"Poor information" hampers climate science

4 April, 2011 by

We need more climate scientists!! (click to enlarge)

It’s that old communication thing again. Nothing to do with the quality of the science, Climategate, wildly inflated scare stories, hysterical environmental groups desperate to cash in, the UN crusade for world government. No, people are too dumb to take any notice of that, it’s just that we can’t get the message across (despite the fact that two of the major news organisations in Australia, ABC and Fairfax, uncritically plug the alarmist line every hour of the day, every day of the week, every day of the year).

A LACK of “credible information” is one of the main reasons that 40 per cent of Australians do not believe that humans have a role in global warming, according to the head of the federal government’s Climate Commission, Tim Flannery.

And the fact that many Australians found the topic irritating [ha, I wonder why, with people like Flannery banging on about it every minute of the day – Ed], according to a CSIRO survey, was hampering efforts to communicate the science of climate change and to implement effective policy, he said.

“No enduring reforms will happen in this space until we get the weight of public opinion behind them,” Professor Flannery told The Australian [translation: “until we have successfully brainwashed the public into not thinking for themselves” – Ed].

“Climate scientists need to be more widely heard in the public debate.” [Please, no, anything but that – Ed]

He was commenting on the results of the most comprehensive study yet of Australians’ attitudes to climate change.

…

Most of the 5000 respondents to the survey thought Earth was warming. About half believed that humans were mainly to blame. But just over 40 per cent put the crisis down to natural causes, 5.6 per cent denied that the climate was changing at all and 3.8 per cent were unsure. (source)

I think that we should hear more from Tim Flannery. That will have the desired effect… In any case, CSIRO has ceased to be an impartial scientific organisation, and is itself plugging the alarmist line:

THE CSIRO will today launch a book highlighting the key economic, environmental and social concerns of climate change in Australia. [Note “economic” and “social” concerns. Gone are the days when CSIRO advised on science. Now it’s advising on policy as well – Ed]

The publication, Climate Change: Science and Solutions for Australia, will also provided up-to-date information on international climate change science and potential responses. [and responses – Ed]

CSIRO Chief Executive Megan Clark will launch the book at the Greenhouse 2011 climate change conference in Cairns.

She said the book draws on the latest literature from thousands of researchers in Australia and internationally.

“It seeks to provide a bridge from the peer-reviewed scientific literature to a broader audience of society, while providing the depth of science that this complex issue demands and deserves,” Dr Clark said. (source)

More of that communication thing again. A quick scan of the document reveals that it is heavily based on the IPCC 2007 AR4, of course, and the key section (on feedbacks) states the following:

The net effect of all these processes is a set of feedbacks that have an overall reinforcing effect. A doubling in CO2 from pre-industrial levels (280 ppm) to around 550 ppm without feedbacks would result in a global warming of about 1˚C. Factoring in the effects of water vapour and other ‘fast’ feedbacks, however, means that a CO2 doubling will amplify the long-term average warming to about 3˚C. This important number, called the ‘fast climate sensitivity’, is somewhat uncertain and could vary between 2˚ and 4.5˚C according to IPCC estimates based on a range of climate models. (source – 14MB PDF, page 21)

So basically, despite the fact that there is plenty of research questioning it, they have swallowed the IPCC’s conclusion of high climate sensitivity and everything else follows from that. And you don’t need to read the book to work out that it won’t contain any credible challenge to the consensus. If it mentions sceptical views at all, it will be in the form of straw men, set up to be blown over and then ignored. I will eventually get around to reading the rest, but really, that’s all that matters.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: ,

Shock: Taxpayer-funded ad campaign for Julia's carbon lie?

8 March, 2011 by

PM raises the spectre of an even bigger kick in the public's teeth

The indoctrination isn’t working. We have to increase the dosage. The indoctrination isn’t working. We have to increase the dosage… Where’s Penny Wong when you need her? Unfortunately, the Australian public are too smart for your nonsensical climate policies, Julia and Greg, as evidenced by the disastrous poll slump earlier today.

But hey, like I said, it’s got nothing to do with the policy being a crock of s#!t, it’s just that we’re not getting the message across properly. So we’ll waste even more of your taxpayer dollars with a pointless and, almost certainly, deeply irritating, advertising campaign. Seriously, it just gets worse. From ABC’s PM programme:

ALEXANDRA KIRK: The Government isn’t ruling out a taxpayer-funded advertising campaign. Julia Gillard’s reinforced the message on 7.30:

JULIA GILLARD: On Government advertising – from time to time we advertise to get necessary information to people, so I’m not going to rule in or rule out government advertising in the future.

PRESENTER: But it’s possible?

ALEXANDRA KIRK: PM has been told there’s a $30 million pool of funds for advertising that was never spent because of the demise of Kevin Rudd’s carbon pollution reduction scheme.

But an ad campaign before any carbon tax legislation’s introduced into parliament would leave the Government open to a barrage of criticism.

Government MPs are worried by today’s poll showing Labor eight points behind the Coalition after preferences. And they’re worried by the prospect of months more campaigning from Tony Abbott before the Government reveals the rate of the carbon tax and compensation to households and businesses.

Martin O’Shannessy says it all boils down to one thing.

MARTIN O’SHANNESSY: It’s certainly played out as a broken election promise that has left Julia Gillard taking opposite positions either side of an election.

It’s more damaging for her because if you like the license to lead us into the tough place of doing something about climate change and make no mistake, I believe that people do want to do something about climate change judging by the polling we’ve done [really? – Ed] But the license to lead us into that place is a bit of a, to mix metaphors, a double-edged sword.

A lot of optimism in Kevin Rudd, which obviously was dashed through the late 2009 and 2010 with Copenhagen being talked down and the CPRS going onto the backburner and that played out very badly for Kevin Rudd, there were other things going but these obviously important things.

It appears that Julia Gillard has disappointed in the other direction on this and people are punishing her for it. It’s a very sensitive issue that if you like amplifies their reactions. (source)

Can you imagine the voter anger at a taxpayer funded campaign for a policy that was expressly ruled out before the election? It really doesn’t bear thinking about… actually, Julia, go ahead and do it. It would finish you and your government off good and proper.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: ,

Newspoll: Labor plummets

8 March, 2011 by

Disaster for Labor (Blue: Coalition/Abbott, Red: Labor/Gillard, Grey: uncommitted

In the first NewsPoll since the announcement of the carbon tax, Labor’s standing in the polls, and that of leader Julia Gillard, has dropped like a stone:

JULIA Gillard’s carbon tax plan has reversed public support for action on global warming, damaged her leadership and delivered Labor its lowest primary support on record.

Tony Abbott is now the closest he has been to Ms Gillard as preferred prime minister.

And, as satisfaction with the Prime Minister slumps just nine months after she agreed to challenge Kevin Rudd, she remains behind the Foreign Minister as the preferred Labor leader.

In just two weeks, Ms Gillard’s personal support has gone from its best since she became Prime Minister in June last year to her worst. It is now the same as Mr Rudd’s failing personal support when he began campaigning for the mining tax in May last year.

Since Ms Gillard announced her intention to introduce a carbon tax from July next year, overall positive public support for action on global warming, even if it meant rising prices for electricity and petrol, has turned negative. A majority of people, or 53 per cent, are now against Labor’s plan, with 42 per cent in favour.

According to the latest Newspoll survey, taken exclusively for The Australian last weekend, Labor’s primary vote crashed six percentage points to just 30 per cent, the lowest primary vote in Newspoll survey history. Previously, the lowest primary vote was 31 per cent, in 1993, when Paul Keating was prime minister and Australia was in recession.

The Coalition’s primary vote, after falling sharply two weeks ago because of internal divisions, bounced back to 45 per cent. This is the Coalition’s highest primary vote since March 2006, when John Howard was prime minister and nine months before Kim Beazley was replaced by Mr Rudd as opposition leader. (source)

The Australian people do not like being lied to. Whether you support action on climate or not, Gillards backflip, breaking her promise not to implement a carbon tax under “any government I lead”, has irked the electorate and could spell disaster for Labor. Dennis Shanahan:

JULIA Gillard’s decision to announce her plan for a carbon tax from July 1 next year could be the political game-changer for her leadership, the Labor government and, most importantly, the future of climate change action in Australia.

Every possible element to drive down the standing of the Prime Minister, her government and the climate change debate has combined in such a way that the political and social divisions in Australia that have been evolving for years have become palpable and public.

Labor has lost its licence to campaign on climate change, a hard-won goodwill it had towards fighting global warming and a preparedness of consumers to pay, which was the fundamental underpinning of any political campaign to sell a new tax and raise prices.

The extent to which all the fault lines within Labor become entrenched – between the stereotypical inner-city lefties and the suburban conservatives, between young and old and those prepared or able to pay the cost of trying to arrest global warming – will decide the government’s fate. (source)

And also worth a read is Tony Abbott’s comments on climate in Adelaide:

TONY Abbott has declared Julia Gillard wants to change Australia’s way of life by introducing a price on carbon that would make it harder for people to turn on their airconditioners or to drive their cars.

In a speech in Adelaide last night, the Opposition Leader said the carbon tax would be the “big issue” of the next election campaign, regardless of when it was held.

Seizing the opportunity to intensify his attack while the Prime Minister is on her trip to the US, Mr Abbott said: “If this is to be more than just a hit on people’s cost of living, it must utterly transform the way we live and how we work.”

Mr Abbott said, given people’s propensity to use their airconditioners and to drive their cars, “if a carbon tax is to reduce electricity use and car use it will have to raise the price of daily life very considerably indeed”. (source)

Interesting times.

UPDATE: Hilarious to see ABC and Fairfax try to avoid this completely, both leading with “Obama ♥ Gillard” stories… pass the sick bag. On second thoughts, shouldn’t it be Bob Brown visiting the US? He is the PM after all…

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: , , , ,

Poll: Most Australians want tough action on climate – really?

29 July, 2010 by

Centre for the Study of Choice, UTS

So says a report in the Sydney Morning Herald today:

MOST Australians want a more ambitious emissions trading scheme than the one abandoned by the Rudd government, whether or not the US and China take similar steps, according to the most detailed study of public attitudes yet undertaken.

…

The two-year emissions trading scheme study found the majority of the 7000 randomly selected people wanted to see carbon trading operating before 2012, even though it would be likely to lift some of the costs of living.

“The results clearly showed we do not want to wait for the Americans and the Chinese to act, which was a surprise,” Professor Jordan Louviere, director of the Centre for the Study of Choice at the University of Technology, Sydney, said. (source)

Sounds pretty compelling, doesn’t it? A little research and an email to Prof Louviere elicits more information about the study (see here for PDF). It was different from most surveys in that it required participants to choose between alternative emissions reductions scenarios, rather than answering Yes/No questions. All fine so far. In 2008/9 they developed 16 pairs of emissions scenarios, based on five key factors:

  • Start date (lower cost with earlier date): Labour/Greens – 2010; Coalition – 2012
  • What to do with revenues: redistribute (Labour); reduce taxes (Coalition)
  • Allocate 20% of revenue to R&D: Yes – Garnaut, universities, some interest groups; No – Mixed Labour, some interest groups
  • Exempt transport for 3 years: Labour/opposed by Greens
  • Concessions to energy intensive sectors: Which sectors (electricity, exporters, farmers); free permits – how many/how long

The following additional features were factored into the later parts of the study:

  • How fast to cut back to reduce 60% by 2050?
    • Should the 2050 goal be tightened?
  • Use “hybrid” permits with price caps in early years?
  • Role of efficiency/renewable standards
  • How much should Australian actions depend on other countries such as U.S./China?

All looks fairly reasonable up to a point. But what is the obvious flaw with all this? Clearly, it is the assumption that the requirement for an ETS is not up for question, and that implementing one will somehow be beneficial for the environment. The choice is only between different types of ETS, and, naturally, respondents are going to choose the one which they are informed will hurt them least. But there is another option which hurts the economy and their hip pocket even less than choosing between different types of emissions trading schemes, and that is to have no ETS or carbon tax at all. For as we all know, Australian emissions represent less than 1.5% of global emissions, and cutting them to zero overnight will make not the slightest bit of difference to the climate, whether globally or locally (even if we assume for the time being that the climate is sensitive enough to notice). But that option isn’t presented to them – there isn’t a “no ETS” route to take.

So the “choice” is a false choice, and not a realistic choice. The necessity for an ETS is assumed, and the public will clearly take the least worst option. But they will all damage the economy, and are utterly pointless from an environmental perspective. Give them the option of “no ETS with no discernible negative effect on the climate” and see what the results are.

For the Sydney Morning Herald to claim this as supporting an ETS is highly dubious. I will leave the last word to CenSoC, which reveals, at the end of the report, a motive behind the study:

We urge public policymakers to seriously consider the evidence from 7000+ Australians who took the time and put in the effort to evaluate many possible plans.

Sounds rather too much like environmental advocacy to me.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With:

Yet another whinging letter from climate scientists

7 May, 2010 by

Still an embarrassment

Climate scientists can sense they’re being found out. You can always tell, because they start writing bleating letters to journals banging their fists and saying “It’s not fair” like toddlers who don’t get their own way. And yes, another one appears today in the pages of Science. You can read the full text at the Guardian (of course) here. The opening paragraph sets the tone:

We are deeply disturbed by the recent escalation of political assaults on scientists in general and on climate scientists in particular. All citizens should understand some basic scientific facts. There is always some uncertainty associated with scientific conclusions; science never absolutely proves anything. When someone says that society should wait until scientists are absolutely certain before taking any action, it is the same as saying society should never take action. For a problem as potentially catastrophic as climate change, taking no action poses a dangerous risk for our planet. [and our wallets – Ed]

And our own chief scientist Penny Sackett can’t support it quickly enough. Sackett is a regular on these pages (see here and here) for her extreme views on climate change, and she still hasn’t learnt that being a scientist is all about free-thinking and impartial enquiry, not eco-Marxist environmental advocacy:

AUSTRALIA’S chief scientists Professor Penny Sackett has backed a group of eminent international scientists calling for urgent action on climate change.

Professor Sackett said governments everywhere needed to show more leadership on climate change action.

“Even if each one of us on the face of the earth stopped emitting greenhouse gases tomorrow, not another ounce into the atmosphere, the temperature would still rise,” she told ABC radio today.

“I would say that every delay makes it harder for ourselves in the future. I’d like us to also think about how much more difficult it makes it for the next generation.”

In their open letter published in the journal Science, the group of 250 scientists called for rationale [sic] debate and not to have discussion deflected by extreme views. (source)

Rational debate? Don’t make me laugh. And “extreme views” in this context means anything that challenges the pseudoscience of An Inconvenient Truth, I guess. And then there is the inevitable victim status plea for the sympathy vote. The letter reads:

“We also call for an end to McCarthy-like threats of criminal prosecution against our colleagues based on innuendo and guilt by association, the harassment of scientists by politicians seeking distractions to avoid taking action, and the outright lies being spread about them.”

You have to laugh, don’t you. So let’s get this straight: destroying emails is innuendo perhaps? Fudging data is innuendo maybe? If these guys were accountants or lawyers they would understand this concept better – because they would be in prison.

Just more evidence that the consensus scientists can see their cash cow being sent to market, and they are doing everything to keep their precious funds flowing in. Sorry guys, the public (who are far more intelligent than you have ever given them credit for) are not falling for it any more.

UPDATE: And a timely Galaxy opinion poll demonstrates that exact point:

Two out of three Australians are not convinced climate change is man-made, and even those who do believe it is aren’t prepared to pay much to fix it, a new poll shows.

A Galaxy Poll, commissioned by the conservative Institute of Public Affairs, found 35 per cent of respondents blamed humans for global warming.

Fully 26 per cent believed it was just part of a natural cycle, while 38 per cent remained uncertain. [Total 64% – Ed]

Thirty-five per cent said they would not be prepared to pay anything to generate cleaner energy and fight global warming.

Of those who believed climate change to be man-made, 27 per cent said they would be prepared to pay only $100 or less a year in increased tax and utility costs. (source)

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: , , ,

UK: belief in climate change plummets

25 February, 2010 by

© Guardian

All change

A poll in the UK Guardian shows that belief in man-made global warming is disappearing faster than a Himalayan glacier, thanks to Climategate and daily revelations of IPCC blunders:

Public conviction about the threat of climate change has declined sharply after months of questions over the science and growing disillusionment with government action, a leading British poll has found.

The proportion of adults who believe climate change is “definitely” a reality dropped by 30% over the last year, from 44% to 31%, in the latest survey by Ipsos Mori.

Overall around nine out of 10 people questioned still appear to accept some degree of global warming. But the steep drop in those without doubts will raise fears that it will be harder to persuade the public to support actions to curb the problem, particularly higher prices for energy and other goods.

The true level of doubt is also probably underestimated because the poll only questioned 16 to 64-year-olds. People over 65 are more likely to be sceptical, the researchers [Because they have been around long enough to recognise a tax-grabbing scam when they see one – Ed].

“It’s going to be a hard sell to make people make changes to their [people’s] behaviours unless there’s something else in it for them – [such as] energy efficiency measures saving money on fuel bills,” said Edward Langley, Ipsos Mori’s head of environment research. “It’s a hard sell to tell people not to fly off for weekends away if you’re not wholly convinced by the links. Even people who are [convinced] still do it.”

Read it here.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: ,

Voters deserting Rudd and the ETS

16 February, 2010 by

Climate "front and centre"

Kevin Rudd, in one of his rare comments on the subject, recently said that climate change would be “front and centre” at the next election. And that’s good news – for the Coalition, that is – since voters are deserting Labor and its ETS in droves:

VOTERS have been turning off Kevin Rudd’s emissions trading scheme at a faster rate than they have stopped believing in the existence of climate change.

Although Australians overwhelmingly believe climate change exists and it is at least partly a result of human activity, there has been a sharp rise in the percentage of people who do not believe in climate change.

The shift follows the collapse of the UN’s climate change conference in Copenhagen in December and widespread publicity of false claims in the UN’s 2007 climate change report.

In the week when the Rudd government made its latest attempt to pass an ETS through parliament, public opposition to the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme jumped.

The Prime Minister remains committed to the ETS as a central part of the government’s election strategy and continues to attack Coalition opposition to the CPRS.

According to the latest Newspoll survey, taken exclusively for The Australian last weekend, support for the CPRS fell from 67 per cent two months before the Copenhagen summit and before Tony Abbott became Opposition Leader, to 57 per cent.

In October 2008, support for the CPRS was at 72 per cent.

Since Copenhagen and the release of climate change scientists’ emails casting doubt on their research and false claims being exposed in the UN’s 2007 climate report, opposition to an ETS jumped from 22 to 34 per cent.

Whilst the rest of the world has moved on, Kevin Rudd and his government are stuck firmly in the past.

Read it here.

Also read Terry McCrann’s excellent article in the Herald Sun here.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: , ,

BBC: "More people are now doubters than firm believers."

6 February, 2010 by

At least in the UK, the media are beginning to cover the shonky science stories, and public opinion is reacting. As the BBC reports, public support for the alarmist cause is haemorrhaging fast:

The number of British people who are sceptical about climate change is rising, a poll for BBC News suggests.

The Populus poll of 1,001 adults found 25% did not think global warming was happening, a rise of 8% since a similar poll was conducted in November.

The percentage of respondents who said climate change was a reality had fallen from 83% in November to 75% this month.

And only 26% of those asked believed climate change was happening and “now established as largely man-made”.

The findings are based on interviews carried out on 3-4 February.

In November 2009, a similar poll by Populus – commissioned by the Times newspaper – showed that 41% agreed that climate change was happening and it was largely the result of human activities.

Dropping like a stone

“It is very unusual indeed to see such a dramatic shift in opinion in such a short period,” Populus managing director Michael Simmonds told BBC News.

“The British public are sceptical about man’s contribution to climate change – and becoming more so,” he added.

“More people are now doubters than firm believers.”

Whereas here in Australia, the ABC and Fairfax have been doing their very best to sweep it all under the carpet. Unfortunately, the carpet now has a massive bulge in the middle, which nobody can miss. Public opinion here will follow suit in due course, making Rudd and Wong’s blinkered, headlong charge towards an ETS even more ridiculous.

Read it here.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: ,

Dream start for Abbott

7 December, 2009 by

From The Australian

From The Australian

A series of headlines to cheer the spirit. Rather than the disaster the media had hoped for, Tony Abbott appears to be galvanising Liberal support.

There were dire predictions that the Liberals could lose the seat of Higgins to the Greens — Labor did not run a candidate in either by-election — and that there would be a big swing in Bradfield against the Liberals because of Mr Abbott’s opposition to the ETS.

After counting continued yesterday, it appeared the Liberals would get a small swing towards them in both seats [of Bradfield and Higgins] on a two-party-preferred basis and possibly a small swing against them on primary votes.

The Newspoll survey, conducted from Friday to Sunday, exclusively for The Australian, showed a rise of four percentage points in the Liberals’ primary vote, taking the Coalition’s support to 38 per cent compared with the government’s unchanged 43 per cent.

The government still has an overwhelming two-party-preferred vote of 56 to 44 per cent, but Mr Abbott has improved on Mr Turnbull’s last position as preferred prime minister and won strong endorsement among Liberal voters.

Support for Mr Rudd as preferred prime minister fell five percentage points last weekend from 65 to 60 per cent and Mr Abbott started on 23 per cent, a rise of nine points compared with Mr Turnbull’s 14 per cent the previous weekend.

Mr Abbott’s standing as preferred prime minister is better than all Mr Turnbull’s polling against Mr Rudd since the controversy over the then Liberal leader’s use of a fake email from then Treasury official Godwin Grech to attack the Prime Minister.

Read it here.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: , ,

ABC News Radio poll on ETS backfires

2 December, 2009 by

In all the acres of media coverage of the Coalition’s decision to dump the ETS, 99% of it meekly follows the government line: that the Australian people “want action on climate change” – despite the fact that the action in question, the ETS, will do nothing for climate [I am so sick of writing that – Ed]. The ABC is no different, having already smeared Tony Abbott in various articles, and having hardly reported ClimateGate at all.

So it is interesting that an ABC News Radio poll is currently showing nearly 55%, a sizeable majority, in favour of the Coalition blocking the ETS.

Oops, wrong result

Oops, wrong result

See the current results in the past poll list here.

UPDATE: The final result was 53.2% in favour of the Opposition’s rejection of the ETS, and 46.8% against

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