Wednesday, 15 September 2010

Doubtful Analysis by Business Spectator.

Business Spectator wrote

CLIMATE SPECTATOR: Votes, shoots and leaves

Giles Parkinson

Just a few short observations about the vote itself: The Climate Sceptics Party attracted just over 18,000 votes across the country. If their presence was designed to embarrass the Greens, which by definition must be a climate change acceptor’s party, then they failed. The Greens received 1.26 million votes in the Upper House.

The Greens, as noted before, attracted the biggest swing of 3.9 per cent. This was followed by the Sex Party and the Shooters Party. The electorate has spoken and this might be its plan: tackle climate change, make love and, then shoot the lights out.


An Interesting, but not really well thought through analysis. When Labor tried to introduce their ETS/CPRS there was an amazing reaction finally culminating in a Prime Minister's deposal and a change of leader in the Liberal Party. The ex-leader of the Libs is a AGW believer (we should avoid the misleading term Climate Change as Climate has changed since the beginning of time) and he was replaced by a new Lib who had previously expressed that man-made climate change is crap.


On the logic expressed by Giles -"Greens, which by definition must be a climate change acceptor’s party," one could say that 43.65% who voted for the Coalition were voting against man-made climate change.

Of course, both Giles' proposition and mine are fanciful. However, somewhere between the two would be a more accurate figure for the opponents of the man-made global warming hoax.

Most of the Green voters think that they are nice tree- hugging people and are unaware of the sinister anti-Australian undertone of the Greens party. Some friends of mine (I am reluctant to admit) voted for the Greens "because they are sort of good for the environment.

And Giles, after handing out HOW-TO-VOTE cards next to the Sex party candidate, I can say that, at least in that booth, it was mainly young bucks, resenting having to vote, that said: SEX PARTY! Let's vote for them!

Damning New Investigation Into Climategate Inquiries

The Global Warming Policy Foundation (Link in title) has issued their assessment of the Climategate inquiries set up by the University of East Anglia and others:

The report The Climategate Inquiries, written by Andrew Montford and with a foreword by Lord (Andrew) Turnbull, finds that the inquiries into the conduct and integrity of scientists at the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia were rushed and seriously inadequate.

In particular, the report finds that:

  • none of the Climategate panels mounted an inquiry that was comprehensive within their area of remit
  • insufficient consideration in the choice of panel members led to a failure to ensure balance and independence
  • none managed to be objective and comprehensive
  • none made any serious attempt to consider the views and submissions of well-informed critics
  • terms of reference were either vague or non-existent
  • none of them perfo
  • rmed their work in a way that is likely to restore confidence in the work of CRU.
The full report (pdf) can be downloaded here.

James Delingpole of the (UK) Telegraph says:

Climategate whitewashers squirm like maggots on Bishop Hill's pin

Just back from the House of Lords for the launch ofthe GWPF's report on the failings of the three Climategate inquiries.

The official inquiries, as we know, found nothing untoward in any of the Climategate emails – nor in the behaviour of the scientists responsible for them. But the GWPF’s report, by Andrew “Bishop Hill” Montford, begs to differ. At the conference, one journalist asked Montford to try to summarise the juiciest of his allegations. Montford found this difficult: so many and varied are the failings of the three whitewash inquiries, he simply couldn’t decide which ones to choose.