Government climate adviser compares sceptics to "flat-earthers"


Censorship the next step?

See? We literally haven’t moved on one inch in this debate. Will Steffen, alarmist-in-chief to the Rudd government, wails that the climate debate is “infantile” – and his comments then perfectly make his point for him. Flat Earth Alert:

Speaking at a Melbourne summit on the green economy, Professor Will Steffen criticised the media for treating climate change science as a political issue in which two sides should be given a voice. [That’s the obvious next step of course – censorship of dissenting views – and to seriously think that the sceptics currently get a fair hearing in the MSM? Laughable]

While there were uncertainties about the pace and impact of change, he said, the core of climate science – that the world was warming and the primary cause since the middle of the last century had been industrial greenhouse gas emissions – should be accepted with the same confidence as the laws of gravity and relativity.

“Right now, this almost infantile debate about whether ‘is it real or isn’t it real?’, it’s like saying, ‘Is the Earth round or is it flat?’ [Climate change] is a hugely important question and yet we are not having a rational discourse in the media in Australia on this question. That is my biggest frustration.” He called on the media to focus on areas where there was not a consensus, including the link between climate change and the south-east Australian drought and how rapidly sea levels would rise. [Yet more calls for manipulation of the media to his own agenda]

This is the kind of crap that climate scientists are reduced to? Setting up pathetic straw men to then blow them over? We all agree on the basic science, that CO2 warms the atmosphere. What we disagree on is the complex science, like feedbacks and how much of the current warming is natural (which the IPCC doesn’t even consider), which neither you, nor your alarmist friends, nor your computer models have any clue about.

And to compare climate science to gravity or relativity or whether the earth is round or flat? I mean, really, you sure are scraping the barrel. Sorry, but the desperation is palpable.

Read it here.

Mammoth farts kept planet warm


"He who smelt it, dealt it."

And by the way, “mammoth farts” means farts from mammoths, and not just enormous farts from anyone else, like bad-mannered neanderthals. From the You Couldn’t Make It Up Department:

SCIENTISTS believe gassy mammoths helped to fill the atmosphere with methane and keep the Earth warm more than 13 thousand years ago.

Experts estimate that, together with other large plant-eating mammals that are now extinct, they released about 9.6 million tonnes of the gas each year.

When the megafauna disappeared there was a dramatic fall in atmospheric methane which may have altered the climate, British scientists say.

Analysis of gases trapped in ice cores suggests that the loss of animal emissions accounted for a large amount of the decline.

Read it here.

Australia "must do more to curb emissions"


No climate crisis, no Climate Institute

Vested Interests Alert as an organisation that owes its very existence to the climate change “crisis” urges Australia to do more to tackle climate change (in order to ensure its own survival). Can’t exactly imagine the Climate Institute saying, nah, nothing to worry about, can you, when it’s main purpose is to “drive innovative and effective climate change solutions” (see here):

A new report commissioned by The Climate Institute says Australia’s carbon pollution will continue to soar without price signals to make companies take responsibility for their emissions.

The environmental organisation has also launched a partnership with a range of prominent businesses to tackle climate change.

Climate Institute chief executive John Connor says the report shows Australia is being left behind the rest of the world in developing renewable energies.

Mr Connor says a move to amend the renewable energy target will only go so far in addressing the problem.

“While amendments to the renewable energy target will help restructure our polluting power sector and drive billions of dollars of investments in new technologies and skills, Australia’s pollution will continue to soar unless we get extra policies that make companies responsible for their pollution,” he said.

Mr Connor says the nation’s major political parties are holding back investment.

A more blatant example of cynical self-preservation is difficult to imagine. Read it here.

2010 could be "hottest year on record"


Throw some more snags on the barbie, mate

So screams the headline in The Times, conveniently forgetting to mention that “on record” means since about 1880, but “hottest year since 1880” doesn’t sound anywhere near as scary. But anyway, it’s a great opportunity to wheel out über-alarmist James Hansen:

CLIMATE scientists have warned that 2010 could turn out to be the warmest year in recorded history [since 1880].

They have collated global surface temperature measurements showing that the world has experienced near-record highs between January and April.

Researchers working independently at the Met Office and Nasa are soon to publish data that reveal the trend is likely to continue for the rest of the year. [Hmm, that’s odd, given that El Niño is fading fast, we’re heading towards La Niña conditions, and sea surface temperatures are heading south rapidly, but if the models say that then it must be true, surely?]

James Hansen [round of applause please], director of Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (Giss), a world centre for climate monitoring, said: “Global temperatures, averaged over the past 12 months, were the warmest for 130 years. [Big freaking deal]

“December to February was also the second-warmest of any such period [since 1880].”

Vicky Pope, head of climate change advice at the Met Office, said: “It was a cold winter in Europe but, globally, January to March was one of the seven warmest starts to the year on record [since 1880].

“This year has more than a 50% chance of being the warmest on record [since 1880].

None of this proves anything about a link to man-made emissions. The planet is recovering from the Little Ice Age, so is it any wonder that this decade is warmer than last? And there’s been a strong El Niño, so is it any wonder that the start of this year is warmer than the end of last? Not really. At least there’s a bit of sanity at the end:

John Christy, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, was cautious about predicting record temperatures for 2010, pointing out that the global datasets for temperature had flaws that could lead to rises being overstated [that’s a polite way of saying “they’re fudged” – Ed]. He said: “Be wary of climate forecasts — Mother Nature always seems to have a trick up her sleeve.”

Yeah, remember her, James Hansen? Mother Nature?

Read it here.

Transperth advert calls CO2 "poisonous"


This is the level or ignorance we have reached, where Transperth, the government department in Western Australia responsible for public transport, broadcasts a television advert that refers to “poisonous CO2”. In the few hundred parts per million it is in the atmosphere, it is completely harmless, and (cue junior school biology lesson) is essential for life on earth. But hey, don’t let the facts get in the way of a scary story.

Idiotic.

UN: Biodiversity crisis worse than climate change


Hysteria Co., Inc.

As I predicted here, the UN can see what it thought was its free ticket to global government (climate change) disappearing before its very eyes, so it is now on the lookout for another cause through which to regulate, tax and generally interfere in the lives of ordinary people – and here it is:

The economic case for global action to stop the destruction of the natural world is even more powerful than the argument for tackling climate change, a major report for the United Nations will declare this summer.

The Stern report on climate change, which was prepared for the UK Treasury and published in 2007, famously claimed that the cost of limiting climate change would be around 1%-2% of annual global wealth, but the longer-term economic benefits would be 5-20 times that figure.

The UN’s biodiversity report – dubbed the Stern for Nature – is expected to say that the value of saving “natural goods and services”, such as pollination, medicines, fertile soils, clean air and water, will be even higher – between 10 and 100 times the cost of saving the habitats and species which provide them.

Read it here.

Alarmists still desperate to link malaria to climate change


Annoying little insect … and a mosquito

And the latest attempt is likely to be by none other than (drum roll please) Professor Michael “Hockey Stick” Mann:

Many researchers have predicted that rising temperatures will cause malaria to expand its range and intensify in its current strongholds. But unlike usual models, which aim to predict how climate change will affect malaria in the future, researchers looked at how warming affected the disease throughout the last century.

They used a recent epidemiological map of the global distribution of the major malaria parasite Plasmodium falciparum, and compared this with historical data on malaria’s prevalence in the 1900s.

The researchers — whose work was published in Nature yesterday (20 May) — found that despite global warming, the prevalence of malaria decreased, which they attribute to disease and mosquito control programmes.

Or so you would think. But Matthew Thomas thinks differently. Matthew Thomas said that the study “plays down the potential importance of climate [change]”.

Who is Matthew Thomas? He is a researcher at… Penn State. Matthew Thomas is a researcher… at Penn State… who has just won a $1.8 million grant to study the influence of environmental temperature on transmission of vector-borne diseases. Think he has a dog in this hunt?

Ask his co-investigator on the project. Michael Mann…

Where do we ask for a refund?

Read it here.

And more from John O’Sullivan here.

ABC: sea temperature alarmism


Nothing alarmist here

They can bore us with as much evidence of warming as they like – the point is, it still doesn’t make the link to human emissions. But Radio Australia hits pay dirt with John Lyman, an interviewee who gives them all the alarmism they need in a piece about sea temperatures:

JOHN LYMAN: We can see with that uncertainty that there has definitely been significant warming, that warming as a signal is six times larger than the uncertainty we measured.

TIMOTHY MCDONALD: John Lyman says oceanic warming is in the order of 0.16 of a degree Celsius. He says that might not sound like much but it’s actually very significant.

JOHN LYMAN: Five-hundred 100-watt light bulbs per person on earth burning continuously – that would be the trend we’ve seen over the last 16 years just being sucked up by the ocean.

But I like to think of it in units of bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima and that would be over about 16 years two billion of those bombs. So it’s a heroic job the ocean does sucking up that signal at the top of the atmosphere. (source)

Gee, sounds scary. But now for some sanity from Dr Roy Spencer:

Being a believer in natural, internal cycles in the climate system, I’m going to go out on a limb and predict that global-average SSTs will plunge over the next couple of months. Based upon past experience, it will take a month or two for our (UAH) tropospheric temperatures to then follow suit.

SSTs heading south as El Nino fades

Read it here.

Daily Bayonet – GW Hoax Weekly Round-up


Skewering the clueless

As always, a great read!

"Triple crown" of global cooling


In a decade or two?

Rather than pointless efforts to stop the almost non-existent problem of CO2 caused warming, we should probably be preparing for the opposite, since many scientists are pointing towards a future sharp decline in global temperature caused by the unfortunate coincidence of three factors:

  • the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) flipping into its cold phase;
  • very low solar activity; and
  • volcanic eruptions in the pipeline (Eyjafjallajokull’s very, very big brother, Katla, may be on the verge of a big eruption if history is to be believed)

As Roy Spencer argues in his book, The Great Global Warming Blunder, the PDO may have significant effects on cloud cover, which may in themselves be sufficient to explain virtually all of the late 20th century warming, without any discernible effect from anthropogenic CO2. Add this to the fact that the sun is in the deepest slumber since the Dalton Minimum, and Icelandic volcanoes are kicking off and you have a recipe for significant global cooling.

All conjecture of course, but probably far more likely than the dire predictions of the IPCC’s incomplete and flawed climate models. So time to get your thermals out…

Read it here. (h/t Climate Realists)