Australian Chief Scientist: 5 years to "save the world"

4 December, 2009 by

Embarrassment

Embarrassment

No alarmism or exaggeration there. Mark it in your diaries for the 4 December 2014, because in five years time, it will be too late, we may as well shut up shop, and all commit harakiri. But the most astonishing thing is that this isn’t from some sandwich-board-wearing religious nut, this is from our Chief Scientist.

THE planet has just five years to avoid disastrous global warming, says the Federal Government’s chief scientist.

Prof Penny Sackett yesterday urged all Australians to reduce their carbon footprint.

Australians – among the world’s biggest producers of carbon dioxide – were “better placed than others to do something about it“, she said.

“Australians can make an enormous contribution, so why would we not rise to this challenge and this opportunity,” she told a business conference in Melbourne.

Really, it’s just embarrassing.

Read it here.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: ,

Shock: ABC mentions "Climategate"

3 December, 2009 by

Climate alarmism 24/7

Climate alarmism 24/7

But then plays it down, quotes Pachauri, yawn yawn. Nothing to see here…

Phil Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, will step aside “until the completion of an independent review,” the university said in a statement.

“It is an important step to ensure that CRU can continue to operate normally,” university vice-chancellor Professor Edward Acton said.

Dubbing the affair “Climategate”, some climate change sceptics have seized upon the emails, some of them written 13 years ago, and accused scientists at CRU of colluding to suppress data which might have undermined their arguments.

Sceptics have pointed to phrases in the emails in which climate scientists talk of using a “trick” to “hide the decline” in temperatures as evidence that they adjusted data to fit their theories. CRU denies any manipulation.

The head of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate (IPCC) Change, Rajendra Pachauri, said last week that the leaks do not affect findings in 2007 that it was more than 90 per cent certain that human activities were causing climate change.

“This private communication in no way damages the credibility of the … findings,” he said, saying that all conclusions were subjected to rigorous review.

Nah, course it doesn’t mate. Destroying data is just standard procedure, I guess?

Pachauri the Denier.

Read it here.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: , , ,

Climate madness from "Lord" Stern

3 December, 2009 by

Stern: Bonkers

Stern: Bonkers

Just to remind us all that the defeat of the ETS will not stop the bandwagon of global warming alarmism, Lord Stern (he of the woefully flawed Stern Report of 2006 – read pages 24 – 29 Lawrence Solomon’s The Deniers for the full story of just how woeful it is) has weighed in with yet more hysterics:

The Copenhagen summit is the world’s last chance to save the planet from “catastrophic” global warming, according to a major study led by Lord Stern of Brentford, the country’s leading authority on climate change.

Without an international agreement to limit global warming, temperatures are likely to rise by 9F (5C) by the end of the century – triggering mass migration, warfare and world hunger, according to the report.

Stern’s an economist. If he’s the UK’s leading authority on climate, heaven help the UK. And clearly there’s no vested interest, because he has no interest in any climate change organisation… no, wait:

Lord Stern, who is now chairman of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change, said world leaders at Copenhagen must agree to cut emissions while also providing a “global” fund to help poor countries of at least £30 billion per annum by 2015 and rising to £120 billion during the 2020s. (source)

Must keep the bandwagon rolling, to keep the paycheques rolling in. And if that wasn’t enough, Stern then goes on to produce a detailed and cogent rebuttal of climate change sceptic arguments… well, guess what, no he doesn’t – he calls them “muddled” instead (‘cos that’s a bit easier):

“This is evidence that is overwhelming, from all sources, that’s the kind of climate science we’re talking about,” he said.

“I think it is very important that those with any kind of views on the science or economics have their say – that does not mean that unscientific muddle also has the right to be recognised as searing insight.”

He added: “If they are muddled and confused, they do not have the right to be described as anything other than muddled and confused.” (source)

I’m literally blown away by the power of that argument from the UK’s “leading climate authority on climate change”. I’m sure you are too.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: , , ,

BBC was sent CRU emails over a month ago

30 November, 2009 by

Climate bias

But because the BBC is the “Biased Broadcasting Corporation” and has already made up its mind on climate change (it’s all our fault), for some strange reason it didn’t think the content of the CRU emails was newsworthy enough to broadcast!

A BBC weatherman has admitted he was sent the controversial emails about how to “spin” climate data – more than a month before they were made public.

It has raised questions about why the BBC did not report on the matter sooner, and will reignite the debate over whether the Corporation is “biased” on the issue of climate change. [It is. Next question – Ed]

Thousands of emails and documents allegedly stolen from the University of East Anglia (UEA) and posted online indicate that researchers massaged figures to mask the fact that world temperatures have been declining in recent years.

The emails sent between world’s leading scientists apparently show researchers discussing how to ‘spin’ climate data and how that information should be presented to the media.

Paul Hudson, weather presenter and climate change expert, has disclosed he was sent the leaked emails, a month ago, and claims the documents are a direct result of an article he wrote.

In his BBC blog written last week , he said: “I was forwarded the chain of emails on the 12th October, which are comments from some of the world’s leading climate scientists written as a direct result of my article “Whatever Happened To Global Warming”.

“The emails released on the Internet as a result of CRU being hacked into are identical to the ones I was forwarded and read at the time and so, as far as I can see, they are authentic,” he added.

The BBC has previously accused of failing to cover the climate change debate objectively. Earlier this year, Peter Sisson, the veteran newsreader, claimed it is now “effectively BBC policy” to stifle critics of the consensus view on global warming.

He said: “The Corporation’s most famous interrogators invariably begin by accepting that “the science is settled”, when there are countless reputable scientists and climatologists producing work that says it isn’t.

“But it is effectively BBC policy… that those views should not be heard.”

Goebbels really would have been proud.

Read it here.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: , , ,

Roy Spencer: Top 10 Annoyances in the climate debate

29 November, 2009 by

Waynes World...Waynes World....climate change...excellent!

Waynes World...Waynes World....climate change...excellent! Thanks to WUWT.

With all the ETS shenanigans going on, one tends to forget about the debate on climate science itself, and the flimsiness of foundations on which all global warming alarmism is based. Dr Roy Spencer lists his ten top annoyances, and Kevin and Penny would do well to read these, as they blindly believe anything the IPCC says:

Well, maybe not my top 10…but the first ten that I thought of.

  1. The term “climate change” itself. Thirty years ago, the term “climate change” would have meant natural climate change, which is what climate scientists mostly studied before that time. Today, it has come to mean human-caused climate change. The public, and especially the media, now think that “climate change” implies WE are responsible for it. Mother Nature, not Al Gore, invented real climate change.
  2. “Climate change denier”. A first cousin to the first annoyance. Again, thirty years ago, “climate change denier” would have meant someone who denied that the Medieval Warm Period ever happened. Or that the Little Ice Age ever happened. What a kook fringe thing to believe that would have been! And now, those of us who still believe in natural climate change are called “climate change deniers”?? ARGHH.
  3. The appeal to peer-reviewed and published research. I could go on about this for pages. Yes, it is important to have scientific research peer-reviewed and published. But as the Climategate e-mails have now exposed (and what many scientists already knew), we skeptics of human-caused climate change have “peers” out there who have taken it upon themselves to block our research from being published whenever possible. We know there are editors of scientific journals who assist in this by sending our papers to these gatekeepers for the purpose of killing the paper. We try not to complain too much when it happens because it is difficult to prove motivation. I believe the day is approaching when it will be time to make public the evidence of biased peer review. [Read more…]
Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: ,

As ClimateGate rages, the ABC shuts its eyes and ears

23 November, 2009 by

Climate alarmism 24/7

Climate alarmism 24/7

Whilst the global media is picking up on the story by the hour, our national broadcaster, the Australian Alarmist Broadcasting Corporation, is still holding out on ClimateGate, refusing steadfastly to publish anything on the story at all!

Why is this? Simple. The ABC made up its mind on climate change years ago (if you doubt that, just take a look here), and whenever something comes along that challenges that mindset, it does the childish “la-la-la-fingers-in-ears-I’m-not-listening” routine. They are however very happy to run these recent stories, however:

And of course, the diabolical Countdown to Copenhagen blog of Margot Moonbat O’Neill.

It would be funny if it weren’t such appalling behaviour for a national broadcaster. Just like the CRU lot censored inconvenient climate data, the ABC censors inconvenient climate news.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: , ,

Today's alarmism

23 November, 2009 by

Still there?

Still there?

The editors of some news outlets still haven’t read the CRU Files, so don’t yet realise that alarmists massage data to fit their pre-conceived catastrophist agenda, and (bless) still believe every press release they read:

“Crumbling icesheets could add 5m to sea levels”

THE East Antarctic icesheet, once seen as largely unaffected by global warming, has lost billions of tonnes of ice since 2006 and could boost sea levels in the future, according to a new study.

Published yesterday in Nature Geoscience, the same study shows that the smaller but less stable West Antarctic icesheet is also shedding significant mass.

Scientists worry that rising global temperatures could trigger a rapid disintegration of West Antarctica, which holds enough frozen water to push up the global ocean watermark by about five metres.

