Whenever someone asserts that a scientific question is “settled,” they tell me immediately that they don’t understand the first thing about science. Science is never settled. Dr David Deming
Perhaps the most frustrating aspect of the science of climate change is the lack of any real substance in attempts to justify the hypothesis ~Professor Stewart Franks
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at: http://thepeoplescube.com/lenin/lenin-s-own-20-monster-quotes-t185.html#sthash.aTrSI3tG.dpuf
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at: http://thepeoplescube.com/lenin/lenin-s-own-20-monster-quotes-t185.html#sthash.aTrSI3tG.dpuf
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at: http://thepeoplescube.com/lenin/lenin-s-own-20-monster-quotes-t185.html#sthash.aTrSI3tG.dpuf
Friday, 30 September 2011
"What this (finding) means is that plants are working faster than we thought they did," said Colin Allison, an atmospheric chemist and one of the study's authors, told Reuters from Australia. "Our analysis suggests that current estimates of global primary production are too low and the refinements we propose represent a new benchmark for models to simulate carbon cycling through plants, " Dr. Allison said.
The study was published on Thursday in the journal Nature.
Plants form a major part of the global carbon cycle in which carbon is continuously recycled and reused by plants and animals, the oceans and land. Carbon pollution from burning fossil fuels and burning forests adds to the CO2 in the air, disrupting the balance that keeps the planet warm. The team's finding suggests plants absorb 16 to 19 times mankind's total CO2 emissions, underscoring the powerful role they can play in regulating the climate.
Welp-Smith and Allison said it was too early to say how the new finding would affect climate change projections, in which supercomputer programs model how the climate will change.
"If we are right, and GPP needs to be revised upward by about 25 percent, it means that our fundamental understanding of how land plants function on the global scale is still a bit fluid," Welp-Smith told Reuters in an email, referring to gross primary production, a measure of photosynthesis.
But she cautioned that it doesn't mean more carbon is being locked away by plants. "It means more CO2 is passing through plants, not that it actually stays there very long."
Allison, of Australia's Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization in Melbourne, said the study gives a better estimate of what's really happening in the atmosphere.
The team made the finding by tracing the path of oxygen atoms in CO2 molecules, and Dr. Allison said the current global gross primary production estimates of 120 billion tonnes of carbon a year should be revised to between 150 and 175 billion tonnes of carbon a year.
Looks like the IPCC needs to do some revisions.
See also The Earth is happily gobbling more CO2.
This is the same Greg Combet that TCS blog wrote about before in the post (Sung to the tune of Da do Ron Ron) You're so wrong, wrong, Greg.
It looks like he hasn't improved! It looks like he is still wrong, wrong.
First of all, Greg praises John Button:-
But Button knew that working Australians were better served by embracing economic change, rather than pretending it could be avoided. He knew Labor values of fairness and justice were best advanced by building economic strength and resilience, not through economic atrophy.
He tries to use this to justify the Carbon tax. To his credit he does call it a tax but is still pushing the lie that the tax is on carbon - that vaguely dirty sooty substance when the tax is actually on vital-to-life, essential, invisible trace gas, carbon dioxide. He then pulls out the next lie - carbon pollution.
The government considered two key questions when it designed the Clean Energy Future plan: can the policy deliver the reductions in pollution we need and will it do this in the cheapest and most equitable way? The first question is crucial for the credibility of any climate change policy. The carbon price mechanism is an emissions trading scheme designed to cut emissions by at least 160 million tonnes in the year 2020, and continue to cut emissions each year to achieve an 80 per cent reduction over year 2000 levels by 2050. This represents Australia's fair share of the global effort to reduce emissions.
Greg's two key question.
1: Can the policy deliver the reductions in pollution? If, (and it's a big if) the policy is designed to reduce carbon dioxide, it won't be delivering a reduction in pollution. If however, the policy is designed to carry out the socialist policy of redistributing income, it won't help Australia's economy.
2: Will it do this in the cheapest and most equitable way? Is it equitable to penalise your own country against your trading partners? No. Will it be the cheapest way? The cheapest way to what? To unnecessarily penalise your own country? No.
The second question is essential for maintaining a strong economy and minimising the cost of adjustment for households and businesses.How is it then, Mr Combet, that Ross Garnaut - one of the architect's of the scheme, a few days ago said that the government's proposal involves "reasonable economic costs". Is it essential for maintaining a strong economy or will there be costs to the economy?
Former Treasury executive Des Moore puts it this way:
CLIMATE Change Minister Greg Combet claims that reducing emissions intensity is necessary for environmental and economic reasons ("Carbon tax is in the best Labor tradition of reform", 30/9).
His comparison with the reductions in protection effected in the 1980s is, however, a false one.
Those reductions improved economic growth because they shifted resources into more efficient areas of the economy. By contrast, the government's climate change policy will reduce efficiency and economic growth. This is acknowledged by Treasury and by the ACTU.
As the penalties to business eventuate, we will see jobs disappear as businesses restructure, or fold or some move overseas.
As with the reforms of the 1980s, present-day economic reform must be undertaken in the national interest, to ensure we remain competitive in a global economy.
