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