In 2007 the UN Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) predicted sea levels would rise 18 to 59cm by 2100, but this estimate did not factor in the potential impact of crumbling icesheets in Greenland and Antarctica. (source)

Sorry, your credibility is shot to pieces. We trust you even less than we did before last Friday…

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: , ,

Wong and Rudd's "heat wave" deception

23 November, 2009 by

rudd_wong

Krudd and Wrong

From the Weather Isn’t Climate Department: As if we need more proof that Kevin Rudd and Penny Wong are on a religious crusade on climate change rather than anything based on science, they blurt out unfounded links between the heatwave in New South Wales and “global warming”:

Sydney’s average maximum temperature was a little more than 40C yesterday, making it the city’s hottest November day in 27 years [which means it was hotter 27 years ago, before this global warming hoax even got going – Ed], while crews in Melbourne were still mopping up last night after a devastating storm lashed the Victorian capital.

“We’ve seen increased numbers of storms, we’ve seen much less rain, particularly in southeastern Australia we’ve seen hotter and drier temperatures and conditions,” Senator Wong said yesterday.

“All of these are consistent with the trends that climate scientists are talking to us about and just underlined to us why Australia is so vulnerable to climate change.”

Kevin Rudd linked the weekend’s weather extremes to the ETS debate.

“Everyone in Australia thinking about this, this weekend, would work it out that we are among the hottest and driest continents on Earth,” the Prime Minister said.

“We will feel the effects of climate change fastest and hardest, and therefore we must act this week, and the government will be doing everything possible to make sure that that can occur.”

That’s the great thing about the “global warming” – if you are shallow enough, as Rudd and Wong most certainly are, you can blame anything on it. In reality, there is no evidence whatsoever that anything quoted above has anything to do with climate change. We’ve had worse droughts, worse heatwaves, worse rain storms. But hey, who cares about the truth anyway? It’s all about getting our ETS through at any cost.

Read it here.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: , , ,

Another day, another hysterical prediction

20 November, 2009 by

Unbelievable hype

Unbelievable hype

As we always knew, the stories are getting even more hysterical as we get closer to Copenhagen, and this is no exception, where the journalists clearly get a kick out of writing this sort of stuff, even producing a scary graphic (see right) :

THE world is spinning toward a catastrophic climate change scenario with temperatures now far more likely to rise by 6C by the end of the century, a leading international team of scientists warned.

An increase of 6C would have irreversible consequences, rendering large parts of the globe uninhabitable and destroying much of life on Earth.

The study by Professor Corinne Le Quere of the British Antarctic Survey and East Anglia University is the most comprehensive so far of how economic changes and shifts in the way people have used land over the past 50 years have affected CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.

It also claims the Earth’s natural ability to absorb CO2 into soil, forests and oceans is declining.

The nightmarish possibility of a 6C temperature rise was made public by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2007, when it was then only a worst-case scenario.

And then the inevitable:

Professor Le Quere said next month’s UN climate conference in Copenhagen had to come out with a clear and decisive global policy.

“If the agreement is weak or the commitments not respected, it is not 2.5C or 3C we will get, it’s 5C or 6C, that is the path we’re on,” she said.

If scientists really believe that publishing such alarmism will make people believe what they are saying, they are sorely mistaken. It’s far more likely to do the opposite.

Read it here.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: ,

UK: Met Office madness – temperatures may rise 10˚C in Northern Europe!

17 November, 2009 by

end_nigh

The next logical step…

They must be putting something in the water down in Exeter, Devon, where the UK Met Office is located, as scare stories are flying out of there by the dozen. The latest contains all the usual apocalyptic ingredients, as reported lovingly and unquestioningly in The Telegraph:

Heatwaves that kill thousands, tropical-style storms and widespread flooding could be regular features of Britain’s climate within a generation if global warming is not checked, according to the Met Office.

The forecast is part of the most comprehensive study into the impacts of climate change ever conducted. It shows the effects of global warming on Europe over the next 50 years and beyond. Unless pollution [?] from greenhouse gases is reduced, temperatures could rise by an average of 7.2F (4C) across the continent, transforming the landscape, agriculture and industries, it found.

In some parts of the far north of Europe, temperatures could rise by up to 18F (10C), melting the permafrost and wiping out endangered animals and bird species.

Southern Europe would become unbearable in the summer, destroying the tourism industry and making it impossible to grow staple crops like durum wheat for pasta in Italy and fruit and vegetables in Spain.

In Britain, floods and extreme storms would become more frequent, pushing up insurance premiums on homes and buildings.

In the summer, temperatures could reach 104F (40C) in London, causing heatwaves like the one in 2003 that killed an estimated 2,000 people.

More flawed models producing more flawed projections. We always knew the hysteria would get worse as the global warming bandwagon derailed, but this is verging on the ridiculous. Next week the Met Office are sending some poor bloke down to London to walk around with a sandwich board saying “The end of the world is nigh.”

Beyond parody.

Read it here.

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