That's right, Mr Combet. We MUST ensure "we remain competitive in a global economy." Penalising Australians is not a way to remain competitive. Remember John Button and "Labor values of fairness and justice."
promotes the warmists' scare
Thursday, 29 September 2011
From Carbon Tax Coalition - A coalition of:
- The Climate Sceptics,
- Galileo Movement,
- Menzies House,
- Stop Gillard's Carbon Tax,
- Carbon Sense Coalition,
- Climate Realists of Dock Five,
- Australian Tea Party,
- Consumers and Taxpayers Association
Community groups against the Gillard-Brown carbon dioxide tax are uniting. We have had a gutfull of political deceptions. Our members are angry and determined.
Many serious misrepresentations, manipulations and lies driving climate policies have recently been exposed.
We demand an end to parliament turning a blind eye to these corruptions and to return to some integrity. In fact, a proper parliament would defer a carbon tax until the deceptions (Exposed and compiled on The Galileo Movement`s web site) have been investigated.
We are deeply concerned with the destruction of governance in the national interest and the growing irrelevance of parliament buried by the 24-hour media spin cycle. Blind, party loyalty is killing accountability of members to their electorates. Even independents are abandoning their electorates interests, while the Greens consistently disregard the interests of the majority of Australians altogether.
As a consequence Australia's sovereignty continues to be eroded. We instead demand loyalty and accountability to our country`s interests.
The economic crisis threatening Europe and America demands economic responsibility. Any desire to tax carbon dioxide should at the very least be deferred until an inquiry is concluded, the economy recovers and there is demonstrated international support.
We require economic responsibility and security. These qualities are sadly missing from the majority of our current parliament.
For more details of the lies and manipulations of the climate policies processes - contact
- Malcolm Roberts (Galileo Movement ) ph 0419642379
- Leon Ashby (The Climate Sceptics) ph 0435423636
- Viv Forbes (Carbon Sense Coalition)
- Tim Andrews (Menzies House)
- Andy Semple (Stop Gillard's Carbon Tax)
- David Goodridge (Australian Tea Party)
- Jim Simpson (Climate Realists of Dock Five)
- Jacques Laxales (Consumers And Taxpayers Association)
See also Previous announcement of Joint Carbon Tax Coalition announcement - HERE
Carbon Sense Coalition's submission on the carbon tax bills - HERE
Cross-Posted at Stop Gillard's Carbon Tax - HERE
Wednesday, 28 September 2011
Be that as it may, I never thought that I would find unions saying:
What do we want? less money!
When do we want it? Now!
Surprisingly, we find that is what is happening. I am not sure if the unions realise that, if Australian businesses are penalised by a repressive carbon dioxide tax, some businesses will move off-shore, some will struggle, some will fold and some will give up and close down. Jobs will disappear and the Centre-link queues will grow. (Probably the only growth area in the Australian economy!))
As the Sydney Morning Herald reports:
Putting a price on carbon will slow workers' income growth, but the ACTU believes the short term pain will be worth it once the Australian economy adapts to the federal government's measures to tackle climate change.The article goes on to quote the ACTU's legal work co-ordinator (Is that like the job that PM Gillard did for the AWU?) Joel Fetter.
"We will clearly have lower income than the income we could generate if we continued to burn dirty coal and we continued with business as usual."
Yang, X., Hou, Y. and Chen, B. 2011. Observed surface warming induced by urbanization in east China. Journal of Geophysical Research 116: 10.1029/2010JD015452.
What was learned
The three researchers say their findings indicate that "rapid urbanization has a significant influence on surface warming over east China," noting that "overall, UHI effects contribute 24.2% to regional average warming trends," and that "the strongest effect of urbanization on annual mean surface air temperature trends occurs over the metropolis and large city stations, with corresponding contributions of about 44% and 35% to total warming, respectively," with UHI trends of 0.398°C and 0.26°C per decade. And they say that due to other considerations, the UHI warming trends and their contributions to the overall warming over east China provided in their paper "can still be regarded as conservative."
What it means
The Chinese scientists conclude that if such UHI trends continue, "certain metropolitan areas may experience a rate of warming well beyond the range projected by the global climate change scenarios of the IPCC," referencing Stone (2007), while adding that "the increasing divergence between urban and rural surface temperature trends highlights the limitations of the response policy to climate change [that] focus only on greenhouse gas reduction," citing Stone (2009). And, of course, their findings call into serious question some of the basic conclusions of the IPPC, such as the organization's claim that UHI effects "have a negligible influence on global warming trends."
Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. recently submitted this paper to Geophysical Research Letters (GRL):From Roger's own blog:
A homogeneous database of global landfalling tropical cyclonesJessica Weinkle* and Roger Pielke, Jr.
Center for Science and Technology Policy Research, University of Colorado, 1333 Grandview Ave, Campus Box 488, Boulder, Colorado 80309
So imagine that you are an editor at Geophysical Research Letters, a middle tier scientific journal. Let us further suppose that you receive a very straightforward analysis of trends in tropical cyclone landfalls around the world which finds no upwards trends. As editor you decide to send the paper our for peer review and you get the following responses from two reviewers, both of whom find the paper publishable (emphases added):
Seems straightforward enough. It came back with two reviews, both with some corrections, one reviewer suggesting publication without major caveats, the other grudgingly suggesting publication to the editor, Noah Diffenbaugh, and asking for revisions. So far so good (you’d think). But it starts getting weird from here. Pielke Jr. asks this set of questions:
As the editor what would you do?A) Provisionally accept the paper pending a revision that meets the editor’s judgment of responsiveness
B) Provisionally accept the paper pending re-review by the two reviewers
C) Reject the paper
D) Reject the paper and tell the authors that any reconsideration of the paper would have to be accompanied by a detailed response to the two reviewers followed by selection of new reviewers and a restart of the review processIf you picked (D) then you too can be an editor at GRL.
The editor of this blog would have failed as the Editor of Geophysical Research Letters.
And the alarmists say that realists do not get published? Look at the disgrace following Spencer and Braswell and now this.
TEA PARTY GOP Candidate Herman Cain Calls Man Made Global Warming a Joke
Tuesday, 27 September 2011
Researchers from Canada, USA, Mexico and Britain this week announce a startling discovery that destroys 20 years’ of thinking among government climatologists.Mikron is a leading manufacturer of infrared thermometers (IRTs). Mikron confirms that the IRTs "are deliberately set to AVOID registering any feedback from greenhouse gases."
Climate scientists had long believed infrared thermometers measured thermal radiation from the atmosphere and assumed it was ‘proof’ of the greenhouse gas effect (GHE). Their assumption was that infrared thermometers (IRT’s) were measuring ‘back radiated’ heat from greenhouse gases (including water vapor and carbon dioxide). But damning new evidence proves IRT’s do no such thing.
Thus climate scientists were measuring everything but the energy emitted by carbon dioxide and water vapor.Read More HERE and HERE
One of the researchers involved, Alan Siddons, has analyzed the GHE for over six years. He has long condemned the practice of using IRT’s as a means of substantiating the increasingly discredited hypothesis.
(H/t our own Jim Hawes)
Using grains of rice, the presenter shows what a miniscule amount of man made carbon dioxide emissions are in the atmosphere. See also the Galileo Movement's video presentation titled (on this blog) Hair's Breadth of CO2.
|Misleading Photo from AFP accompanying SMH story|
Well, perhaps it wasn't that hot off the press. The Climate Sceptics blog reported this item almost two weeks ago on 15th September -
Monday, 26 September 2011
Presented to the committee on 22 September 2011 and slightly expanded and edited on 25th September, 2011
A print-ready copy of this issue of "Carbon Sense" can be downloaded from:
Please Pass this On. We need your help in publicising our views as the government will probably only publish submissions from those supporting their carbon tax.
Joint Selection Committee on Australia’s Clean Energy Future Legislation
CANBERRA ACT 2600
RE: CARBON TAX LEGISLATION INQUIRY – PUBLIC SUBMISSION
This submission is made on behalf of the Carbon Sense Coalition, which is a voluntary Australian organization which opposes real pollution and also opposes the unjustified demonization of carbon minerals and energy.
We see no justification for imposing a tax on Australia's minute additions of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is a harmless and beneficial atmospheric natural gas comprising less than a tiny 0.04% of the atmosphere. There is no credible evidence that human production of it controls world climate. Nor is it a pollutant.
We are totally opposed to the imposition of a carbon tax because there is no scientific, climate or environmental justification for these bills.
We are also concerned at the impossibly short time allowed for the Australian public and opposition to examine these bills.
We object to the underhand and undemocratic way in which the government is trying to ensure a future government cannot repeal these bills, even when it soon becomes obvious that they are unnecessary, are not being followed by other countries, are destroying Australian jobs, industry and prosperity, and have no effect on climate. It offends the Precautionary Principle so beloved by the alarmist community that a temporary government should try to close off the means to escape when these bills prove to be a ghastly mistake. Australia is already lagging badly in realization that carbon dioxide does not control climate.
There is no credible cost benefit analysis of these proposals. In particular there is no demonstration that Australia's electricity could ever be supplied entirely by alternative energy such as wind and solar. No other country in the world has achieved this – what makes us think we can weave energy miracles?
The bills (if pursued at all) should include appropriate procedures for efficiently dismantling the tax and regulatory regimes proposed without undue financial penalty when they fail to achieve their stated objectives. Or there should be a Sunset Clause should global cooling become obvious.
This package of proposals is so significant and so divisive that it should not be introduced now, but should be the subject of a referendum or a new election.
The brief points below outline our main objections to the package. We can provide supporting documents or evidence for any of these points.
resisted, rejected and, if needs be,
- There is no evidence that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere controls the climate. However there is strong evidence that global temperature controls the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere via the absorption or emission of this soluble gas from the vast oceans.
- There is no evidence that the current gentle warm era is unusual or harmful. There have been warmer periods in the past and all have encouraged a profusion of animal and plant life.
- In the broad sweep of natural climate change it is clear that life on earth has far more to fear from global cooling than from global warming. It is the ice ages that cause massive extinctions. In the long history of life on earth, global warming has never been a threat to the biosphere.
- There is significant evidence that solar cycles have a notable effect on global temperature and rainfall. The sun, the clouds, the oceans, volcanic dust and the winds create our climate with its cycles, seasons, tides, unpredictable variations and occasional extremes. Carbon dioxide exists as a tiny trace of invisible gas in the atmosphere (1 part of CO2 per 2,500 parts of other gases). It exerts a steady, moderating, but very tiny influence on global temperatures.
- The effect of a carbon tax on carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will not be measurable. The effect of a carbon tax on the sun, clouds, oceans, volcanoes and winds will be zero. Therefore a carbon tax will have no measurable effect on global climate, even if every country in the world introduced it.
- Many of the climate scares, such as loss of corals and rising sea levels, are inventions or exaggerations. Corals have survived for millions of years, have adapted to rising and falling sea levels, and have moved north and south as earth's temperatures changed. Sea levels have been rising slowly for thousands of years, long before steam engines were invented, and current changes are very gentle and not unusual. In fact recent credible studies show sea levels are gently falling.
- It is nonsense to call carbon dioxide a pollutant. It is better called "The Gas of Life" as it provides the major source of food for all plant life which in turn supports all animal life. Current levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are lower than they have been many times in the past and significantly lower than is optimal for all life.
- Every molecule of carbon dioxide released by burning coal today was once part of the atmosphere at a time of prolific growth of the huge forests that formed the coal in the first place, millions of years ago. Burning the coal just recycles the natural carbon and other minerals back to the biosphere where the next generation of plants can use them. Coal is as natural and "green" as the forests from which it came.
- Mankind does clearly affect his environment with land clearing, cultivation, irrigation, sewerage, garbage, roads, railways, dams and his massive cities of bitumen, concrete, sky scrapers, schools, hospitals, houses and heat generating machines and appliances. The heat from the activities of people and their machines does cause minor but measurable urban heating. Man (and woman) also creates real pollution with smoke, dust and chemical gases, and pollutes waterways and landfill with various waste products. All sensible people want to see a reduction in this real pollution, but carbon dioxide plays no part in it, and a carbon tax will not reduce it.
- Carbon dioxide has zero ability to produce heat in itself. It does not burn like carbon, coal or wood – it is a harmless and invisible gaseous by-product of burning these fuels. It is not a source of radioactive heat like uranium. All it can do is redirect some of the heat exchanged between the sun and the earth.
- Carbon dioxide is generally transparent to most heat and light radiation. However, during the day, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere can temporarily interrupt and redirect some of the heat flowing between the sun and the earth (generally keeping the surface cooler than it would have otherwise been). During the night, carbon dioxide again interrupts some of the heat escaping from the surface to space, thus keeping nights warmer than they would have otherwise been. Water vapour has a similar but far greater effect. The net effect on average global temperature is negligible and beneficial to the comfort of life on the surface of the earth.
- Earth's climate is always changing and cycles of heating and cooling have been a regular feature of earth history for as long as geological and historical records exist. To suggest that man is suddenly causing every extreme weather event is just superstitious scare mongering.
- To believe that a tax on some Australian businesses which emit carbon dioxide will have the slightest effect on global climate is ludicrous.
- It is obvious that the glib targets for 5-20% cut in carbon dioxide emissions by 2020 (in spite of rising populations) can NEVER be actually achieved without a massive depression of economic activity. A fake reduction may be achieved by forcing Australian companies to pay billions of dollars to foreign carbon sharps for promises to cut their production of carbon dioxide. In most cases, this will NOT result in any reduction in emissions – at best it will produce largely worthless promises to not increase emissions in future. At worst it will be a massive fraud on the Australian taxpayers and consumers. In all cases, it will see a massive transfer of Australian wealth to foreign countries for zero climate benefit.
- We are told that most people and businesses will be compensated and thus will not feel any effects from the carbon tax. The whole purpose of the tax is to punish people who use carbon fuels, so they use less of them. If it does not hurt consumers, they will not change their behaviour and the whole thing becomes an exercise in redistributing wealth and enhancing the power of the bureaucracy.
- It is false to claim that Australia lags the world in waging war on carbon. The Kyoto Protocol is dead. Only western Europe and New Zealand are moving with us on this suicidal path – they lead the energy lemmings. Perhaps New Zealand hopes to cope without too much pain by using more of their abundant hydro and geothermal energy while most European countries have access to significant hydro, nuclear or geothermal energy.
- Australia has NONE of these non-carbon energy sources ready to start producing electricity. Nuclear is feasible but politically unacceptable. It would take a decade at least to get political and regulatory approval, and probably as long again for construction, so nuclear is not really in our energy equation. And unlike Iceland and New Zealand, Australia has no easy geothermal sites – if we find any, it will be decades before it could make significant contributions to the electricity grid. We do produce hydro power, but the chances of getting the Greens to approve a dam anywhere, let alone in more mountainous country with gradients suitable for hydro power, is very low. Moreover, our best hydro sites are either already developed, or are sterilised in heritage areas and national parks. Therefore Australia's current and future energy needs depend solely on coal and gas, the very fuels that Bob Brown's green extremists want to tax, regulate and litigate to death. It is an act of national economic suicide to attempt to destroy our ability to generate low cost energy.
- The computerised climate models so beloved by the UN IPCC and the CSIRO have never made successful predictions and there is no reason to believe they will ever mimic the complexity of factors affecting climate at any point.
- Even if the warming projections from the scare forecasters were accepted, the minor changes in temperature envisaged are small compared to the actual daily and annual variations in temperature experienced at any point on earth. The difference in average temperature between Brisbane and Sydney or Melbourne is more than the worst global warming scares. The temperature change that occurs while we eat breakfast is probably greater than any global warming that could be caused by doubling carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The idea that laughably small temperature changes will somehow do untold damage to life on earth is ludicrous.
- It is obvious that there is no consensus on the science supporting the alarmist climate models. A very large and growing group of scientists with relevant knowledge or experience is actively challenging the alarmist models. They will not go away.
- Wind and solar energy can never provide reliable electric power at a cost the consumers can afford or Australian businesses can use in a competitive world. They provide unreliable and intermittent power, at a high cost, and also need massive investment in backup carbon-based power facilities and new transmission lines.
- All spending on carbon geo-sequestration should cease. This is an enormously costly program to do something that is unnecessary and which will waste much of our precious energy resources and community savings.
- Our fleets of cars, tractors, trucks, trains, ships, dozers and aircraft are not going to run on sunbeams and sea breezes – they need coal, diesel, petrol or gas to keep moving. If they stop moving, our cities will starve in a few days.
- Subsidising and mandating the use of ethanol produced from food crops is a foolish policy with no benefits for the climate or the environment.
- The suggestion that emissions from farm livestock are net additions of carbon to the atmosphere is just plain wrong. Every atom of carbon emitted by livestock (in carbon dioxide or methane) is taken from the grass and grains the animal eats, which in turn is taken from the atmosphere by growing plants using photosynthesis and energy from the sun. Methane that returns to the atmosphere soon oxidises back to carbon dioxide which is then taken up by plants. It is a perpetual carbon cycle that has been going on since life began. Earth survived emissions from the vast mobs of ancient auroch cattle which roamed Europe, the bison and antelopes of the American grassland, the wild herds of grazing animals which roamed free over all the African plains, and the kangaroos and bushfires which regularly harvested the Australian grasslands.
- In the carbon cycle, trees are just like animals - temporary storehouses for carbon. They are not some special stand-alone life form to be worshipped unconditionally and subsidised thoughtlessly. Every molecule of carbon dioxide that is "captured" when the tree is growing creates the leaves, bark and wood and is stored there. While growing, the tree will shed bark, leaves and branches. These will fall to the ground and decompose, releasing the carbon to the soil, to bacteria or back to the atmosphere as carbon dioxide. Eventually, the tree itself will die or be used for timber structures. Eventually all of the tree will rot or be burnt and every carbon atom that was taken from the atmosphere will be end up back in the atmosphere. The same cyclic process occurs for all plant life, including food crops, grasses and algae. All that varies is the time for the complete cycle to occur.
- The criticism that Australia leads the world in per capita emissions of carbon dioxide is a silly conclusion from nonsense calculations. Australians are very large suppliers of coal, minerals, food and fibre to consumers all over the world. We utilise large equipment fleets and have a massive transport network to move this food, fibre, energy and minerals to our own capitals and to world consumers. Those consumers should be the ones responsible for the emissions generated by a handful of productive Australians to produce our flood of raw materials. Moreover our grasslands, rivers, oceans and soils are net absorbers of carbon dioxide. A fair and more complete calculation would probably show that Australia is a net absorber of carbon dioxide.
- There is no justification for Australia to seek the role of the Pied Piper leading a diminishing band of climate lemmings over the cliffs of alarm onto the hard rocks of reality far below. The Europeans will rue the day they spent their savings on energy chimeras.
We do not claim confidentiality for this submission, and are happy for it to be published. We are also willing to appear before the Committee to answer questions or present material.
The Carbon Sense Coalition
Qld 4340 Australia
“Carbon Sense” is a newsletter produced by the Carbon Sense Coalition, an Australian based organisation which opposes waste of resources, opposes pollution, and promotes the rational and sustainable use of carbon energy and carbon food.
Please spread “Carbon Sense” around.
For more information visit our web site at www.carbon-sense.com
Literary, financial or other contributions to help our cause are welcomed.
Chairman Viv Forbes MS 23, Rosewood Qld 4340 Australia. email@example.com
To Unsubscribe send a reply with “Unsubscribe” in the subject line.
Sunday, 25 September 2011
Bureau of Meteorology-Melbourne
1010 LaTrobe St
Friday 30/9/2011 08:00 - 11:00
Protest against the bad science peddled by the BOM. CSIRO and others regarding AGW.
Saturday, 24 September 2011
|Jo Nova Image|
As the only PhD qualified scientist in this parliament, I have watched with dismay as the local and international scientific communities and our elected leaders have taken a seemingly benign scientific theory and turned it into a regulatory monolith designed to solve an environmental misnomer. With a proper understanding of the science, I believe we would not even be entering into this carbon tax debate.
To put it simply, the carbon tax, with all its regulatory machinations, is built on quicksand. Take away the dodgy science and the need for a carbon tax becomes void. I do not accept the premise of anthropogenic climate change, I do not accept that we are causing significant global warming and I reject the findings of the IPCC and its local scientific affiliates.
I would happily debate the science with any member opposite but I know they are too gutless to take me on.
Initially, the so-called 'consensus scientists' rejected the theory that there has been no temperature increase in the last decade. They are now coming to the realisation that they have to deal with it, so we get peer reviewed papers, papers that Al Gore said did not exist, like: 'Reconciling anthropogenic climate change with observed temperature 1998-2008' and 'Trend analysis of satellite global temperature data'. They both accept that there has been no temperature increase this decade.
If the science is settled, ask the scientists if they believe we should stop funding the IPCC and anthropogenic global warming science.
The whole point of this carbon tax is to change behaviour to reduce emissions, which means there must be pain if we are to move from an efficient industry to one that is less efficient. The simple fact is that the Gillard government is being deliberately disingenuous on this issue as they know full well that they will never be able to compensate the people adequately or economically when it becomes an ETS. In the national interest it is time to move past the politics of fear, such as, 'You need to be heavily taxed or the Great Barrier Reef or Kakadu gets it!' In conclusion, for all these and multiple other reasons, the Gillard government should not pass this legislation without the consent of Australians.
Madam Deputy Speaker Burke, I seek leave to table these peer reviewed science reports.
Leave not granted.
Does the Labor Government seek the truth in the Science behind the debate? Evidently not.
See also Jo Nova - Labor censors Dr Dennis Jensen including a full list of the papers submittted but rejected.
|Cartoons by Josh|
The First as reported by Fox News here was when they suggested Greenland lost 15% of its permanent ice cover over the last twelve years.
Climate-gate, Himalaya-gate, and now … Atlas-gate? Publishers of the Times Comprehensive Atlas of the World scrambled Tuesday to correct a controversial statement that Greenland had lost 15 percent of its permanent ice cover over the last 12 years -- an assertion scientists labeled "incorrect and misleading."The claim came in a HarperCollins press release on the publication of the 13th edition of the atlas, stating that global warming was "turning Greenland 'green.'It's ironic that the Medieval Warm Period, denied by the pushers of AGW, was when parts of Greenland actually did turn green (www.greenland.com)
Erik the Red's discovery of GreenlandNow we have a quote from a Times Atlas spokesman saying that they are inventing the future:
It is for this reason that in the same year he sailed west and discovered a country with an inviting fjord landscape and fertile green valleys. He was extremely impressed with the new country's resources and he returned to Iceland to spread the word of "The green land".
Erik the Red clearly had great powers of persuasion because in 985 he set sail once more from the volcanic island leading a fleet of 25 ships on course for Greenland. Onboard were around 500 men and women, domestic animals and all the other elements required to create a new existence in a new country .
MALE, September 21 (HNS) – The Times Comprehensive Atlas of the World will completely omit Maldives in its upcoming 14th edition, unconfirmed reports say.
British newspaper The Daily Telegraph reported that the Times Atlas, one of the most widely used atlas in the world, will omit Maldives, Tuvalu – an island nation located midway between Hawaii and Australia – and major parts of Bangladesh in order to convey the “emotional truth” about “man-made climate change”.
The newspaper quoted Times Atlas spokesperson David Rose as saying that the decision to omit Maldives, Tuvalu and major parts of Bangladesh may not be strictly geographically accurate.
It is a little hard to comprehend the Comprehensive Atlas.
Friday, 23 September 2011
Professor Plimer's new book is subtitled "A guide to climate change for pupils, parents and punters."
Description by the publisher: (LINK in title)
Are pupils, parents and the public being fed political propaganda on climate change? Now is your chance to find out. Professor Plimer gives 101 simple questions with answers for you to ask teachers, activists, journalists and politicians. The climate industry adjusts the temperature record and withholds raw data, computer codes and information from scrutiny. Computer predictions of a scary future don’t agree with measurements. Past natural climate changes have been larger and more rapid than the worst case predictions yet humans adapted. Is human-induced global warming the biggest financial and scientific scam in history? If it is, we will pay dearly.
About the author
PROFESSOR IAN PLIMER (The University of Adelaide) is Australia’s best-known geologist. He is also Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences at The University of Melbourne where he was Professor and Head of Earth Sciences (1991-2005) after serving at The University of Newcastle (1985-1991) as Professor and Head of Geology. He was on the staff of the University of New England, The University of New South Wales and Macquarie University. He has published more than 120 scientific papers on geology. This is his eighth book written for the general public, the best known of which are Telling lies for God (Random House), Milos-Geologic History (Koan), A Short History of Planet Earth (ABC Books) and his best-selling Heaven+Earth (Connor Court).
He won the Leopold von Buch Plakette (German Geological Society), Clarke Medal (Royal Society of NSW), Sir Willis Connolly Medal (Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy), was elected Fellow of the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering and was elected Honorary Fellow of the Geological Society of London. In 1995, he was Australian Humanist of the Year and later was awarded the Centenary Medal. He was Managing Editor of Mineralium Deposita, president of the SGA, president of IAGOD, president of the Australian Geoscience Council and sat on the Earth Sciences Committee of the Australian Research Council for many years. He won the Eureka Prize for the promotion of science, the Eureka Prize for A Short History of Planet Earth and the Michael Daley Prize (now a Eureka Prize) for science broadcasting. He is an advisor to governments and corporations and a regular broadcaster.
PRE-ORDER TODAY AND HAVE YOUR COPY PERSONALLY SIGNED BY IAN PLIMER
Download an order form
Paperback, (250 pages approx)
Thursday, 22 September 2011
The top one shows that satellite records of the global temperature and it's rises and falls.
The second one shows the atmospheric CO2 levels as measured at Mauna Loa, the largest volcano on earth. Last eruption was in 1984.
Mauna Loa has probably been erupting for at least 700,000 years, and may have emerged above sea level about 400,000 years ago. (Wikipedia)Although the man made CO2 emissions cause runaway global warming hypothesis has been falsified, and correlation is not evidence for the hypothesis, we are constantly told by the alarmists that the rise in CO2 is causing the rise in temperature.
TCS blog has previously pointed out that your editor is not a scientist, but surely there doesn't appear to be a correlation between a constantly rising atmospheric CO2 and a basically level lower atmosphere temperature.
