Wednesday, 30 November 2011

BBC, David Attenborough and Alarmism

David Attenborough's Frozen Planet -BBC image
As has previously been noted in these pages, the final episode of Attenborough's latest series has been cut from world distribution.
An episode of David Attenborough's Frozen Planet series that looks at climate change will not be aired in the US, where many are sceptical about global warming.
Seven episodes of the multi-million-pound nature documentary series will be aired in Britain. However, the series has been sold to 30 world TV networks as a package of only six episodes. These networks then have the option of buying the seventh "companion" episode -- which explores the effect man is having on the natural world -- as well as behind the scenes footage. (New Statesman)
GWPF reveals that Lord Nigel Lawson has accused Sir David Attenborough of 'Sensationalism.'
Writing in the Radio Times, Lord Lawson points out that certain populations of polar bears are rising and that sea ice cover is in fact increasing in Antarctica.
“Sir David Attenborough is one of our finest journalists and a great expert on animal life. Unfortunately, however, when it comes to global warming he seems to prefer sensation to objectivity,” he said.
Lord Lawson says that that an ‘objective’ point of view would have pointed out that Antarctic sea ice has expanded over the last 30 years.
He also claimed that evaporation from the melting ice is countering the warming effect by providing cloud cover.

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." 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 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.)


Monday, 28 November 2011

Climategate 2: The ugly alarmists

I won't even try to summarise Anthony Watt's post on WUWT (link in title)

This post shows the evil side, the ugly side of the IPCC- Climategate CRU. They tried to have Chris de Freitas sacked as editor of Scientific publication - Climate Research.
Chris is a distinguished scientist.

From Wikipedia:
De Freitas received both his Bachelors and his Masters at the University of Toronto, Canada, after which he earned his Ph.D. as a Commonwealth Scholar from the University of Queensland, Australia.[1] During his time at the University of Auckland, he has served as Deputy Dean of Science, Head of Science and Technology, and for four years as Pro Vice Chancellor.[1] He is Vice President of the Meteorological Society of New Zealand and is a founding member of the Australia-New Zealand Climate Forum as well as serving on the Executive Board of the International Society of Biometeorology from 1999-2001.[1] He has written extensively in popular media on an array of environmental and climate-related issues. The New Zealand Association of Scientists has made him a four-time recipient of their Science Communicator Award.
As the Poster says - "The post is very long, but please stick with it. The story unfolds, and is worth the effort if you really want to see what is going on." The Poster mentions that IPCC head Rajendra Pachauri was cc'd to many of the e-mails and so he can not claim ignorance.

If anyone has doubts that the IPCC, CRU scientists are dishonest, this post will convince you that they are crooked. Read it all at New Zealand Climate Change - here.

UN's climate chief sounds alarm on global warming

Christina Figueres
Even as more of the AGW hoax unravels with the Climategate 2 emails, the Alarmists are trying to shore up their position prior to the up-coming COP17 Durban Gab-Fest.

From The Business Recorder:
The head of the United Nations climate change watchdog warned Sunday that recent research shows there is a need for urgent action to halt global warming.
Speaking to journalists on the eve of annual climate talks in Durban, South Africa, Christina Figueres, excutive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC), said that the latest international findings are "sounding alarm bells."More than 20,000 government officials and activists are to start meeting Monday to wrestle with the problem of carbon emissions and the role scientists say they play in warming the planet.Figueres referred to reports by the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the International Energy Agency (IEA) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).The WMO reported that "the atmosphere has reached record levels of greenhouse gasses," while last week's IPCC report found that hot days "are becoming hotter" and winter cold even colder, she noted.
She may be right that greenhouse gasses have reached record levels (at least in recent history) but what she has to show is whether those "record levels" are causing runaway global warming.

And, if they ARE causing global warming, why is "winter cold even colder?"

Still from (M4GW) Minnesotans 4 Global Warming's:-
  "If we had some global warming..."

