Friday, 13 July 2012

Rate PM Gillard's answers to the public.

Tom Harris of the International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC) has asked for our help in contributing ratings and comments to his collection that he is gathering to submit to PM Gillard.  He'll also share them with the Australian Opposition, the media and the public.


Tom's original post is HERE  
Form to answer or rate questions is HERE.


July 6, 2012: Australia's Herald Sun newspaper just hosted an
online question and answer session between Prime Minister Julia Gillard
and the public about that country's new "carbon" tax (which came into force on
July 1, 2012).

ICSC is asking for readers' comments about the Prime Minister's climate
(science and politics) statements. We will select the most interesting remarks that
we receive and share them with the public via our Website. ICSC will also send
the most important comments directly to Prime Minister Gillard's office.

If you do not want to comment, we ask that you at least assign a numerical 
rating to each of the PM's answers.

 Click on an issue below to read the publics' questions and PM Gillard's
responses, as well as to submit your own
comments about, and ratings of, her statements.

You may also just register a rating for each answer.

Science questions:

#1: Taxing something that is essential to life
- assess PM's comments and rate, or just rate.

#2: How much will the Australian "carbon tax" lower temperatures?
- assess PM's comments and rate,  or just rate.

#3: Why did you decide to bring in the "carbon tax"?
- assess PM's comments and rate, or just rate.

#4: "Where does the money from Carbon Tax go exactly? How does it help the
- assess PM's comments and rate, or just rate.

#5: "Has the carbon tax started working since we have started having cold
weather since it was introduced?" - assess PM's comments and rate, or just rate.

#6: Shouldn't then funds generated from the tax go to "protect delicate
environments more susceptible to climate change?"
- assess PM's comments and rate, or just rate.

Julia Gillard ready to live blog on the carbon tax. Source: Herald Sun 
Political questions: 
#1: Did you lie about your election promises to not bring in a "carbon tax"? 
          - assess PM's comments and rate, or just rate.
#2:  "seeing all the polls throughout Australia and understanding that around 70% of the nation do not want a carbon tax and also knowing that you do not have a mandate to bring in this carbon tax do you not think it is wrong to bring in a law that is against the will of the people?" - assess PM's comments and rate, or just rate.

#3: "why are you implementing a tax designed to make us all poorer?" 

#4: "the start of Australia's greener future?" 


Earth is Happily gobbling More CO2 - again

In September last year, this blog published an item with the title: The Earth is Happily Gobbling more CO2. (LINK)

The NZ Herald reports (LINK) that:
Scientists have discovered an "abrupt increase'' since 1988 in the uptake of carbon dioxide (CO2) by the land biosphere, which comprises all of the planet's plant and animal ecosystems.
Wellington-based scientist Dr Sara Mikaloff-Fletcher, from the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, was part of the global research team investigating the distribution of CO2 emissions.
Ms Mikaloff-Fletcher said: "We were completely taken by surprise (by the findings)." Obviously she doesn't read this blog.

Read more of the article by  Kieran Campbell HERE.

Dreadful Predictions by AGW Alarmists

AGW: More Dreadful Predictions

by NCTCS Secretary 
Anthony Cox
Climate predictions have failed Australia; in 2009 the catastrophic Black Sunday and in 2010 the Wivenhoe disaster, demonstrate that clearly.

But has that stopped the likes of Tim Flannery, a proven failure at prediction, from continuing to make outrageous claims about future doom and gloom from AGW? Of course not.

Two recent reports continue this disgraceful exhibition of predicted catastrophe for Australia.

The first concerns the fate of Lake Eyre. Andrew Bolt has some fun with this egregious and fraudulent bit of scaremongering. The ‘paper’ is written by a who’s who of environmental and aboriginal activists and claims that rising temperatures will decimate the indigenes people living around Lake Eyre in the Arabunna country.

The problem is, there have been no rising temperatures in Arabunna country since 1975 and they have been falling for 7 years as Bolt graphically shows:

 So despite this conclusive evidence contradicting the apparently peer-reviewed paper which cost $240,000 it has still been published. This just about sums up the AGW science; contradicted by reality but still publicised and disseminated as though it were true.

Now the latest bit of government funded scare-mongering predicts that rural Australia will become a series of ghost-Towns by 2050; all because of AGW. The report is called Australia’s Country Towns 2050: What Will a Climate Adapted Settlement Pattern Look Like?

The longer version of the Report can be googled but it has already been given the media role out at our ABC where despite a comment from Leon Ashby, the tone is favourable.

The Report is egregious in its approach and conclusions and methodology; a trifecta. This should have been expected given that its only reference is the IPCC’s 2007 report, AR4. This is the same AR4 which failed an audit by IAC and has a large proportion of its science written by unqualified undergraduates and Green activists.

In addition the Country Towns report relies on temperature records in Australia which have been prepared by the Bureau of Meteorology. This temperature record is highly problematic as I explain at Jo Nova’s.

Every conclusion made in the report, therefore, is based on suspect scientific information. The report also wheels out the usual predictions about extreme weather [section 2.3.1] and sea level rise and the usual despoliation of the Great Barrier Reef [page 39].

Extreme weather, droughts, floods, cyclones, is the new paradigm of AGW. There is NO evidence to support this. In respect of droughts, professor David Stockwell has shown the CSIRO’s predictions of future droughts has no credence based on historical records.

Globally the most comprehensive study of extreme weather trends, The Twentieth Century Reanalysis Project, has detected no increase in any of the extreme weather indices since 1871.

In Australia attempts were made to brand the Black Saturday fires in Victoria and the Wivenhoe floods in QLD as examples of an increase in extreme weather. They were not with the 1974 floods and others being just as bad and the 1939 Black Friday fires being almost identical to the 2009 ones.

So, the situation is that even if we accept the temperature records from BOM as being accurate there is NO evidence of extreme weather.

Likewise sea level is not increasing in Australia or globally in a way which is as predicted by AGW.

The Great Barrier Reef, despite repeated predictions of doom by Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, who is the Great Barrier Reef equivalent of Tim Flannery, is not threatened.

Other than the above fiascos where reliance is based on dodgy and discredited scientific sources and information the report makes no attempt to define basic criteria for considering AGW, such as the “primary and secondary impacts of Climate Change” [page 6]. The report also lists the Delphi method as being its primary method of ratification [page 7]. This involves the authors/sources refining each others’ contributions through periodic dialogue. This would seem to be a pointless exercise since all the authors have as their assumption that AGW is real. In fact the Report unequivocally accepts the science of AGW [page 16].

In short the Report is another waste of time and space and money. Perhaps the only true thing the Report concludes is that many country towns would be unlikely to survive even if AGW were not true.

The AGW industry is self-generating now. It references itself and does not even pretend to have any credibility. In that respect it is like the current ALP/Green government.