Recently we posted
reporting on the peer-reviewed paper by Spencer and Braswell. There has been much fuss amongst the Alarmists denialists. As Marc Hendrickx writes in his ABC DRUM piece:
To some astonishment the scenario outlined above, in which a journal editor resigns over the publication of a controversial paper, has recently occurred. It involves a paper by Roy Spencer and William Braswell published just last month in the journal, Remote Sensing titled 'On the Misdiagnosis of Climate Feedbacks from Variations in Earth's Radiant Energy Balance'. Like the Antarctic paper in Nature, the paper by Spencer and Braswell went through the normal peer review process. It was promoted by the authors' university through a press release and received a few mentions in the media.Now, there is another peer reviewed paper that supports the Spencer and Braswell paper and the previous paper by Lindzen and Choi.
Like the Antarctic paper, some of the media coverage sensationalised the results. The paper also came in for favourable and harsh criticism on the internet, and it appears the paper is not free from error, or methodological issues.
However, rather than allow the peer reviewed system to take care of the issues in the normal manner, the journal's editor, Wolfgang Wagner, took the unprecedented step of resigning over it.
Anthony Watts has posted a link to a new paper by Richard P Allen published in Meteorological Applications
Oh dear, now we have three peer reviewed papers (Lindzen and Choi, Spencer and Braswell, and now Richard P. Allan) based on observations that show a net negative feedback for clouds, and a strong one at that. What will Trenberth and Dessler do next? Maybe the editor of Meteorological Applications can be persuaded to commit professional suicide and resign? The key paragraph from the new paper:
…the cloud radiative cooling effect through reflection of short wave radiation is found to dominate over the long wave heating effect, resulting in a net cooling of the climate system of −21 Wm−2.After all the wailing and gnashing of teeth over the Spencer and Braswell paper in Remote Sensing, and the stunt pulled by its former editor who resigned saying the peer review process failed, another paper was published last week in the journal Meteorological Applications that agrees well with Spencer and Braswell.
With the ever mounting evidence against the falsified AGW hypothesis, it is surprising to see a report like this from Reuters:
(Reuters) - New research, to be published in the journal Climatic Change in November, suggests humankind may have to remove carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere on a vast scale if emissions keep rising after 2020.Would you feed these mongrels?
The series of articles provide scenarios which will form the basis of the next report by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2013 and 2014.
Wednesday, 21 September 2011
|New Caledonia in the Coral Sea off |
Australia's Queensland coast (Google Maps)
That "great" reference Wikipedia tells us it was once part of Australia, although 65 million years ago.
New Caledonia is one of the northernmost parts of a (93%) submerged continent called Zealandia. It sank after rifting away from Australia 60–85 million years ago (mya) and from Antarctica between 130 and 85 mya. New Caledonia itself separated from Australia 65 mya, and has subsequently drifted in a north-easterly direction, reaching its present position about 50 myaA new peer reviewed paper published in Quaternary Research 76: 229-242 examines Mid- to late Holocene environmental and climatic changes in New Caledonia and say that it must relate to the Northern Hemisphere Medieval Warm Period.
(Reported on CO2 Science - H/t Climate Depot)
Fournier Swamp, New Caledonia
Wirrmann, D., Semah, A.-M., Debenay, J.-P. and Chacornac-Rault, M. 2011. Mid- to late Holocene environmental and climatic changes in New Caledonia, southwest tropical Pacific, inferred from the littoral plain Gouaro-Deva. Quaternary Research 76: 229-242. Description
Based on their multi-proxy approach to climate evaluation, the authors determined that between ca. 2640 and 2000 cal yr BP, conditions were "drier and cooler," while subsequent observations linked wetter with warmer. More specifically, they report that "between ca. 1250-500 cal yr BP the higher % of Rhizophoraceae and their peak around ca. 1080-750 cal yr BP underscore a mangrove belt development along the coastline." And they state that this episode must be related to a wetter period and "may be related to a more global phenomenon such as the MWP in the Northern Hemisphere." Thus, we consider the period AD 920-1250 to represent the MWP in this part of the southwest tropical Pacific.
Tuesday, 20 September 2011
He could start with an explanation of this graph of global temperatures showing warming from 1978 to 2002 and no warming since:
He starts by mentioning the resignation of professor Ivar Giaever from The American Physical Society previously recorded on TCS blog here. He then goes on to itemise 50 former IPCC experts who have seen the light. He gives a quote from each. Here are a few:Sadly for Cohen the facts below prove he is just another mendacious mainstream propagandist of climate alarmism.
- 3. Dr John Christy: "Little known to the public is the fact that most of the scientists involved with the IPCC do not agree that global warming is occurring. Its findings have been consistently misrepresented and/or politicized with each succeeding report."
- 6. Dr Judith Curry: "I'm not going to just spout off and endorse the IPCC because I don't have confidence in the process."
- 13. Dr Eigil Friis-Christensen: "The IPCC refused to consider the sun's effect on the Earth's climate as a topic worthy of investigation. The IPCC conceived its task only as investigating potential human causes of climate change."
- 33. Dr Patrick Michaels: "The rates of warming, on multiple time scales have now invalidated the suite of IPCC climate models. No, the science is not settled."
- 16. Dr Vincent Gray: "The (IPCC) climate change statement is an orchestrated litany of lies."
- 34. Dr Nils-Axel Morner: "If you go around the globe, you find no sea level rise anywhere."
E-mails from Phil Jones (East Anglia University)
March 11, 2003
“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”
July 8, 2004
“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”
Professor Paul Roderick Gregory in Forbes writes:
Can We Really Call Climate Science A Science?
In Australia we must also ask some follow-up questions:
The debate between “warmists” and “skeptics” is about whether human Co2 emissions are the cause of warming, whether the relatively small effects of these emissions will compound into larger changes, and, if so, whether, the benefits of remediation outweigh the costs.
- Will a carbon dioxide tax cause any reduction in Global Temperatures?
- Will a 5% cut in Australia's Co2 emissions make any difference?
First, Ivar Giaever, the 1973 winner of the Nobel Prize in physics, resigned from the American Physical Society over his disagreement with its statement that “the evidence (on warming alarmism) is incontrovertible.” Instead, he writes that the evidence suggests that “the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this ‘warming’ period.”
Second, the editor of Remote Sensing resigned and disassociated himself from a skeptical paper co-authored by University of Alabama Climate Scientist Roy Spencer after an avalanche of criticism by “warmists.” His resignation brings to mind Phil Jones’ threat to “get rid of troublesome editors” (cited above).
Third, the New York Times and other major media are ridiculing Texas Governor Rick Perry for saying that global warming is “not proven.” Their message: Anyone who does not sign on to global warming alarmism is an ignorant hayseed and clearly not presidential material.
Gregory says that the Giaever story shows that there is no consensus or as he puts it - disputes claims of "inconvertible evidence." The editor's resignation he describes as "unprofessional behaviour."
Third: The media is tarring and feathering Rick Perry, we now see, for agreeing with Nobel laureate Giaever and a host of other prominent scientists. I guess if Perry is a know-nothing Texas hick (or worse, a pawn of Big Oil) so is every other scientist who dares to disagree with the IPCC Central Committee.Gregory's conclusion:
False claims of consensus and inconvertible truth reveal a political or ideological agenda wrapped in the guise of science. The incontrovertible bad behavior of the warmists has led skeptics to suspect base motives, and who could blame them?
Of course, none of this contrary opinion found its way to air in Four Corners tendentious "The Climate Wars."
|Where you don't miss a thing - except Mike Smith!|
Julia Gillard can say: "Carbon Tax." It's a lie when she really means carbon dioxide tax.
Julia Gillard can say: "The Science is settled." This also is a lie. For an example, the recent example of the resignation of Professor Ivar Giaever from the American Physical Society because they overstated the case for AGW. Or perhaps just look at these 50 distinguished present and/or former IPCC scientists who disagree with the warped IPCC summaries.
Julia Gillard can say: "Nauru Island is out..." or many other lies and distortions of the truth. But we have freedom of speech; wonderful freedom of speech; and so she has a right to express these statements whether she believes them or not.
In Communist Countries, there was no right to freedom of speech. The newspapers were produced by the party and, if something seen as dissenting eked through, the editor disappeared and re-appeared somewhere in the Gulags.
Although we have many checks and balances in our media, we are to have another media enquiry to be headed up by former Federal Court Judge Ray Finklestein QC. It is a pity that the left bias of "our" ABC is not included in the terms of reference.
George Orwell, Animal Farm, Chapter 7
“They had come to a time when no one dared speak his mind, when fierce, growling dogs roamed everywhere, and when you had to watch your comrades torn to pieces after confessing to shocking crimes.”
TCS blog has written before of the story of Michael Smith, Bob Kernohan and a statutory declaration: here and here.
Kangaroo Court has recorded the correspondence between Mr Smith and PM Gillard and some background details.
“Current AWU boss, “Big Bill” Ludwig, a major Labor powerbroker on the Right, also provided an affidavit to the court outlining corruption involving Ms Gillard’s former lover.” (Click here to read the full article)It must be noted that Bill Ludwig has in the last few days been caught with his hand in the AWU till to pay for his personal legal costs. (Click here for The Courier Mail report) (Click here for the ABC report).The Australian has started reporting on Julia Gillard’s past again at least to some degree. Michael Stutchbury did a story on the 9th September where it gets mentioned. (Click here to read the article)
One must ask whether Mr Smith's employer 2UE (and Fairfax Media) has been "heavied" to suspend him. The statdec has been posted on the internet for all to see HERE so if Mr Smith talks about it on air, he is not revealing hitherto unknown state secrets. If he interviews Mr Kernohan, and Mr Kernohan makes a slanderous statement, Mr Smith or the station can hit the dump button so that the slander does not go to air.
So, where is the freedom of speech as far as 2UE goes? Are the communists winning again?
A young lady in Queensland has set up this petition which seems to be getting some attention.
Reinstate Mike Smith to 2UE.
Whether you listen to Mike Smith or not, I recommend the petition to you in order to support freedom of speech.
MIKE SMITH'S legal team fight sacking.
Jodie Minus -The Australian
In a hearing at the Federal Magistrates Court yesterday, magistrate Shenagh Barnes granted an interim order that restrains 2UE from sacking Smith on the basis that it would contravene the Fair Work Act.
Under the order 2UE must also reinstate Smith, a presenter, on his former terms and conditions.
Smith's barrister, Bruce Miles, sought the order, claiming 2UE had contravened the act's general protection provision by allegedly taking "adverse action in a number of respects" against his client. These included allegedly threatening and organising to dismiss Smith from employment. There was an "urgency" in seeking the order, Mr Miles said, because lawyers for 2UE had called Smith's solicitor, John Laxon, and advised that they would be terminating the broadcaster's employment.