Climategate 2 & the BBC

The UK Mail on Line reports that the BBC's reporting was vetted:
Britain’s leading green activist research centre spent £15,000 on seminars for top BBC executives  in an apparent bid to block climate change sceptics from the airwaves, a vast new cache of leaked ‘Climategate’ emails has revealed.
The emails – part of a trove of more than 5,200 messages that appear to have been stolen from computers at the University of East Anglia (UEA) – shed light for the first time on an incestuous web of interlocking relationships between BBC journalists and the university’s scientists, which goes back more than a decade.
They show that University staff vetted BBC scripts, used their contacts at the Corporation to stop sceptics being interviewed and were consulted about how the broadcaster should alter its programme output.
Was our ABC's reporting equally compromised?
BBC insiders say the close links between the Corporation and the UEA’s two climate science departments, the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and the Tyndall Centre for Climate Research, have had a significant impact on its coverage.
‘Following their lead has meant the whole thrust and tone of BBC reporting has been that the science is  settled, and that there is no need for debate,’ one journalist said. ‘If you disagree, you’re branded a loony.’
In 2007, the BBC issued a formal editorial policy document, stating that ‘the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus’ – the view that the world faces catastrophe because of man-made carbon dioxide emissions.
The Climategate 2 e-mails suggest that UEA's Professor of Climate Change, Mike Hulme, expected the slanting of BBC coverage to exclude AGW sceptics.
On February 25, 2002, the climate change sceptic Philip Stott, a London University professor, debated the subject with John Houghton of the Met Office on the Today programme.
This prompted an angry email to colleagues from Prof Hulme. ‘Did anyone hear Stott vs Houghton on Today, Radio 4, this morning?’ he wrote.
‘Woeful stuff really. This is one reason why Tyndall is sponsoring the Cambridge Media Environment Programme, to starve this type of reporting at source.’
Read More of the Mail on Line including Prof Phil Jones calling sceptics "crackpots" HERE

Saturday, 26 November 2011

UN reports controlling climate forcers can save millions - CO2 not mentioned

Image: Mike Lester (via Free Republic)
From the UN News Centre:
25 November 2011 –
More than two million lives can be saved each year by implementing the cost-effective measures presented in a United Nations report released today, which would help reduce black carbon, methane and ozone emissions. 
The report, issued by the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), provides a package of 16 measures that could not only save some 2.5 million lives each year but also avoid crop losses amounting to 32 million tons annually, and help keep the global temperature rise below the two degree Celsius target over the next 40 years.
The measures target emissions of black carbon, methane and ground-level ozone, also known as short-lived climate forcers (SLCFs), and their implementation would allow countries to save rather than spend resources and money. This is in part because a lot of measures allow for gases to be harvested as a source of clean fuel.
Black carbon, methane and ground-level ozone....not a mention of CO2. Has CO2 finally been declared innocent by the UN?

IPCC Wrong - New Peer-reviewed Paper

The Australian reports:

Climate forecasts 'exaggerated': Science journal

Also reported by the UK Mail on Line:
Apocalyptic predictions about climate change are likely to be wrong, a study says.
Dire forecasts by activists who say that carbon dioxide levels will 'double' and cause temperature rises of 10C are 'unlikely'.
Instead, the maximum increase is likely to be 2.6C. 
The ice age, 21,000 years ago, provided a 'clean' comparison where human activities had no effect on atmospheric levels of CO2.
The period was not as cold as previously believed.
Dr Schmittner told the Daily Mail that it would be ‘virtually impossible’ for a doubling of carbon dioxide to cause temperatures to rise by 8ºc or 10ºc.
From AFP:
"When you reconstruct sea and land surface temperatures from the peak of the last ice age 21,000 years ago -- which is referred to as the Last Glacial Maximum -- and compare it with climate model simulations of that period, you get a much different picture," said lead author Andreas Schmittner, an Oregon State University researcher.
"If these paleoclimatic constraints apply to the future, as predicted by our model, the results imply less probability of extreme climatic change than previously thought."

Links to the Paper:
Climate Sensitivity Estimated from Temperature Reconstructions of the Last Glacial Maximum AndreasSchmittner et al Science 1203513 Published online 24 November 2011 

The pdf can be downloaded from Andreas Schmittner's site here:

His blog is here:

Thanks to Mike D.

Friday, 25 November 2011

Will the real McCloy please stand up...

Jo Nova blog
The science is out on whether Sea Levels are rising. As this blog has written before, data show that Sea Levels are falling - LINK. Coastal councils have been scared by the hyperbole from the AGW alarmists and have made some irrational decisions.

The NSW Government is also pushing the Alarmist line.
Coastal Sea Level Rises
The New South Wales Government recently released new coastal planning guidelines covering the state’s 15,000 kilometres of coastline under the title “Coastal Planning Guideline: Adapting to Sea Level Rise”. As reported in the Central Coast Express on 25 August 2010 the new State Government guidelines are designed to help local councils and state agencies considered the impact of proposed sea level rises when planning for the New South Wales coast expected 600,000 new residents by 2036. The new guidelines urge local government councils to consider applications on land which could be affected by future coastal changes or sea level rises by 2100. The new guidelines suggest strict criteria which may include designing homes which can be relocated away from or above risk areas.
Both Gosford City Council and Wyong Shire Council have been considering sea level rises for a number of years. It is now claimed up to 12,000 homes on the Central Coast could be affected by potential sea level rises. Gosford and Wyong Councils were identified as the second and third most vulnerable council regions in the state after Lake Macquarie.

 One resident of the aforementioned Lake Macquarie council has decided to fight back.

As reported by the Newcastle Herald (here), 
HUNTER businessman Jeff McCloy says he will mount a class action against Lake Macquarie City Council for devaluing waterfront properties with its climate change policy.
Mr McCloy, who owns a waterfront property at Belmont, said the council must explain what scientific evidence it had to back up its claims about rising sea levels and the effects of climate change.
‘‘My current view is they will have a class action against them for reducing the value of our properties,’’ Mr McCloy said. ‘‘I figure I’ll get a class action going and take the idiots to court, I’m serious.’’
‘I’ll put them on notice and ask what evidence they have to make these ridiculous claims,’’ he said.
‘‘We have the right to know the scientific basis for their claims and whether they are using theoretical models that have no definitive way of determining the future.’’
Lake Macquarie mayor Greg Piper said the council did not need evidence but a ‘‘basis’’.
 Climate Change Minister Greg Combet has a new house not far from Mr McCloy's. When questioned by Andrew Bolt about his belief in climate change, stated his unequivocal faith in the alarmist scenarios, and then seemed utterly confused as to why he’d be questioned about his recent purchase of a nice house at sea level:

Andrew Bolt: Are you personally convinced that man is heating the world and heating it dangerously?
Greg Combet: Yes, I am.
Bolt: Why did you then buy a beachside house?
Combet: WHAT?
Bolt: Your house in Newcastle on the beachside?
Combet: What on earth has that got to do with anything?
Bolt: RISING SEAS, Greg, of up to 100 metres by the next century …
Combet: That’s just ridiculous!

(From Janet Thompson's Quadrant On Line article The Idiocy Continues.

 And let us not forget Professor Tim Flannery. Tim's tome The Weather Makers has faced complete deconstruction by Wes Allen (see HERE and HERE). The Inconvenient truth is the Tim Flannery also owns a waterfront property at Cobra Point. Listen to Ray Hadley talking of Flannery HERE.

I know who I think is the real McCloy.

New Speaker for Federal Parliament

Pickering's take on Yesterday's events in Parliament.

One wit has said that, although Australia is called The Lucky Country, Italy and Greece have new Prime Ministers.

Read Andrew Bolt on Peter Slipper HERE - The Herald-Sun HERE and wonder how long can he last.

The SMH tells of the time that he couldn't get out of a lavatory for the incapacitated HERE -
He is considered by political watchers to be tricky as a ferret and slick as a weasel - except when he needed to make a quick getaway from a Parliament House lavatory some years ago. Now, ''Slippery Pete'' Slipper will be forever known among Liberals and Nationals as a rat.
Meanwhile,  over at Fair Work Australia.....

Climategate 2.0: Bias in Scientific Research

Ex-NASA Roy W Spencer Ph.D, author of Climate Confusion and Fundanomics writes:
Ever since the first Climategate e-mail release, the public has become increasingly aware that scientists are not unbiased. Of course, most scientists with a long enough history in their fields already knew this (I discussed the issue at length in my first book Climate Confusion), but it took the first round of Climategate e-mails to demonstrate it to the world.
The latest release (Climategate 2.0) not only reveals bias, but also some private doubts among the core scientist faithful about the scientific basis for the IPCC’s policy goals. Yet, the IPCC’s “cause” (Michael Mann’s term) appears to trump all else.
So, when the science doesn’t support The Cause, the faithful turn toward discussions of how to craft a story which minimizes doubt about the IPCC’s findings. After considerable reflection, I’m going to avoid using the term ‘conspiracy’ to describe this activity, and discuss it in terms of scientific bias.

Doctor Spencer writes of bias, including the impossibility of avoiding bias, of his own biases, of the UN IPCC's biases and then continues:
Countering the Bias
Scientists are human, and so you will never remove the tendencies toward bias in scientific research. You can’t change human nature.
But you can level the playing field by supporting alternative biases.
For years John Christy and I have been advising Congress that some portion of the appropriated funds for federal agencies supporting climate change research should be mandated to support alternative hypotheses of climate change. It’s time for the pendulum to start swinging back the other way.
After all, scientists will go where the money is. If scientists are funded to find evidence of natural sources of climate change, believe me, they will find it.
If you build such a playing field, they will come.
But when only one hypothesis is allowed as the explanation for climate change (e.g. “the science is settled”), the bias becomes so thick and acrid that everyone can smell the stench. Everyone except the IPCC leadership, that is.

Climategate 2.0: New E-Mails Rock The Global Warming Debate

Image: Forbes via Wikipedia
Heartland's James Taylor writes in Forbes Magazine
A new batch of 5,000 emails among scientists central to the assertion that humans are causing a global warming crisis were anonymously released to the public yesterday, igniting a new firestorm of controversy nearly two years to the day after similar emails ignited the Climategate scandal.
Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails:
  1. prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions; 
  2. these scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a balanced scientific inquiry and
  3.  many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data.
    “I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI [Freedom of Information] Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process,”writes Phil Jones, a scientist working with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in a newly released email.

    Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden,” Jones writes in another newly released email. “I’ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.”

    Read more at Forbes HERE

Thursday, 24 November 2011

ClimateGate 2 as reviewed by "The Delinquent's" Donna LaFramboise

A database of the new FOIA2011 Climategate ll leaks can be found HERE.
This website is provided as a research resource for mining the recently leaked climate communications. Every effort has been made to redact personal contact information such as email addresses and telephone numbers. The redaction algorithms are currently tuned to be quite stringent, and they will inadvertantly obfuscate other details as well. We will continue to tune the software to improve the quality of the results.
This database was assembled in a very short space of time, and at present only provides the most rudimentary tools for exploring this vast trove of material. We will be improving the quality of the search tools and adding Ffurther metadata to the database over the course of the next few weeks.
Hot on the heels of her best-seller, The Delinquent Teenager.. Donna Laframboise looks at the new leaks to continue her exposee of the IPCC and their "experts."
In this e-mail the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) informs scientist Mike Hulme that his services are no longer required  – not because it has found someone with more experience and expertise to replace him, but because the IPCC feels a
need to maintain a balance in geographical representation…
and because its governing body, the plenary, has decided it should swap out “about half of the membership.”
To those of us who’ve already deduced that the IPCC does not, in fact, consist of the world’s top scientists there’s nothing earth-shattering here. But it’s yet one more bit of evidence that IPCC insiders have been fully aware that the reality of the IPCC differs rather dramatically from the marketing message being delivered to the rest of us.

Read more from Donna Laframboise HERE.

Imagine there's no Global Warming...

Imagine -

Talk to the trees | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

Talk to the trees | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

Damien Carrick: Are the actual islands sinking into the sea? Are you seeing loss of land at the coastline?
Maryanne Loughry: Yes, I was given a tour of one of the main islands by three young boys, and it was very interesting because as we walked around, and it took some time to walk around, they would point out to me where sea walls had been and now were out in the water. They would also show me coconut trees that used to be upright that were now fallen over...
Science? Asking YOUNG boys and looking for fallen coconut trees....

Earth's Marine Life Not Going "Quietly Into the Night" of Ocean Acidification

The latest paper on Ocean Acidification - from CO2 Science

Hurd, C.L., Cornwall, C.E., Currie, K., Hepburn, C.D., McGraw, C.M., Hunter, K.A. and Boyd, P.W. 2011. Metabolically induced pH fluctuations by some coastal calcifiers exceed projected 22nd century ocean acidification: a mechanism for differential susceptibility?  
Global Change Biology 17: 3254-3262. 

The authors observe that "most ocean acidification studies so far have been simplistic," in that they have not "jointly considered physical, chemical and biological interactions." They note, however, that "the emerging discipline of marine ecomechanics (Denny and Helmuth, 2009; Denny and Gaylord, 2010) provides a valuable framework in which such inter-disciplinary research can be conducted." The old experimental approach, as they describe it, "overlooks the existence of a discrete micro-layer (i.e., diffusion boundary layer, DBL) at the surface of many aquatic organisms that buffers them from the surrounding mainstream seawater (Vogel, 1996)." This feat is achieved by metabolic processes that alter the water chemistry within the DBL, with photosynthesis increasing pH, and calcification and respiration reducing pH (Hurd et al., 2009). Therefore, as they continue, "the chemical environment within the DBL differs from that in the mainstream seawater just micrometers away, with implications for both the dissolution of, and formation of, calcium carbonate (Borowitzka and Larkum, 1976; Ries et al., 2009)."

What was learned
The seven scientists determined that coralline seaweeds encounter a wide range of pH values over each daily cycle; but they found that they are able to increase their pH substantially due to photosynthesis and to successfully withstand periods of very low pH (relative to the present day and comparable to values predicted for coming centuries) under low flows. In the case of sea urchins, they found that they are currently subjected to -- and readily survive -- very low pH values (7.5) at their surfaces in slow seawater flows, which values are also akin to those that are predicted to occur in times to come. And in the case of abalone, they say they "have a very thin DBL and hence their outer surface is subjected to the pH in the mainstream seawater, in all flow conditions," yet they too persist, probably because they are "internal calcifiers" and "the reduced pH predicted for future oceans may not directly alter their rates of calcification."

What it means
In concluding their report, Hurd et al. say their findings "support the view that although the role of chemistry on OA is well understood, the biological responses to OA will be complex," citing their own work and that of Fabry et al. (2008), while noting that "both the site of calcification and the ecomechanics of the biota, i.e., the interactions between their morphology, physiology and the surrounding hydrodynamic environment, must be considered." And it would appear that that consideration suggests that earth's marine calcifiers are much more robust to OA than most people had originally thought.

IPCC - Fix it or fold it

Leading Economist, Ross McKitrick has said, in the Financial Post,

If the IPCC’s flaws can’t be corrected, we should leave....
For many years, attempts to encourage debate on global warming science or policy have run into the obstacle that the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued definitive statements, and therefore—the reasoning goes—the era of debate is over. The IPCC is made up of thousands of the world’s top scientists, it has one of the most rigorous and exhaustive review processes in the history of science, and the oversight by 195 member governments ensures balance, transparency and accountability. Or so we are told.
These claims about the IPCC are not true, but until relatively recently few were willing to question what they were told. Things began to change in 2009 with the leak of the Climategate emails, which prompted some observers to begin questioning their assumptions about the IPCC. Then this fall, Canadian investigative journalist Donna Laframboise released her book The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert, a superb exposé of the IPCC that shows convincingly that the IPCC has evolved into an activist organization bearing little resemblance to the picture of scientific probity painted by its promoters and activist allies.

Wednesday, 23 November 2011

Climategate 2: The Scandal Continues

Cartoons by Josh

Press Release fom CEI:

New E-mails Reveal Scientific Conspiracy and Cover-up

Washington, DC, November 22, 2011 – The 2009 Climategate scandal was re-ignited today with the release on the Internet of thousands of more e-mails from scientists working on the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment reports. Numerous e-mails confirm that some of the top IPCC scientists were consciously misrepresenting the scientific literature in order to support their global warming alarmist agenda and were engaged in trying to cover up their misdeeds.

The disclosed e-mails and documents are closely linked with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Among the senders and recipients are familiar players in international global warming politics who have often been described as the world’s leading climate scientists, including Phil Jones and Keith Briffa of University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit, Michael Mann of Penn State University, and Kevin Trenberth and Tom Wigley of the U. S. National Center for Atmospheric Research.

“If there were any doubts remaining after reading the first Climategate e-mails, the new batch of e-mails that appeared on the web today make it clear that the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is an organized conspiracy dedicated to tricking the world into believing that global warming is a crisis that requires a drastic response,” said Myron Ebell, Director of CEI’s Center on Energy and Environment.

“Several of the new e-mails show that the scientists involved in doctoring the IPCC reports are very aware that the energy-rationing policies that their junk science is meant to support would cost trillions of dollars,” said Ebell.

Here are four excerpts from the e-mails released today from Professor Phil Jones, the disgraced head of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit and lead author of one of the key chapters in the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (2007):

Basic problem is that all models are wrong – not got enough middle and low level clouds.

…what he [Zwiers] has done comes to a different conclusion than Caspar and Gene! I reckon this can be saved by careful wording.

I’ve been told that IPCC [UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] is above national FOI [Freedom of Information] Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process.

Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden. I’ve discussed this with the main funder (US Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.

And here are two e-mails candidly commenting on the work of Professor Michael Mann of Penn State University, the chief inventor of the infamous hockey stick:

Professor John Mitchell, U. K. Met Office: Is the PCA [principal components analysis] approach robust? Are the results statistically significant? It seems to me that in the case of MBH [one of the key hockey stick scientific articles by Mann, Raymond S. Bradley, and Malcolm K. Hughes] the answer in each is no.Professor Raymond S. Bradley, University of Massachusetts at Amherst and Mann’s co-author on the MBH hockey stick paper: I’m sure you agree–the Mann/Jones GRL [scientific article by Michael Mann and Phil Jones published in Geophysical Research Letters] paper was truly pathetic and should never have been published. I don’t want to be associated with that 2000 year “reconstruction.”

About CEI

The Competitive Enterprise Institute is a non-profit public policy organization dedicated to advancing the principles of limited government, free enterprise, and individual liberty. Our mission is to promote both freedom and fairness by making good policy good politics. We make the uncompromising case for economic freedom because we believe it is essential for entrepreneurship, innovation, and prosperity to flourish.

Here’s the link to the whole file:

ClimateGate 2 - The Leaks

More from FOIA2011

The Climategate CRU knew that the MBH98 HockeyStick was garbage but they still used it (From Junk Science via Marc Morano):

Swiss researcher Heinz Wanner writes: 'In my [IPCC-TAR] review [...] I crit[i]cized [...] the Mann hockey[s]tick [...] My review was classified “unsignificant” even I inquired several times...I just refused to give an exclusive interview to SPIEGEL because I will not cause damage for climate science'

 Phil Jones instructs on how to avoid Freedom of Information Act requests:
I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process
I find myself in the strange position of being very skeptical of the quality of
all present reconstructions, yet sounding like a pro greenhouse zealot here!
I too don’t see why the schemes should be symmetrical. The temperature ones
certainly will not as we’re choosing the periods to show warming.
[...] opposing some things said by people like Chris Landsea who has said all the
stuff going on is natural variability. In addition to the 4 hurricanes hitting
Florida, there has been a record number hit Japan 10?? and I saw a report
saying Japanese scientists had linked this to global warming. [...] I am leaning
toward the idea of getting a box on changes in hurricanes, perhaps written by a
We can put a note in that something will be there in the next draft, or Kevin
or I will write something – it depends on whether and what we get from Japan.

ClimateGate ll

Reports of FOIA2011 and Climategate ll

The Press Association
Thousands more emails from the university at the centre of the "climategate" row over global warming science two years ago appear to have been posted online.
Nature News

Yet another ClimateGate? - November 22, 2011

A new set of climate science-related emails and documents has apparently been released from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia in the UK.
The files, including more than 5,000 emails of as yet unconfirmed authenticity, have been posted on an anonymous server in Russia.
A text file included with the released emails and documents seems to quote prominent researchers discussing which each other the quality of climate reconstructions and the possibility that natural climate fluctuations might be behind the 20th century warming trend.
“I find myself in the strange position of being very skeptical of the quality of all present [climate] reconstructions,” one researcher is quoted as having allegedly remarked.
BBC News 
New release' of climate emails
The university says it has "no evidence of a recent breach in our systems", and suggests that the cache - posted on a Russian server - has "the appearance of having been held back after the theft of data and emails in 2009 to be released at a time designed to cause maximum disruption to the imminent international climate talks".
Its statement continues: "This appears to be a carefully-timed attempt to reignite controversy over the science behind climate change when that science has been vindicated by three separate independent inquiries and number of studies - including, most recently, the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature group."
Joanne Nova writes of FOIA2022 -

Breaking! Apparently, more emails released. Climategate II?

Five hours ago, FOIA left a link on my blog to a Russian site (I had been away). 

ClimateGate 2

Before Copenhagen COP15, emails from the Warmist scientists were leaked. These leaks became known  as Climategate.

Now as we approach COP17 at Durban, it appears that there have been a fresh lot of leaks which are being dubbed as ClimateGate ll.

As reported by The Guardian:

Fresh round of hacked climate science emails leaked online

A file containing 5,000 emails has been made available 
A fresh tranche of private emails exchanged between leading climate scientists throughout the last decade was released online on Tuesday. The unauthorised publication is an apparent attempt to repeat the impact of a similar release of emails on the eve of the Copenhagen climate summit in late 2009.

TCS blog is seeking verification before publishing.

Stay tuned.

Tuesday, 22 November 2011

Pickering on the Mining Tax

Uselessness of Wind Farms and the Duke of Edinburgh

The Mail on line reports that:
Former Chancellor Lord Lawson yesterday led the backing for Prince Philip after he branded wind farms ‘absolutely useless’. Lord Lawson, a former Tory Chancellor and leading climate change sceptic, said: ‘[The Duke] is spot on. He rightly feels strongly about the issue and equally clearly knows what he is talking about. ‘If you tried to devise the most costly and inefficient means of generating electricity imaginable, you would choose wind power – which is also an environmental monstrosity, desecrating ever more of our English landscape. ‘And the cost of all this – to no benefit except to the wind power industry itself – is paid by all electricity consumers, including the poorest, and damages the British economy which is fragile enough as it is.’
The theme was taken up by the [UK] Telegraph's Clive Aslet:
You have to hand it to the Duke of Edinburgh. At 90, he is still as incisive as ever. Once again, the Royal family has articulated what ordinary people, without the ear of the media, have long felt. His son might have called the wind farms that are besmirching our mountains and waving their giant arms inanely out at sea “a monstrous carbuncle”. Prince Philip chose “disgrace”. So they are. The politicians who foisted them upon us should be put in the stocks.
Wind farms are Blairism incarnate. Wanting to look big on the international stage, he committed Britain to some preposterously over-ambitious targets for reducing our greenhouse gas emissions. As ever, this was glittering, shop-window stuff, the bill for which would somehow be obfuscated by the dour Scot in accounts. After due nail-biting, Brown came up with a system so convoluted that most people have only just realised that the person who ultimately pays is the consumer.

Comments also from  Dr Benny Peiser of the Global Warming Policy Foundation and John Constable of the Renewable Energy Foundation
The Duke was backed by Dr Benny Peiser of the Global Warming Policy Foundation who said: “Prince Philip is telling it as it is. Wind farms are a complete waste of money and a huge burden on consumers who have to pay for them. Prince Philip is a strong environmentalist. He is clearly sending out a message that the current policy is a disgrace from both an environmental and economic point of view.”
John Constable of the Renewable Energy Foundation said: “The Duke is drawing attention to the cost to the consumer and he is perfectly right.
“The scale of the policy for wind proposed in the UK is technically and economically reckless. This is not the right way to develop the green future.” The Foundation says that more than half the annual income of an onshore wind farm comes from subsidy, rising to nearly 75 per cent for offshore wind farms.

(H/t to Benny Peiser GWPF)

The absolute uselessness of the wind farms is all over the British Press. What about it, Australian Alarmist Press? ABC radio and TV? Sydney Morning Herald?

See also: All you wanted to know about Wind Turbines.....

Monday, 21 November 2011

More Bad News for Wind Power

A report from Reuters today says

Meanwhile in the UK, if he ever was in love with Wind Farms, it is reported that the Duke of Edinburgh has made a fierce attack on wind farms, describing them as “absolutely useless”. 
Wind turbines operate at the newly-built Capital Wind Farm near Tarago, about 35 kilometres (22 miles) north of Canberra October 30, 2009. REUTERS/Tim Wimborne  In a withering assault on the onshore wind turbine industry, the Duke said the farms were “a disgrace”.
He also criticised the industry’s reliance on subsidies from electricity customers, claimed wind farms would “never work” and accused people who support them of believing in a “fairy tale”.
When Esbjorn Wilmar, of Infinergy, which builds and operates turbines, introduced himself to the Duke at a reception in London, he found himself on the end of an outspoken attack on his industry.

“He said they were absolutely useless, completely reliant on subsidies and an absolute disgrace,” said Mr Wilmar. “I was surprised by his very frank views.”

See also: All you wanted to know about Wind Turbines...

Sunday, 20 November 2011

14000 Abandoned Wind Turbines In The USA

Abandoned wind farm at South Point, Hawaii
According to Tony Aardvark, there are 14000 abandoned wind turbines in the USA. That's a blessing to birds and bats.

Tony writes:
The symbol of Green renewable energy, our saviour from the non existent problem of Global Warming, abandoned wind farms are starting to litter the planet as globally governments cut the subsidies taxes that consumers pay for the privilege of having a very expensive power source that does not work every day for various reasons like it’s too cold or  the wind speed is too high.
The US experience with wind farms has left over 14,000 wind turbines abandoned and slowly decaying, in most instances the turbines are just left as symbols of a dying Climate Religion, nowhere have the Green Environmentalists appeared to clear up their mess or even complain about the abandoned wind farms.
The same areas that are good for siting wind farms are also good for birds of prey and migrating birds to pass through, shame for the birds that none of the Green mental midgets who care so much about everything in nature, thought that one through when pushing their anti fossil fuel agenda.

Read more HERE

The Green Gillard Government's "Clean Energy" Future

Between them, Coal and Nuclear supply 55% of the world's electricity. The Greens want to close the coalmines  and they say no to Nuclear power. Hydro supplies another 16% but the Greens say "No new dams."  Clean Green energy from the Green Gillard Government?

Update - CCD got it from WUWT (LINK )

The Alarmist lies continue

Click on Image to enlarge.
A recent letter to the Editor writer expressed the view that human green house gas emissions rose at the highest rate ever recorded. The writer continued "Without urgent action to reduce emissions, any hope of avoiding the most catastrophic consequences of AGW (man-made global warming) is rapidly fading."

The writer ignores the fact that there is no proof that human emissions of trace gas carbon dioxide causes runaway warming. In fact, from the Hadley Climate Research Unit's data shown above, that tenuous link is busted. Although atmospheric CO2 continues to rise, temperatures have stalled or actually slightly decreased.
All the graphs are from Professor Ole Humlum's Climate4You report

Saturday, 19 November 2011


by Vincent Gray.

NOVEMBER  19th 2011
Image: Wikipedia


I am rapidly getting to a change of attitude to George Monbiot, hitherto one of the most extreme supporters of the global warming mythology.

The last two issues of my "Guardian Weekly" have contained ground-breaking articles that I support enthusiatically.

The first, in the 4th November issue is entitled

"The Subtle Poison We are all Addicted to"

It is the most swingeing and effective attack on the entire advertising industry I have ever seen. He shows how it stirs up social unrest by persuading people to buy things they do not need with money they do not have, that has to be borrowed from somewhere. It has disrupted our entire social structure by encouraging  people to live beyond their means. Our economic prosperity has become dependent on retail sales, not on productive industry, satisfying family and community relations, or anything that is worthwhile from being human.

He admits that he is attacking the basis of his own career. No media outlet or politician dares say these things as they all depend for their existence on the bribery of the advertisers.

I have spent my life trying to avoid advertising. I wore out several carpets in the early days of television, turning the sound down when the ads appeared and my mute button unfortunately gets seized up rapidly nowadays. Yet I welcome Junk Mail, the most honest form of advertising, since you do not havew to read it and it often gives useful information about what is being sold.

Now, today, (18th issue) Monbiot has yet another article. This time it is called "The 1% are the best destroyers of all time" with a summary "Our common treasury in the last 30 years has been captured by industrial psychopaths. That's why we are nearly bankrupt" and "the very rich are not wealth creators: they have preyed on the Earth and have impoverished both people and the planet."

So he is still on about "the planet", but somebody is beginning to understand what all those protesting people all over the world are really protesting about.


Vincent Gray

"To kill an error is as good a service as, and sometimes better than, the  establishing of a new truth or fact"      Charles Darwin