Even James Hansen wants Copenhagen to fail


Hansen (L), Homer (R)

Hansen (L), Homer (R)

And with Al Gore pulling out of a $1,200-a-head presentation, things aren’t looking that hot:

The scientist who convinced the world that global warming was a looming danger says the planet will be better off if next week’s Copenhagen climate change summit ends in collapse.

James Hansen, considered the most distinguished climate scientist [Ha, ha! My aching sides – Ed], says any agreement to emerge from the meeting will be so flawed that it would be better to start again from scratch.

His words came on the same day as the University of East Anglia announced an investigation into the thousands of damaging leaked emails emanating from its Climatic Research Unit.

Professor Hansen heads the NASA Goddard Institute earth sciences unit in New York. In 1989 he made several appearances before Congress and did more than any other scientist to educate [“brainwash” – Ed] politicians about the causes of global warming and the urgent need to change behaviour.

Earlier this year, he was awarded the Carl Gustaf Rossby Research Medal by the American Meteorological Society. It was awarded for his outstanding contribution to climate modelling and for clear communication of climate science in the public arena. [The ABC is in full hyperbole mode here, as you can see – Ed]

He certainly was not mincing his words when he gave his views to the Guardian newspaper online about the prospects for next week’s climate change conference.

“The approach that’s being talked about is so fundamentally wrong that it’s better to reassess the situation,” he said.

“I think it’s just as well that we not have a substantive treaty.”

Advice to Copenhagen delegates. Save the airfare, save the CO2, stay at home instead.

Read it here.

Why are we sceptics? Because we're MENTALLY DERANGED!


ABC bias incarnate

ABC bias incarnate

Yes, and if you challenge me on that I will split your skull in two with this axe.

But that’s the level of debate on Margot O’Neill’s execrable blog “Countdown to Copenhagen“. She just can’t get her tiny brain around why people are deserting the climate change bandwagon in droves. She just can’t understand that people are starting to see through the smoke and mirrors of Al Gore, so she, along with all the other alarmist fruitcakes, have to think of another reason. We’re all mentally unbalanced. We’ve been here before, of course, but here’s the ABC, our national broadcaster, peddling it as fact:

CSIRO’s former climate director, Dr Graeme Pearman, suffered a personal crisis after confronting this question before deciding to study psychology, which he describes as the new frontier in climate change:

“Behavioural issues are likely to be much more important than the development of improved descriptions of exactly what happens or might happen to the climate. These are the main barriers to the actions that are needed.

Mr Gore says he conducted 30 “solutions summits” with leading international experts to discuss how to design the multi-faceted battle plan in his book. They included brain scientists who told him the climate threat seemed too remote and unprecedented to trigger survival reflexes. In short, primordial human wiring is tuned to the likes of carnivorous predators, lightning strikes and blood-curdling rival clansmen.

Harvard University’s Daniel Gilbert has provided a sharply amusing account of how global warming challenges our evolutionary psychology – if it doesn’t make us duck or twitch or even feel repulsed, can it really be so bad?

Behavioural scientists also told him that “Simply laying out the facts won’t work … The barrage of negative, even terrifying, information can trigger denial or paralysis or, at the very least, procrastination.” Sounds like a bad rap for his Academy Award winning film, An Inconvenient Truth, which helped raise global awareness of the issue.

But scientists told Mr Gore that the human brain can commit to multigenerational goals although this can be undermined by constant stress and excessive distraction, both of which abound in modern society.

In other words, don’t bother with the climate, just focus on using psychiatry to brain-train everyone to believe unquestioningly in the holy and immutable word of Al God.

Read it here (if you must)

The Age kisses Gore's backside


Try running three 30" monitors on sunbeams, pal

Try running three 30" monitors on sunbeams, pal

To the editors of The Age and all the other Fairfax media outlets, Al Gore is a brave warrior for the planet, courageously flying all over the world by private jet in order to make more money out of an imagined climate crisis. I beg to differ – the man peddles misinformation and refuses to debate, in other words, he’s a snake oil salesman.

But that doesn’t stop The Age, who put together a sycophantic, fawning piece about Big Al’s new book, Our Choice: A Plan to solve the Climate Crisis. That there is a “climate crisis” is a given, of course, since Gore put the tick in the “science is settled” box by way of An Inconvenient Truth, if you ignore the nine fundamental errors and the scores of other misrepresentations. So this one is all about solutions.

Gore’s new book, the result of more than two years of consultations with leading scientists, technologists, economists and, yes, neuroscientists, is his attempt to lay out a detailed solution to the climate crisis [and line his pockets at the same time – Ed]. It is an attempt to spell out in a way that ordinary readers can understand the current state of technology and what still needs to be invented to bring a low-carbon world to reality.

There are passages where it becomes a little dense, but for the most part it is a worthy sequel to An Inconvenient Truth, full of optimism about the promise of science to solve this urgent crisis — although perhaps it skims over the possible changes that we all might need to make to our lifestyles.

While it explores all technologies from nuclear to “clean coal”, the book leans heavily towards the renewables such as wind, solar and geothermal energy, arguing that the economics of nuclear and the uncertain viability of carbon capture and storage make them less viable.

Maybe Gore could set the example by running his mansion (and his three monitors), which consumes about as much electricity as all of sub-Saharan Africa put together, on sunbeams and wind power, as he suggests for the rest of us.

Read it here.

The price of inconvenient reality


In an editorial today, The Australian asks some very awkward questions about the economic realities of the ETS, and the global socialism that climate change is advancing:

BOTH domestically and internationally, the price that could be demanded from Australians for our part in cutting greenhouse gas emissions is emerging from a sea of red ink. Earlier estimates suggested that an emissions trading scheme would reap a profit of between $11 billion and $20bn by 2020. Now we learn from the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook that the scheme is likely to lose money over the next five years. The second reality check was the European Union’s call for industrialised nations to contribute $160bn per annum by 2020 to help developing nations tackle climate change.

The shortfall in ETS revenue makes the prospect of a deal between the Rudd government and the Coalition less likely. It will be impossible to pay for Malcolm Turnbull’s proposed amendments to Labor’s ETS from funds generated through emission permit sales. A fortnight ago, an analysis by Riskmetrics and Innovest Strategic Value Advisors gave an idea of what the Coalition amendments could cost. It found that the amendments could turn an estimated $777 million net surplus in its first year into a $1.8bn deficit.

After years of inflated expectations of what can be achieved in curbing carbon, it is clear that any deal that would make an appreciable difference in emissions levels will be costly. As a responsible global citizen, Australia should play its part. But we have no obligation to join any push to use climate change to redistribute global wealth to assuage the consciences of climate change billionaire Al Gore and social campaigners such as Bono, whose carbon footprints far exceed those of the ordinary Australian taxpayers they expect to foot the bill.

Read it here.

Gore's new work of fiction: "Our Choice"


The follow-up to the first work of fiction, An Inconvenient Truth, which comprised 95% political propaganda and 5% actual science.

Al [Gore] has released a follow-up to 2006 best-seller An Inconvenient Truth, the former US vice president’s rallying cry against global warming.

Mr Gore, who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 following the book and movie versions of An Inconvenient Truth [but then again, they just gave it to Obama for doing nothing, and previously to Jimmy Carter, so it’s hardly something to brag about – Ed], aims to offer clear strategies to tackle climate change in Our Choice: A Plan to Solve the Climate Crisis.

It offers solutions that we can – and must – begin to implement today,” Mr Gore said.

Of one thing we can be certain: every single one of those “solutions” will make Al Gore even richer than he is today.

Read it here.

Today's Gore-bull News


gore_fire_breathing-1

Gore-bull warming

Al Gore has been getting way too much publicity recently, thanks to the launch of his new fictional book “Our Choice”, which follows up from his last fictional book “An Inconvenient Truth”. Al Gore, as any fule kno, won’t debate climate change with anybody, and when someone hits him with a difficult question unexpectedly at a news conference, the microphone is snatched away and they are hastily ejected (see here).

But that doesn’t stop big Al from smearing anyone who disagrees with him, or the IPCC, as evidenced by this quote:

“The United Nations organized, along with the scientific bodies of the national academies of science and their counterparts, the 3,000 best scientists in the world [not true – Ed] from all of the fields that are relevant to this issue,” he explained. “Over the last 20 years they have conducted the most exhaustive examination ever on a challenge like this. [Or more strictly “the most exhaustive ONE SIDED examination” – Ed]

“They’ve issued four reports — they’ve all been unanimous [Not true again. Dissenters were silenced and the Summary for Policymakers only selected the views that fitted the agenda – Ed], and the last one called the evidence unequivocal. Now, does that mean there are still some people who are gonna have a contrarian view? No, of course there will still be some. But, there are still some people who believe that the moon landing was staged on a movie lot. You know, a significant percentage as it turns out … Or that the Earth is flat. But that doesn’t lead public policy makers to take both sides of that into account.” (source)

Also, Gore is now abandoning facts [how can you abandon something you never embraced before? – Ed] and is appealing to people’s religious beliefs. We all know global warming is a religion, now even Gore agrees.

Gore tells Newsweek magazine in a pre-publication interview, that he has been adapting his fact-based message – now put out by hundreds of volunteers – to appeal to those who believe there is a moral or religious duty to protect the planet.

“I’ve done a Christian [-based] training program; I have a Muslim training program and a Jewish training program coming up, also a Hindu program coming up. I trained 200 Christian ministers and lay leaders here in Nashville in a version of the slide show that is filled with scriptural references. It’s probably my favourite version, but I don’t use it very often because it can come off as proselytising,” Gore tells Newsweek. (source – h/t Andrew Bolt)

Proselytising? Al Gore? Surely not.

%d bloggers like this: