Tuesday, 20 September 2011

The Science is NOT settled despite a tendentious 4 Corners report

On the Four Corners episode "The Climate War", our Chief Scientist Professor Chubb expressed the view that he thought the debate on climate change keeps reaching new lows. The trouble is we have not had a debate on the science behind the anthropogenic global warming scare. He also said that we need to have very serious discussion. Well, in his position as Chief Scientist, why doesn't he set up a discussion forum. Not a stacked forum (like The Climate War) but an open forum with all sides represented.

He could start with an explanation of this graph of global temperatures showing warming from 1978 to 2002 and no warming since:

The above graph is part of a post by John L Sullivan on Climate Realists. He is countering a blatant alarmist Washington post oped piece by Richard Cohen. He could well be addressing Professor Chubb.
Sadly for Cohen the facts below prove he is just another mendacious mainstream propagandist of climate alarmism.
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:

  • 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."
Can we trust the scientists that are pushing the alarm? Consider these statement from Phil Jones included in the climategate emails:

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?

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.

 In Australia we must also ask some follow-up questions:
  • Will a carbon dioxide tax cause any reduction in Global Temperatures?
  • Will a 5% cut in Australia's Co2 emissions make any difference?
Professor Gregory continues:
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."

Truth Seekers & Freedom of Speech. Warped Logic.

Where you don't miss a thing - except Mike Smith!
Freedom of Speech is wonderful.

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.”
For the sake of us all, we must protect our freedom of speech.

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.

2UE - where you don't miss a thing......oh, except Mike Smith.


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.

Four Corners and the Carbon (dioxide) War

The government wants to put a tax on emissions of carbon dioxide. They constantly refer to the tax as a carbon price, but they want to tax carbon dioxide emissions.
Your ABC either
  • doesn't understand that Carbon Dioxide is a colourless gas; or
  • they don't understand that the carbon tax is a tax on carbon dioxide (that invisible gas); or
  • they are deliberately trying to cloud the issue using this image.
Memo to Marion Wilkinson and Deb Masters: Investigative journalists should make sure that they understand the topic before investigating. Did you understand that the tax on carbon is in fact a tax on invisible carbon dioxide?

Did the Chief Scientist say that there was a lot of debate about the science?
Australia's chief scientist Ian Chubb says the climate change debate is continuing to hit new lows.
I thought that we had been told that the science is settled. But, of course, if the science IS settled, then we have no need to fund research into climate change, do we. Perhaps, the science being settled, we have no need even for a Chief Scientist.

Did your investigation look at China; the largest market for our exported coal?

The Australian reports on The Greening of China - A Mirage.

Last month China became the world's largest emitters of carbon dioxide. It is also the world's largest manufacturer of solar panels and wind turbines.
The carbon tax bills are now before Australia's federal parliament. Julia Gillard, Greens leader Bob Brown and climate-change adviser Ross Garnaut have argued China's can-do green example ought to be our inspiration. But while China is playing a smart commercial game, its pro-green credentials are a mirage.
There is superficial evidence that China takes climate change seriously. Its 12th Five-Year Plan (2011-2015) claims China will reduce its carbon intensity (the amount of carbon emitted per unit of output) by 17 per cent in 2015 compared with current levels. And 50 per cent of its energy will come from renewable sources by 2050.
Yet dig a little deeper and it becomes clear Beijing's carefully crafted message about shifting towards a green future is primarily designed for Western markets eager for alternative energy sources and as a defence against these same governments putting greater pressure on China to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions.
How often have you heard PM Gillard and her real deputy leader Bob Brown say that China is closing down coal fired power stations? But do they ever tell you that for every power station put out of commission, two more are opened up. Do they say that China's coal consumption is increasing by 17% each year?
The International Energy Agency estimates almost 80 per cent of China's energy needs will be met by coal and oil in 2030. Official Chinese estimates by industry, science and technology ministries suggest coal alone will still provide about two-thirds of China's fuel needs in 2030. Which leads to the inescapable conclusion that a target that half the country's energy needs will be met by renewable sources in 2050 is not achievable.

Of course, not a word about this in the Four Corners report. Even if the falsified hypothesis that man made CO2 emissions are causing runaway global warming were true, what savings would a tax on Australia's small carbon emissions make?