetent government power should hang their heads in shame.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: ,

Gillard backflips on carbon tax

17 September, 2010 by

First of many?

Well, that didn’t take long, did it? Hands up those of you who didn’t see this coming. Comments by BHP’s Moonbat Marius yesterday put the issue of a carbon tax back on the agenda. The Greens are cock-a-hoop, as they would be, and Julia Gillard failed spectacularly to rule out such a tax, despite doing so before the election. As Australian Conservative reports:

Julia Gillard today walked away from her election-eve promise to oppose a costly carbon tax on Australian householders.

On the Friday before the election Ms Gillard stated categorically: “I rule out a carbon tax.” (The Australian, 20 August 2010).

But today, when asked by media, would she rule out a carbon tax, she blinked:

Gillard: Look, we, we’ve said we would work through options in good faith at the committee that I have formed involving of course the Greens … We want to work through options, have the discussions at that committee in good faith.

Journalist: So you are not ruling it out then?

Gillard: Well look ah, you know I just think the rule-in, rule-out games are a little bit silly.

Before the election, she unambiguously ruled out a carbon tax. Now, after the election, ruling in or ruling out a carbon tax is now “a little bit silly” according to the PM.

It now looks like Julia Gillard is opening the door to a plan by Labor’s partners, the Greens, for a carbon tax.

Now, after the election, it appears that Labor has a secret plan to back-flip and support the tax.

Before the election, Wayne Swan said: “what we rejected is this hysterical allegation that somehow we are moving towards a carbon tax” (Meet the Press, 15 August 2010).

Mr Swan also said: “We have made our position very clear, we have ruled it out” (7.30 Report, 12 August 2010).

Julia Gillard again claimed: “There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead” (Channel 10, 16 August 2010).

The Prime Minister was today speaking at a sustainability media event. But it’s now clear she hasn’t been able to sustain her pre-election promises to rule out a carbon tax. (source)

This will be just the first of many backflips by Julia as she desperately tries to appease the demands of the Greens, ably assisted by a self-serving businessman who wants to spruik his uranium over coal. At least some businesses are rejecting the call:

The Australian Chamber of Commerce & Industry said Mr Kloppers’s statements did not represent the views of its members.

“We unambiguously represent the views of energy users rather than producers,” ACCI economics and industry policy director Greg Evans said. “Our members are concerned about the impact of either of a carbon tax or an ETS.

“We certainly don’t believe Australia should pre-empt any international action.” (source)

A statement so blindingly obvious, it is astonishing that no-one seems to get it. We really are through the looking-glass now, folks.

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