Tuesday, 9 April 2013

Climate Institute or Climate Alarmists?

SBS has issued a World News bulletin on a report issued by the Climate Institute. (Link)
Falling Temperatures

'Carbon budget' needed for Australia: Climate Institute


The Climate Institute has released a paper outlining the need for a national long-term carbon budget to avoid a two-degree increase in global temperatures. 
The report explains that in order to prevent temperatures from increasing two degrees above pre-industrial levels, no more than 1,500 billion tonnes of carbon pollution can be released by 2050, globally.
Carbon Pollution? Are they talking about carbon MONoxide,? Or are they perpetrating the falsified AGW hypothesis (google AGW - a falsified hypothesis)  that man-made  (and presumably only man-made) emissions of Carbon dioxide are causing dangerous global warming?
Has the Climate Institute  missed the fact that the warming has stalled?
The Climate Institute report states:
Numerous assessments have demonstrated that global warming above 2ºC would lead to substantial costs to Australia’s economic, human and natural systems and would exceed the adaptive capacity of key Australian industry sectors.
Their "numerous" is backed up by Endnotes 7,8,9,10
Endnote 7 is a report from the CSIRO  (This 40-page consultancy report written for the Australian Business Roundtable on Climate Change is by CSIRO's Dr Benjamin Preston and Dr Roger Jones, and addresses the impact of climate change on Australia.  (Pdf link)  
Endnote 9 is the much criticized Garnaut Report (See The Contradictions of the Garnaut Report link)
Endnote 10 is a draft report, again from the CSIRO. (link)                                       
 The CSIRO is not a very reliable source. See link, link, link and link

They say that warming "would lead to substantial costs to Australia," however, according to ASIC, the pseudo counter-warming tax on carbon dioxide "is adding to increasing cost burdens for many firms struggling to stay afloat." (Link)  The Australian recently reported:

Carbon tax will force jobs offshore

RUSSIAN aluminium tsar Oleg Deripaska has attacked the Gillard government's carbon tax, saying it is leading towards higher energy costs that come with the danger of driving local manufacturing and minerals processing jobs overseas.
As the Ice Core data show (see graph above), most of the last 10,000 years has been warmer than today and the world survived. Indeed, in warmer times, man has prospered. Think of the medieval warm period that preceded the little ice age.

When the Climate Institute's report was reproduced by Industry search (link) there were some hard-hitting comments:
toscamaster | 9/04/2013 11:08 1
At $25 per tonne of CO2 Australia's "carbon" tax is the most vicious and hence the most effective in the world. However, based on the IPCC’s 4th Report, if every country legislated for the same vicious tax, it will cost $3.2 quadrillion AUD ($3,200,000,000,000,000AUD) for every degree lowering of temperature. So the Climate Institute is actually calling for the world to forgo $6.4 quadrillion AUD. That’s $830,000 for every person on earth. That's SOME BUDGET. Will Erwin Jackson lead us by selling his home and handing the proceeds to the government? If you think I'm being outlandish check the numbers for yourself. 
Mctavish | 9/04/2013 12:29 2
I note he mentions "credible pollution budgets" - hmmm! But also Toscamaster, you overlook that to keep it all fair, we owe 4x. Means me & you & Erwin actually stump $3.3million each - 40+ years wages. This might do a bit more than test the credibility of major political parties - it might test the credibility of a few Commissions and Authorities. Some countries with a low GDP are sure going to have to do some overtime!



The End of an Illusion

An excellent article by Robert Tracinski for www.realclearpolitics.com


RealClearPolitics (RCP) is an independent, non-partisan media company that is the trusted source for the best news, analysis and commentary. 

Robert starts out quoting Harry Binswanger at Forbes,who dates the beginning of the campaign to 1979 and puts it in an amusing perspective.

"Remember 1979? That was the year of 'We Are Family' by Sister Sledge, of 'The Dukes of Hazard' on TV, and of Kramer vs. Kramer on the silver screen. It was the year the Shah was forced out of Iran. It was before the web, before the personal computer, before the cell phone, before voicemail and answering machines. But not before the global warming campaign.

"In January of 1979, a New York Times article was headlined: 'Experts Tell How Antarctic Ice Could Cause Widespread Floods.'...

Robert then refers to a Steven Hayward piece that points to signs that even advocates of the global warming hysteria such as The Economist are starting to backtrack. Parts of the Economist article were covered by NCTCS blog HERE.
"The problem for the climateers is increasingly dire. As The Economist shows in its first chart, the recent temperature record is now falling distinctly to the very low end of its predicted range and may soon fall out of it, which means the models are wrong, or, at the very least, that there's something going on that supposedly 'settled' science hasn't been able to settle."
Robert then creates his own version of the graph (see above.)
You know, you can really manipulate a graph to spin the data, for example, by manipulating the scale to "zoom in" and make something look bigger or "zoom out" to make it look smaller. We're used to seeing the zoomed-in version of global temperature measurements, so it's nice to see this zoomed-out version.
A discussion of temperature follows including how 
Mann's hockey stick came under withering fire for its dodgy statistical methods and selective use of data and has since been pretty much abandoned. But that hasn't kept the warmists from trying again, this time with a new graph, named after lead study author Shaun Marcott, purporting to show global temperatures over the past 11,300 years, this time with a new, even bigger "blade" to the hockey stick showing the supposed upward thrust of temperatures in the past 100 years. 
Except that the whole thing is dissolving in another fiasco.
Much more of this fine article at Real Clear Politics (LINK) Robert Tracinski concludes:

So here's the state of play of climate science a third of a century into the global warming hysteria. They don't have a reliable baseline of global temperature measurements that would allow them to say what is normal and natural and what isn't. Their projections about future warming are demonstrably failing to predict the actual data. And now they have been caught, yet again, fudging the numbers and manipulating the graphs to show a rapid 20th-century warming that they want to be true but which they can't back up with actual evidence. 
A theory with this many holes in it would be have been thrown out long ago, if not for the fact that it conveniently serves the political function of indicting fossil fuels as a planet-destroying evil and allowing radical environmentalists to put a modern, scientific face on their primitivist crusade to shut down industrial civilization. 
But can't we all just stop calling this "science" now? 

H/t Benny Peiser