Tuesday, 29 November 2011

Future Fund chairman David Murray has doubts on Global Warming.

Future Fund chairman David Murray talks with Ali Moore on Lateline re AGW:

ALI MOORE: Just a final question. This week starts the mark of a UN - or the UN, I should say, climate change talks in Durban. Would you describe yourself as a climate sceptic?

DAVID MURRAY: Ah, yes. A sceptic is not the word you should use when you disagree with somebody. You should say you disagree. And I don't think there is sufficient evidence to take the sort of risks that are being taken around the world. I've always thought that with the global population growing as fast as it is, that there would be real pressure on energy prices and people would correct automatically by using energy much more sparingly and that would start to self-correct - if there's a problem.

ALI MOORE: So you don't rule out there being a problem; you're just not convinced there's a problem.

DAVID MURRAY: No, but with these things one looks at probability and severity. And you look for actions you can take which would reduce the severity if the problem is there. But if we're not certain that the problem's there, then we don't - we shouldn't take actions which have a high severity the other way.

ALI MOORE: What evidence do you look at to counter the other evidence that there is climate change? Is there something in particular that you focus on?

DAVID MURRAY: Well, the extremeness of the claims is one thing. For example, people talked about the ocean rising by seven metres, which is just an astounding level.

ALI MOORE: But what about the more ...

DAVID MURRAY: The science talks about 20 to 30 centimetres. So these exaggerated claims. When people make a movie and get on a ladder to get to the top of the chart, that's Hollywood, it's not science. And when scientists start arguing amongst themselves, as we've seen with some of these reports, that is not good. Science is meant to be above all of that with true scientific method. So that really bothers me. And the claims are unreal and ...

ALI MOORE: Are all the claims unreal?

DAVID MURRAY: Well, it's not clear to me which comes first: temperature or carbon - carbon dioxide. I'm not sure which does come first. There is much evidence to say one way or the other. So, when I look at all this, I become extremely concerned and I become concerned at the cost of mistakes.

ALI MOORE: David Murray, I think that's a debate for another day, but many thanks for talking to Lateline tonight.

DAVID MURRAY: Thank you.

Carbon Tax - killing Australia or the Planet?

Your choice: A tonne of CO2 or a Pizza.
Next year, when Australia introduces it's carbon tax, many businesses will lose their competitiveness and either close their doors or move off-shore.

The tax will REDUCE Australia's tax base due to less businesses; cause unemployment and hardship; and reduce Australia's competitiveness in world markets. At the same time, Climate Change Minister has promised that Australia will give the UN billions under the Green Climate Fund (LINK.)

Australia will start the carbon tax at $23/tonne and prices are to increase year after year. Meanwhile, European prices for a "tonne of carbon trades at the price of a pizza."

Gulfnews.com reports that "Low carbon prices (are) killing the planet."
Climate negotiators meeting in South Africa this week face fresh worries over saving the planet from global warming now that a tonne of carbon trades at the price of a pizza.
A European steel plant producing a tonne of steel pays as little as $12 for the resulting carbon emissions, spelling trouble for Europe's carbon emissions trading scheme, the world's largest.
At those prices, there is little incentive for industry to lower its carbon output, meaning one of Europe's major tools in fighting climate change is broken.
Analysts say carbon prices would need to return to 2008 levels in order start making a difference. "Given current commodities prices, we would need €20 ($A27) a tonne to achieve a significant emissions reduction," said Per Lekander, an analyst at UBS.
"I look at the price in the morning and don't want to get out of bed," said a London-based emissions trader.
London is the EU carbon market's hub, with traders, brokers, power generators and project originators responsible for the bulk of trade. But with carbon prices down more than 50 per cent since June, some have decided to cut their losses and have left the market.


Will the carbon (dioxide) tax  kill Australia or kill the planet? Or perhaps it will kill the  greedy pushers ....er.. sorry, the brokers.

Climate Change meetings may fade away

Image - Steve Hunter
Letter published in AFR, 29 Nov 2011 - link in title.

In Review’s “Reprise on climate” (November 25) Mark Lawson outlines various possible scientific explanations of the failure of temperatures to increase over the last 13 years, and Marcus Priest’s “The global climate is now cooling” (November 26-27) offers possible explanations for the almost certain failure to reach a binding agreement on reducing CO2 emissions at the Durban climate change conference.

Yet there are many other possible explanations for that imminent failure and its likely continuance.

First, an increasing realisation that analyses by the sceptical scientists group have exposed errors or gross exaggerations by the consensus group. Future temperature predictions modelled by the consensus group have omitted or down played likely negative influences on temperatures, resulting in significant overstatements in such predictions. Also, as temperatures have not risen for many more than 13 years over the past 100 even though concentrations of CO2 have increased over those years, this puts any causative relationship between the two in considerable doubt.

Second, the emergence of a  second round of ClimateGate, involving the exposure of about 5000 exchanges within the consensus group of scientists, has confirmed evidence of manipulations of data and of exaggerated outcomes for media.  [Also pertinent is the just published analysis by respected Canadian economist McKitrick revealing seriously deficient review processes by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change].

Third, more and more uncertainties have emerged about analyses by the consensus group. In addition to the wider realisation  “uncertainty” was used over 1,000 times in the science section of the last Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, many analytical uncertainties are acknowledged in the recent IPCC report regarding extreme weather predictions and the analysis in the just published Pacific Climate Change Science Program report involving the CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology. The use by the latter report of no less than 18 different climate models is also hardly a vote of confidence in analyses. 

These and other developments suggest the consensus group of scientists can no longer justify the claim that there is a need for urgent action to reduce CO2 emissions. In these circumstances international conferences on climate change may well fade away.

Des Moore
Institute for Private Enterprise

Will Mars Rover cause Mars Global Warming

As UK Mail on Line reports a SUV is on the way to Mars.
Hats off to NASA with the successful launch on Saturday of Curiosity, by far and away the most ambitious and sophisticated robotic lander ever to be sent to another world. The £1800m mission involves a gigantic Martian rover the size of a car and weighing almost a tonne, nuclear powered and which will touch down, hopefully, next to a mountain in Gale crater next August.
'Hopefully' because there is a LOT that could go wrong with this mission. Curiosity is such a big machine, and so heavy (even in 0.38g Martian gravity) that NASA's standard 'airbag' landing technique (inflate a cluster of air-filled balloons around the desecending probe to cushion its final touchdown - sounds crazy, but it works) has been jettisoned in favour of a Heath-Robinsoneque 'Sky Crane' landing system, which will see the probe first slowed down by air friction, the parachutes, then retro-rockets and finally an elaborate shenanigans whereby the rover will be lowered to the surface from a hovering platform on cables.
Now, the obvious question is - will this Mars SUV cause Martian Global Warming? 

Too late. 

Mars Southern Polar Ice Cap - Image NASA


As National Geographic reported a few years ago, Mars Polar ice caps were melting in a similar manner to what was happening on Earth.


Mars's southern polar ice cap, seen here in true color, has shrunk in recent years due to planetary warming—similar to what's happening on Earth.



According to one scientist's controversial take, the simultaneous rise in temperatures on Earth and Mars indicates a natural—and not a human—cause for global warming. But the vast majority of experts maintain that humans are responsible for Earth's climate changes and that the Mars phenomenon is mere coincidence.

Climate Chief Compromised?

Previous post on the TCS was titled "UN's Climate Chief Sounds Alarm on Global Warming"

As has been pointed out Today by Tom Nelson

Check out the Wikipedia page on UN climate hoax chief Christiana Figueres. Anybody see a conflict of interest in her heavy personal involvement in the carbon dioxide swindle market?

Ms Figueres links to the Wikipedia entry from her own bio page .
Christiana Figueres has not only been active in the public arena and in the field of NGOs, she also collaborates actively with private sector companies that align themselves with climate friendly goals. Ms. Figueres currently serves as Senior Adviser to C-Quest Capital, a carbon finance company focusing on programmatic CDM investments. She is the Principal Climate Change Advisor to ENDESA Latinoamérica, the largest private utility in Latin America with operations in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia and Peru. She is also Vice Chair of the Rating Committee of the Carbon Rating Agency, the first entity to apply credit rating expertise to carbon assets.
That puts her in the same league as Al Gore and IPCC chief Rajendra Pachauri.

Meanwhile, as Joanne Nova points out HERE,

Canada, Europe, Brazil, USA, Russia planning exits or delays (from a new Kyoto type agreement.)