Climate sense from The Australian

Which, let’s face it, is the only broadsheet in the country which demonstrates any kind of balance in the climate debate. The Fairfax press has already made up its mind on climate, suppresses any dissenting views, and spews one-sided alarmist propaganda on a daily basis. Two excellent opinion pieces and an editorial in The Australian today. Firstly, Bjorn Lomborg (the warmist/skeptic) warns against rapid action, which is precisely what Greg Combet advocated earlier in the week:

CLIMATE committees across the world are mistakenly putting the cart before the horse.

ADVOCATES of drastic cuts in carbon dioxide emissions now speak a lot less than they once did about climate change. Climate campaigners changed their approach after the collapse of the Copenhagen climate change summit last December, and the revelation of mistakes in the UN climate panel’s work, as well as in response to growing public scepticism and declining interest.

Although some activists still rely on scare tactics – witness the launch of an advertisement depicting the bombing of anybody who is hesitant to embrace carbon cuts – many activists now spend more time highlighting the “benefits” of their policy prescription. They no longer dwell on impending climate doom but on the economic windfall that will result from embracing the “green” economy. (source)

Then, Des Moore makes the blindingly obvious point that the science isn’t settled:

THE Royal Society’s report coincides with dissidence at the American Physical Society.

THE Royal Society’s September report, Climate Change: A Summary of the Science, has brought into the open the widening difference of views about how the science of climate change should be assessed. It comes after a prominent resignation from the American Physical Society (the top body of US physicists) for the refusal of the society’s executive to undertake a similar review despite requests from a large number of members.

In Australia, too, an examination of the Inter-Academy Council’s review of the processes and procedures of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concludes that, although the council’s chairman claims the IPCC’s findings stand, the review itself exposes serious flaws in the panel’s information and analysis. The examination by this group, which is a follow-up to its recent publication in the British journal Energy & Environment, is now being widely distributed in Australia.

All three assessments reflect the revelations provided by the exchanges between scientists actively involved in climate research – now known as Climategate – that some research results appear to have been falsified. These reports have spread widely in science circles in Australia. However, apart from The Australian, there has been almost no reference to these revelations in the Australian media. The Age, which had not bothered to cover the Royal Society’s report, was quick to report that the Royal Society’s vice-president John Pethica (who chaired the report committee) had rejected suggestions that the society had changed its position on climate change. (source)

And finally, an editorial savages The Age for its hopelessly compromised and biased reporting on climate:

ON a subject as important as our climate, reasoned, informed public debate is the key to finding the consensus that must underpin an effective policy response.

Interest groups that attempt to keep the public in the dark by suppressing alternative views have succeeded only in eroding the credibility of their own arguments.

So it is puzzling that a supposedly liberal broadsheet newspaper, The Age, not only failed to cover the Royal Society’s revision of its Guide to the Science of Climate Change but took a swipe at those who did. The story, which The Age ignored when it broke in this and major British newspapers on October 2, was significant because the Royal Society is regarded as the world’s most authoritative scientific body. It was clear from our report and commentary that the society was not dismissing climate change — far from it. The need for co-ordinated global action is no less pressing. But the Royal Society guide undercuts many of the exaggerated claims of looming ecological disaster, spun in order to scare the public into supporting various political positions. (source)

Read them all!

Guardian shock: A warmist is still, er … a warmist!

© Scientific American

Once a warmist...

Yah boo sucks – he’s now on our side! Ner ner! And who said the climate debate was childish? They are referring to Bjørn Lomborg of course, who the hysterics always claimed was a filthy denier and sceptic. He was never anything of the sort, of course. He was a solid believer in man-made climate change, he just disagreed with the methods proposed to combat it. But hey, it’s a great story, so let not the truth stand in the way of it. The Guardian cannot conceal its glee, as the Herald Sun reports:

AN ECONOMIST dubbed the world’s most prolific climate change sceptic [“dubbed”, yes, by the moonbat media as a convenient target, but he never was] has admitted global warming is the biggest threat to the world and called for a $US100 billion ($112 billion) fund to fight it.

Bjorn Lomborg previously accused scientists, campaigners and the media of exaggerating the rate of global warming and argued that resources should be spent on more immediate crises such as fighting malaria and Aids.

The Dane said a lot of money is being spent on climate change with very little being achieved. [Dead right there]

But in a new book to be published next month he calls for a $US100 billion fund to tackle the problem and admits climate change is “undoubtedly one of the chief concerns facing the world today“, The Guardian newspaper reported. (source)

Don’t anybody say this is just a distraction to deflect attention away from the recent damning report into the IPCC… oops, James Delingpole just did (a worthwhile read).

Lomborg: IPCC scaremongering is destroying its credibility

© Scientific American

Bjorn Lombord

Bjorn Lomborg writes in The Australian on the woes of the IPCC. Now remember, Lomborg is a believer in man-made global warming, but he has realised, unlike most of his fellow believers, that sweeping the IPCC’s errors under the carpet is precisely the wrong thing to do, if you are ever to regain public confidence:

Climate evangelism is an apt description of what the IPCC has been up to, for it has exaggerated some of the ramifications of climate change in order to make politicians take note. Murari Lal, the co-ordinating lead author of the section of the IPCC report that contained the Himalayan error, admitted he and his colleagues knew the dramatic glacier prediction was not based on any peer-reviewed science. Nonetheless, he explained, “we thought that if we can highlight it, it will [influence] policymakers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.”

The concrete action they had in mind was getting governments to mandate drastic cuts in carbon dioxide emissions.

Activists have been pursuing this approach to tackling global warming without success for nearly 20 years, most recently at December’s failed climate summit in Copenhagen. The problem is that it is too expensive a solution for politicians and the public to swallow easily, which is why many well-meaning climate scientists have apparently concluded that instead of relying on reasoned discussion, they might as well try to scare us witless.

Consider what the IPCC had to say about extreme weather events such as intense hurricanes. The cost of such events in terms of destroyed property and economic disruption has been rising steadily. Every peer-reviewed study has shown this is not because of rising temperatures but because more people live in harm’s way.

Read it here.

%d bloggers like this: