The inanity of the Left

Sometimes one is just staggered by the inanity of the Left, witness the outrage at Tony Abbott’s wink in a radio studio.

Click for full image

Click for full front page…

Switzer: Game up for carboncrats

Where's Brendan Nelson?

Alarmists ice bound, like Chris Turney

Given that this is in the Silly Moaning Herald, we can expect at least five articles over the next week, from the usual suspects, all rubbishing Tom Switzer’s piece and lashing him with predictable ad homs.

But at least the chai-latte-sipping, sandal-wearing, yoghurt-knitting, muesli-chomping, inner-city, urban-Green readers of the Silly will be exposed to a different point of view (for once) …

Contrary to media stereotypes, many so-called sceptics – such as Abbott, John Howard, Maurice Newman and this writer – recognised that the rise in carbon dioxide as a result of the burning of fossil fuels led to moderate warming.

But because we questioned the doomsday scenarios and radical, costly government-directed plans to decarbonise the economy, we were denounced as “deniers”.

Those days are over.

Thanks to Abbott’s forceful critique of Labor’s ETS/carbon tax, and the persistent failure of the carboncrats to reach legally binding global agreements, Australians have risen up against this madness.

At last, there is recognition not just that there are at least two sides to every story, but that when sophisticates seek to shut down debate, it amounts to an attack on the public interest.

That is why the anti-carbon zealots have become so defensive. The game is up.

The idea of climate mitigation – carbon taxes, cap and trade, channelling taxpayer subsidies to wind and solar power – destroyed the leaderships not only of Malcolm Turnbull in 2009 and Rudd in 2010, but also of Julia Gillard and Rudd (again) last year.

And although the Coalition’s approval ratings have declined since the election, polls also show that opposition to the carbon tax remains high.
Last year’s Lowy Institute survey said that only 40 per cent (down from nearly 70 per cent in 2006) think climate change is serious and requires action.

And yet, despite this changing (political) climate, Opposition leader Bill Shorten still opposes the repeal of the carbon tax.

If Labor’s divorce from the Greens is genuine, he should support the PM’s legislation, lest he meet the same fate as his fellow deniers [sic] and become a laughing stock.

Hilarious! The sub-ed’s brain, soaked with incessant green dogma, was so used to slagging off the sceptics that he subconsciously replaced “alarmists” with “deniers”. LOL, as they say.

Read it here.

Latest climate scare: whales

Yet another scare

Add them to the list… hang on, they’re there already. The Sydney Moonbat Herald is recycling climate scares now:

A record number of whales is expected to be spotted passing Sydney this winter, but scientists warn that global warming could put their future at risk.

The first big-picture review of the world’s oceans shows human activity is driving changes at a rate not seen for millions of years. Many species are threatened and increases in disease are predicted.

This could have dire consequences for hundreds of millions of people, a series of scientific reports concludes. Oscar Schofield, of Rutgers University in the US, said environmental change had been profound in the West Antarctic Peninsula and was altering the food chain on which whales in that region depended.

We can rely on our old friend Ove Hoegh-Guldberg to come up with an idiotic quote to get some column-inches (and more funding):

Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, of the University of Queensland, the co-author of another review, said the world’s oceans were the heart and lungs of the planet, but they were showing signs of ill health due to greenhouse gas emissions.

“It’s as if the Earth has been smoking two packs of cigarettes a day,” he said. “We are entering a period in which the very ocean services upon which humanity depends are undergoing massive change and, in some cases, beginning to fail.”

Yawn. Next.

Read it here (if you really must).

Flannel from Flannery: Rudd betrayed trust on ETS

More flannel than a pair of pyjamas

The environmental journos at the Sydney Morning Herald would print Tim Flannery’s farts if they could only work out how to spell them, such is the awe in which this rent-a-quote global warming advocate is held. Calling Flannery an “internationally renowned climate expert” is an insult to climate experts (and we know how highly regarded they are). But he’s a climate hysteric, so that’s good enough for the Moonbat Herald, which has already made up its mind on climate change and will print any old alarmist rubbish that flops limply on to the environment desk:

An internationally renowned climate expert has savaged Prime Minister Kevin Rudd for a “profound betrayal of trust” on climate change.

Tim Flannery, a former Australian of the Year [grovel, grovel, smarm, smarm], said he was unlikely to vote Labor again after Mr Rudd shelved plans for an emissions trading scheme.

“It’s a profound betrayal of the person I voted for,” Professor Flannery told AAP at a conference in Canberra.

“Politicians only have one thing that they trade in, which is trust … unfortunately my trust in the party’s been corroded.”

Like we care?

Prof Flannery is a scientist and author who is heavily involved in international efforts to tackle global warming. [Wikipedia says paleontologist and mammalogist, but hey, we only worry about qualifications when we’re talking about sceptics, right?]

As fresh data showed Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions are rising again after dipping during the financial crisis, Prof Flannery berated Australia for being a “wooden spooner” on climate change.

He accused both major parties of a failure of political leadership, but said the problem went deeper.

The political system was captive to big business and dominated by old men. [Please stop, my aching sides will surely split]

“They seem to have a fossilised mindset … not all the fossils are in the ground,” the 2007 Australian of the Year [again?] told a green business conference in Parliament House.

Sycophantic, nauseating tripe.

Don’t bother reading it here.

Climate change to increase weeds… no, wait…

Killer weeds killed off?

Way back in October 2008, ACM ran the following story:

Invasion of the killer weeds

“Scientists have warned that more government funding is needed to protect Australia against a climate-driven weed invasion.” (ACM, 17 October 2008, link)

But hang on, now it’s all change, because the Sydney Moonbat Herald reports that climate change will actually eradicate some weeds:

Climate change may have an upside in helping Australian scientists put the squeeze on some weed species.

A CSIRO report has found that hotter temperatures and reduced rainfall in South Australia could lead to changes in the type and number of weeds growing in areas across the state.

It said existing weed problems in northern districts may shift south and landholders may have to deal with species they haven’t encountered before.

But it also found that as the climate warms the geographic range of some weeds that prefer cooler conditions may be reduced.

“If we can prevent the replacement with other weeds we may be able to put the squeeze on some weeds, particularly the notoriously destructive weeds Bridal Creeper and Scotch Broom,” lead author Darren Kriticos said. (source)

More weeds, same weeds, fewer weeds, different weeds. Who cares? As long as we can write mind-numbing stories about “climate change” to keep our editors happy.

Richard Glover spouts climate nonsense

Tedious sceptic bashing (and not funny either)

I’ve waited a long time for this – an opportunity to sink my teeth into Richard Glover, another ABC lefty who presents the Drive programme on ABC local radio in Sydney. Unfortunately, living in Sydney I often have the misfortune to listen to Glover, and whilst most of his stuff is harmless enough, his comedy-based Thank god it’s Friday section from 5 – 6 every Friday is toe-curling in the extreme. The trouble with Glover is that he thinks he’s a natural comedian, but in reality, he’s about as funny as haemorrhoids, as will be evidenced shortly.

So it gives me enormous pleasure to relate that he’s also a climate alarmist, or at least someone completely unsympathetic to any sceptical viewpoint [What a surprise. Yet another ABC lefty who’s a climate alarmist to boot. Knock me down with a feather. Add them to the list – Ed], writing a tedious piece in the Sydney Moonbat Herald dissing sceptics, entitled The Lara Bingle of Climate Change. If you don’t immediately get the reference (I certainly didn’t), he’s referring to the IPCC’s Himalayan glaciers error, which, as he puts it, “gets more attention than it deserves”. Right.

Do climate-change sceptics have the same attitude to other pieces of expert advice? When their car develops a fault and the local mechanic says the brake pads are shot, do they seek a second opinion? And having been told by the second mechanic that, yes, the brake pads are shot, do they then trawl around town until on the 99th visit, they strike a mechanic who says “no, the brake pads are fine”? And then driving at high speed up the F3, do they entrust their lives to this last opinion?

No. Because it would be mental.

What happens when Maurice Newman, climate agnostic and ABC chairman, goes to the doctor? Does he storm from the office when they diagnose chickenpox and seek second, third and 99th opinions until he finds a doctor who will give him the all clear? And does he then decry the first 98 doctors as victims of “group-think”?

No. Because it would be mental.

This kind of reasoning is so childish as to be laughable. Because the science of climate is obviously completely equivalent to checking whether your brake pads are worn down, or whether you have spots and a temperature, isn’t it? And then having bowled us over with the power of his logic, the ad homs begin:

As a non-scientist, I cannot directly evaluate the evidence for anthropomorphic [can’t even get the word right – Ed] global warming; I cannot clamber up a glacier and take readings, just as, when I visit the doctor, I can’t check my own prostate (even though, according to some readers, I’ve spent a lifetime with my head stuck up there [and those, dear reader, are the only true words spoken in this entire article – Ed]).

I can, however, evaluate the debating techniques used by both sides. And here, the global-warming sceptics are very, very annoying.

I’m sorry, I can’t go on. As I’m writing this, I can feel the very will to live draining away, so if you really want to read it, go here. I’d rather spend my time doing something more pleasant, like have my wisdom teeth extracted without anaesthetic.

Sceptical letters in SMH? Whatever next!

The Sydney Morning Herald scored a bit of an own goal by publishing a letter from an alarmist citing a survey of climate change scientists, not foreseeing the inevitable:

In January Eos, arguably the most widely circulated earth science newsletter in the world, published a summary of a survey on global climate change.

Two questions were: ”When compared with pre-1980 levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen or remained relatively constant?” And: ”Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”

Those surveyed were 10,257 earth scientists listed in the directory of geoscience departments of the American Geological Institute, plus researchers at US federal facilities such as the US Geological Survey and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

The response rate was 30.7 per cent. More than 90 per cent of respondents had doctorates, in such fields as geochemistry (15.5 per cent), geophysics (12 per cent) and oceanography (10.5 per cent). About 5 per cent were climate scientists and 8.5 per cent indicated that more than half their peer-reviewed publications in the past five years had been on climate change. The survey included participants with well-known dissenting opinions on global warming theory.

Overall, 90 per cent of participants answered “risen” to question one, and 82 per cent answered ”yes” to question two. The proportion giving those answers rose with climate science expertise.

Brian Williams (source)

The next day, the SMH postbag was stuffed to the gills with responses:

[Read more…]

%d bloggers like this: