Sunday, February 28, 2010

Bishop's Climate News Roundup for Sunday

The Bishop rounds up the day’s climate madness in one easy to digest post. Do yourself a favour and read his post before you go chasing for your dose of climate insanity elsewhere.


Friday, February 26, 2010

UK to out do Pol Pot to respond to catastrophic global warming

In today’s Telegraph (UK) I was somewhat stunned to read about a report modeling three global warming scenarios. Since I actually started paying attention to the global warming fiasco only a few short months ago I have read a lot of unbelievable nonsense masquerading as science, absurd predictions by scientists of the extinction of the human race within less than 90 years and much other utter rubbish. The Telegraph article presents a report that is right up there on the madness scale and this “research” was directed by none other than the UK’s top scientist, John Beddington.

“Mass migration northwards to new towns in Scotland, Wales and northeast England may be needed to cope with climate change and water shortages in the South East, according to an apocalyptic vision set out by the Government Office for Science.
The Government would ease pressure on the South East by planning to “disperse citizens to three new towns in Dumfries and Galloway, Northumberland and Powys”.

Three hundred Mad Scientists and lackeys in the UK have produced a report entitled Land Use Futures: Making the Most of Land in the 21st Century. John Beddington, the Government’s chief scientific adviser, directed the “research” (a term no doubt used loosely here). He apparently says that climate change and the growing population would present Britain with difficult choices about how it used its (or rather YOUR) land.

So now we have the “scientists” (note Beddington is a Professor of Population Biology and his tenure as Alarmist In Chief in Britain has been dominated by “green” issues) widening the CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming) myth to include issues such as scientists deciding how to use your free hold property and when to take it from you. Make no mistake, this is the end of all traditional western rights and the economy as we you know it. Without a guarantee of freehold property rights the economy stops dead and the failed communist or facist system (there is little difference) where a small class of people determine who gets what is instituted always ending with starvation, poverty and ultimately the collapse of the nation. Even China doesn’t practice that the more pure form of this type of government anymore. So long UK, it was nice to have you aboard while it lasted.

The report entertains three scenarios to “stimulate thought”. If it doesn’t stimulate mass rage and the sacking of the leaches that produced such rubbish “it would be a travesty” that it didn’t.

In order to save you the government will, according to these scientists and their lackeys need to move millions of you Brits hundreds of miles north. I wonder how that is going to be achieved? Will you all voluntarily get in your (banned) motor vehicles and drive north with a tent and your plasma TV in the boot or will you be called onto the street by masked black clad troopers, told to bring only what you can carry, and force marched north at the point of an automatic weapon. I don’t know about you but a polite invitation just wouldn’t do it for me. Storm troopers with machine guns probably would, and certainly would if I was part of a disarmed population of sheep such as the once proud warrior race of Britons have become. Oh the shame of being a bleating lamb slaughtered rather than a British lion standing his or her ground in a fire fight.

Beddington says, “Business as usual is not an option over the longer term. The effects of climate change and new pressures on land could escalate, seriously eroding quality of life.” Apparently for the green equals red mob in order to save your quality of life you have to forfeit your property, liberty and life.

In the most extreme scenario, world leaders hold an emergency summit in less than 4 years time in 2014 when it becomes clear that the impacts of climate change are going to be far worse and happen much sooner than previously envisaged. Note of course that the world’s leading climate alarmist, at least until he was stood aside from his post at the Climate Research Unit, Dr Phil Jones, publically stated only a few days ago that there has been no statistically significant warming for the last 15 years. Beddington’s mob however, at taxpayers expense, role play a little scenario taking place in less than 4 years hence where climate change is “far worse” than now. This is laughable science fantasy. All pretence of scientific objectivity has been abandoned by promulgating such nonsense. The solution in their little pantomime? Well it involves confiscation of “vast tracts of land” and the end of the small hold private farmer:

The Telegraph article states,

The Government responds by taking control of vast tracts of land and using it to grow wood and crops for biomass power stations. An agricultural productivity Bill requires farmers to increase yields per hectare but most have to sell up because they lack the resources to comply. “The average farm size in the UK increases from 57 hectares to 500 hectares; farms in the East and South East of England increase to 5,000 hectares.”

In a less alarmist scenario merely removing the rights of private land and house ownership is fantasised:

In another scenario, the Government redefines land as a national resource and the rights of landowners are balanced with “society’s rights to public benefits from the services produced by it”. Home ownership falls as people begin to embrace the idea of “stewardship” of shared natural resources.

So the Government just redefines your property, paid for by a life time of work and sacrifice as a “national resource”. In other words the government thugs kick you into the gutter and take what was once yours, at gun point of course as no one would give up their house voluntarily. However not to worry! There is a solution! You will be embracing “stewardship” (or at least the government will on your behalf) and you can “share” resources. How cool would that be. No longer would you need to work. Want a house? Simple. Just find one you like and “share” it with the incumbent resident. I wonder how living at 10 Downing Street would suit. Need a car? Just take it. I wonder if this sharing would extend to your neighbour’s wife. Now there’s a thought. It’s all so simple I am amazed no one has tried this before. I would be so busy “sharing” resources I doubt I would have time to produce anything by actually working. I am sure the rest of you would keep slaving away however so I can enjoy the fruits of your labour. Or would the government have to force the people to work, once again at gun point? Obviously no one would want to work when any property you acquire is taken from you to be “shared”. The only answer would be forced labour. That would work a treat judging by past world experience.

The fact that anyone of any standing, let alone the UK’s chief scientist, would put his or her name to such a document is telling. Yes it is only three absurd scenarios. But that is the point. The scenarios and suggested outcomes and solutions are absurd and they show no shame in presenting this nonsense to you in a report. If it is a question of millions of people “sharing” the fruits of their labour then you may as well give up now as it will all end in tears; and the death of millions. Of course short of a world wide green marxist takeover this is never going to happen but that doesn’t stop the UK’s chief scientist having his dirty little dreams late at night hoping that it will come to pass so he can step in and mandate the Final Solution for you.

Genius and excellence appears to be finally extinct amongst self labelled "scientists" and instead has been replaced by profligate peddlers of nonsenese fantasy clutching their worthless phd's in soft "science" of marginal or negative utility to civilization.

Stay strong people of the UK. Get these fruitcakes and soft headed saps off the public payroll and the problem is solved. Oh and have a great 2014 – unlike Beddington, I am sure it WILL be business as usual.

UPDATE (28/02/10): John Beddington - Statement of Interest Declaration:

THE government’s chief scientist (John Beddington) and his wife have made £500,000 in the past year in a company overseeing commercial fishing that allegedly threatens one of the world’s most pristine marine environments.

Professor John Beddington and his wife, Caroline, are joint shareholders in Marine Resources Assessment Group (MRAG), a London-based consultancy that manages fisheries and provides specialist advice around the world.

Conservationists claim that a fishery managed by the company in British territorial waters in the Indian Ocean has been catching threatened species including blue sharks and manta rays. It is estimated that between 2003 and 2008 more than 120,000 were caught as “bycatch” from commercial tuna fishing.

See the full article here. Draw your own conclusions.


Tuesday, February 23, 2010

A Look At Gladstone Temperature Data

Ken over at kenskingdom has just posted an analysis of GISS data compared to BOM data for Gladstone in Queensland, Australia. Ken’s blog is new but the way it is going it looks like developing into a must read for those interested in the Australian data.

Ken’s analysis of Gladstone shows an exaggerated warming trend for Gladstone. His conclusion:

Although GISS can truthfully say they have not adjusted the GHCN data, the splicing of the last 6 years of the Post Office dataset to the warmer Gladstone Radar leads to a trend of 1.7 degrees Celsius per Century.

I have shown three possible options for more appropriate adjustments to combine all temperatures at the one site. Of these, the highest trend is about 1.5 degrees, which is close to the trend (1.4 degrees) of the nearest rural sites. Examination of these sites shows that their data is of questionable quality. The second option produces a trend of 0.9 degrees, and the third and (in my opinion) best option, 0.7 degrees. The average trend of the 5 nearest long-record rural sites (0.8 degrees) is between these last two options and so matches well. Nearby cities of Rockhampton and Bundaberg show adjusted trends of about 0.7 and 0.5 degrees respectively, and Maryborough, ignored by GHCN, shows a trend of 0.4 degrees.
Ken is a retired school headmaster and his blog is concentrating on graphical analysis of temperature data relating to Australian towns and cities.

My conclusion:

Bookmark Ken’s blog – it gets more interesting with each post.


Friday, February 19, 2010

Penny Wong signals doom for iconic beaches

It’s always doom, doom and more doom. For alarmists and their brethren, the statists, nothing short of the general population in a constant state of alarm is acceptable. An alarmed population is easily hoodwinked into voting for self imposed taxation, unemployment and massive reductions in living standards in order to be saved from the next imagined threat. From today’s Australian newspaper,

AUSTRALIA'S most iconic beaches, including Bondi, Bells and those on the Sunshine Coast, could erode away or recede by hundreds of metres over the coming century, according to Climate Change Minister Penny Wong.

But locals aren't so sure.

Bondi veteran Lee Boman has swum at the beach for more than 30 years and was adamant he had seen "no change" to the coastline over that period. "Nothing too drastic that indicates it is going to be changed in the future," said Mr Boman, 53.

Bob Carter, a geologist and environmental scientist with James Cook University in Queensland, said Senator Wong's comments appeared to be an attempt to panic the public.

Pointing to historical rates of sea level rise of an average 1.6mm per year globally over the past 100 years, Mr Carter said it was reasonable to expect a total rise of 16cm in a century.

In her opening address to the National Climate Change Forum in Adelaide yesterday, Senator Wong made some alarming predictions for Australia's coast. "Not only are our assets and environments at risk, many of our sandy beaches could erode away or recede up to hundreds of metres over the coming century," she said. "It is possible that with climate change and without large and expensive nourishment programs, Bondi Beach, (Queensland's) Sunshine Coast and (Victoria's) Bells Beach may no longer be the beaches we know today."

For Penny and her Labor mismanagers it always seems the answer is “large and expensive (nourishment) programs” with the emphasis on expensive. The only problem is they never work. How’s that "pink batt" roof insulation scheme of PM Rudd’s going Penny? Another large and expensive failure. I fail to see how setting alight the roofs of over 80 people’s houses through shoddily installed, paid for by government “pink batts” helps with global warming Penny. Then again perhaps I am just being too picky.

The only thing that needs nourishment is Penny Wong’s cluemeter. Get lost Penny, no one is listening anymore.

UPDATE: Not even the UN's top climate offical, Yvo de Boer is listening anymore. He has just announced his resignation. Read about it here on BBC News.


Wednesday, February 17, 2010

Today's Disgrace: Reviewgate

Oh no, here we go yet again. A panel has been set up by the University of East Anglia (UEA), called the Independent Climate Change Review, to investigate certain matters arising as a result of the leaked climategate emails involving Professor Phil Jones of the UEA. Already one of the panel, Dr Phillip Campbell has resigned due to allegations bringing into question his impartiality. Now the impartiality of another panel member, Professor Geoffrey Boulton has been called into question. Professor Boulton refutes the allegations and has refused to resign. For a synopsis of what’s going on over pop on over to Climate Audit.

The Review’s web site states:

The Review team

The Independent Climate Change Email Review is being conducted by an expert team, led by Sir Muir Russell KCB DL FRSE. The Review team has more than 100 years’ collective expertise of scientific research methodology and a wide range of scientific backgrounds.

None have any links to the Climatic Research Unit, or the United Nations’ Independent Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). More information about each of the review team members can be found in the Biographies section.

But look at Boulton’s CV available here. He worked for UEA where the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) is located for 18 years.

In addition, in direct violation of the Review’s own independence statement that none of the reviewers have any links to the IPCC, Boulton’s CV states that he was a contributor to G8 Preparatory Groups and Intergovernmental Panels on climate change. This alone warrants his resignation from the Review panel. Perhaps Boulton has just "padded" his CV or perhaps his CV refers to some other intergovernmental panels - either way it does not look good for Boulton or the "independent" review.

Why does this theme of trickery, underhandedness, ethical shortcomings and outright untruthfulness seem to follow AGW peddlers like a bad smell. This Review panel so far gives me that bad feeling you get when you have just stepped in something nasty on the pavement. Is there nothing about AGW that is open, verifiable, testable, ethical and honest. I am getting totally fed up with the underhanded methods employed, the failure to fully and openly declare associations and funding, the breach of ethics and the breach of common decency that seems to pervade these people. They disgust me.

Surely it cannot be that hard to organise a review panel that is beyond repute, that is unless of course the outcome has already been decided. With one member already forced to resign and a second under a cloud perhaps the best course of action is to scrap this panel, replace Sir John Muir who does not seem to have much luck at organising impartial panels, and set up a new panel that will hold an open enquiry. That is the only way this investigation is going to have any credibility. A closed investigation stacked with AGW proponents into something as important as this is not just a total waste of time, it is a joke. I would like to see a panel with a range of skills including a reputable legal professional with a proven record of impartial moderation, an ethicist, a science historian as well as a couple of hard core scientists. I won’t hold my breath on that one.

If the science community keep this up they only way they are going to get public funding soon will be to run lemonade stands in their spare time.


Monday, February 15, 2010

BBC: Greenpeace Leader Gerd Leipold Admits Arctic Ice "Mistake"

We have seen recently that one of the errors made by the IPCC was that the Himalayian glaciers would melt by 2035. They based this on heresay and have now admitted their error. I stumbled across the then outgoing Greenpeace leader, Gerd Leipold, trying to spin a similar story about the artic ice melting by 2030. When pressed he eventually admits it is BS and that he was spinning the story as an activist. Gerd also clames in the video to be a climate scientist. These are the "scientists" we are to trust? Not bloody likely. I recommend this video if you want to see a lie exposed on camera. It is most entertaining.

Greenpeace had said in a July 15 2009 press release that there will be an ice-free Arctic by 2030 because of global warming. BBC reporter Stephen Sackur on “Hardtalk” pressed Leipold until he admitted the claim was wrong.

H/t to Frugal Cafe


IPCC ex-chairman Robert Watson calls for review of climate change mistakes

Following on from the Revelations of Phil Jones yesterday we now have the last chairman of the IPCC, Australian Prof Robert Jones, saying that if all the errors by the IPCC report were innocent they wouldn’t all be in favour of warming, according to the Australian newspaper. Have I just woken up in some kind of alternate universe? Quoting from the Australian:

“Robert Watson said that all the errors exposed so far in the report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) resulted in overstatements of the severity of the problem.

Professor Watson, currently chief scientific adviser to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, said that if the errors had just been innocent mistakes, as has been claimed by current chairman Rajendra Pachauri, some would probably have understated the impact of climate change.
The errors have emerged in the past month after simple checking of the sources cited by the 2500 scientists who produced the report.”
The rub is that Watson wants to get together with Gore to form a new group to restore the credibility of climate science. I would humbly suggest that if restoring credibility is your goal then Al Gore is not your man. But what would I know.

“Professor Watson has held discussions with Al Gore, the former US Vice-President, about creating a new climate research group to supplement the work of the IPCC and to help restore the credibility of climate science.”
After what Prof Phil Jones had to say to the BBC yesterday (see yesterday's post) why are we even considering throwing good money after bad? The game is up fella’s. Now can we get back to building space stations and such and forget about messing with graphs based on “adjusted” data. What a shameful waste of time and money. The only evidence Phil had for man made warming is that he doesn’t know what’s causing (which isn't suprising for such a complex dynamic system) it so it must be man. That is not evidence. That is a rort.


Sunday, February 14, 2010

Top Climategate Scientist Admits No Statistically Significant Warming Since 1995

Phil Jones Answers Questions From BBC

Prof Phil Jones of “Hide the Decline” fame, formerly of the CRU (Cimatic Research Unit) at the University of East Anglia was one of the world’s leading climate scientists until stood down after the release of the Climategate emails containing evidence of scientific misconduct, subversion of the peer review process and manipulation of evidence.

This is the first of a series of posts I will make concerning Prof Jones’ responses to the questions put to him by Roger Harrabin of the BBC. Key points from this interview which are referenced to the responses by Jones from the BBC site follow:

1. Jones states there has been no statistically significant global warming since 1995 (see response B in the BBC link above). This is an astounding admission. This is a key point raised in debate with alarmists that has up until now been answered with outright denial and derision. Now that this has finally been admitted by the key alarmist, Phil Jones, the lies promulgated up to this point by alarmist scientists who have denied this fact will not hold up.

2. Jones states that recent warming (1975 – 2009) is not unprecedented. Skeptics agree that the globe is warming slightly. The Earth is coming out of a period of cooling (the Little Ice Age). The debate is whether the warming is “man made” not whether there was warming during the 20th century. One key point therefore is whether warming has occurred in the past i.e. is current warming unprecedented. Jones now states that current warming is not unprecedented and is less than some warming events (see response A). He includes the following table in his respnse showing warming since 1975 is not unprecedented even in recent history.

Period: Length: Trend (Deg C per decade): Significance

1860-1880      21      0.163      Yes
1910-1940      31      0.15        Yes
1975-1998      24      0.166      Yes
1975-2009      35      0.161      Yes

3. Jones is asked how confident he is that humans are responsible for recent warming. He responds (response E): “I'm 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 - there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity.” With billions spent on AGW research he is unable to state a case for man made warming (anthropogenic warming) other than referencing back to the UN IPCC report which is now being attacked daily by the main stream media (which is reporting on earlier research conducted by skeptics) for shoddy referencing to non peer reviewed literature, errors and denial of errors. One could be forgiven for expecting a stronger response in support of man mad global warming under the circumstances. See 5 below for clarification by Jones.

4. Jones is now equivocal on whether the Medieval Warming Period was global in extent or limited to the northern hemisphere.

5. Jones is asked what factors convince him that recent warming is man made and answers by stating that it must be man made because otherwise he can’t explain it (see response H). After decades of research this is the evidence we are asked to believe? If it wasn't so pathetic it would be laughable.

6. Jones states that he does not believe the vast majority of climate scientists believe that the debate (on AGW) is over. This would be news to all skeptics and most other people on the planet who have heard of Anthropogenic Global Warming. Consistently we are told that the “debate is over”, the “science is settled” and that anyone who does not believe is a “flat earther” or a “denier”. Now that the world’s former top alarmist has cleared this up no doubt we can be spared such lies in the future from alarmist scientists and politicians with an agenda or a tax to push.

Concluding this first part of my series thus far, Climategate conspirator Phil Jones offers some very interesting insights into his true position on man made global warming and it can fairly be described as weak support for his hypothesis in stark contrast to the unequivocal statements from other so called climate scientists that we have previously touched upon on this blog.

The most surprising admission in the responses examined thus far is that recent global warming is not unprecedented and Jones illustrates other relatively recent periods where warming has equalled or exceeded the rate of 20 century warming. As man cannot have influenced earlier warming prior to the mid 20th century this destroys a central pillar of the man made global warming argument. It acknowledges, finally, that other influences in recent history have affected climate more than man has since the mid 20th century.

Next, Jones accepts that there has been no statistically significant global warming since 1995 and in addition he notes that there has been a negative trend in global temperatures since 2002 of -0.12C per decade although he believes this not to be statistically significant. This seems reasonable given the short time period for the later although I note that alarmists have refused to concede even this much previously. The important point is that Jones is accepting that there has been no warming for over 15 years (since 1995). There goes another argument until now never conceded by alarmist scientists.

Another huge admission is that Jones believes the Medieval Warm Period is open to debate. Anything being open to debate by IPCC scientists is remarkable but this is truly astounding. It goes right to the heart of the entire alarmist camp. I will post separately on this matter as its significance cannot be overstated.

Jones brings nothing to the table to support the theory that man has caused warming since the mid 20th century other than to reference the IPCC. Neither one statement nor one fact does he allude to in support of man made global warming other than to state (response H ) that his support for man made global warming is based on the fact that he cannot explain it.

If that isn’t enough for you to immediately be banging on the front door of your local politician demanding answers as to why they are attempting to spend billions and in some cases trillions of your taxes on this scam then come back soon for my next instalment and we will look at further responses by Phil Jones as he deconstructs the entire man made global warming myth that dishonest scientists and politicians have been gleefully shoving down our collective throats.

Let the sackings begin, the SS Anthropogenic Global Warming, previously flooding now has foredecks awash. The rats are in a panic. It will be interesting to watch these crooks and liars now change tack and reconstruct. They will deny they said many things but fortunately with several millions of pairs of eyes now firmly fixing upon them there will be nowhere for them to run. Indeed I have seen statements by catastrophic alarmists recently who now state that we should not overstate the alarm. I’ll post on those highly placed liars as well.

UPDATE: Comic graphic is by Borepatch. Thank you Borepatch! Borepatch is listed in my links section and is a blog I read daily.


Phil Jones Has Contemplated Suicide

Phil Jones of "hide the decline fame" and perhaps, until recently, the world's top alarmist scientist and key part of the "team" along with Penn States' Michael "Hocley Stick" Mann was recently quoted by the BBC as contemplating suicide.

Let's just step back a moment and see what Phil had to say onhearing of the death of Australian skeptic John Daley in 2004 as revealed in the leaked Climategate emails available here with analysis by Dr John P Costello.

Phil Jones on death (and publishing data):

January 29, 2004: email 1075403821

Phil Jones forwards to Mike Mann an email advising the sudden death of Australian climate skeptic John Daly:

It is with deep sadness that the Daly Family have to announce the sudden death of John Daly. Condolences may be sent to John’s email account (
Reported with great sadness
Timo Hameranta, LL.M.
Moderator, Climatesceptics

Jones’s comments:

In an odd way this is cheering news! One other thing about the Climatic Change paper—just found another email—is that McKittrick says it is standard practice in Econometrics journals to provide all the data and computer programs!! According to legal advice, Intellectual Property Rights overrides this.

Yesterday another interview appears on the BBC website in the form of a question and answer series which can be found here. I will be following with a series of posts on Phile Jones' responses to the BBC questions.


Thursday, February 11, 2010

UHA Complete 25 Satellite Series Jan 2010

Here is the complete UAH satellite temperature anomaly series for various regions of the globe ranging from Global to North Polar to South Polar that I have prepared. They are the current latest available spanning Dec 1978 through Jan 2010. Note that I have retained the same scale on all plots so a viewer can get a reasonable comparison of all regions although in order to retain detail of much of the data it results in plots of some regions being off scale.

The previous months graphs can be found here.


Monday, February 8, 2010

EU ETS Failing Says The Guardian – Carbon Tax Touted

In another blow to Prime Minister Rudd’s emissions trading scheme (ETS) the UK’s Guardian announces the failure of the EU’s struggling ETS to control carbon dioxide emissions.

The European Union's Emissions Trading System (ETS) is failing to deliver vital green investment after a collapse in carbon prices, MPs warn in a report out today.

The environmental audit committee is calling on the government to introduce measures such as a new carbon tax to push the price of carbon from its level of €15 (£13) a tonne to what the MPs see as a more credible price of €100.
Tim Yeo, chairman of the committee, said: "Emissions trading should be helping us to combat climate change, but at the moment the price of carbon simply isn't high enough to make it work. The recession has left many big firms with more carbon allowances than they need and carbon prices have collapsed.

"If the government wants to kick-start serious green investment, it must step in to stop the price of carbon flatlining," the MP added.

Even Friends of the Earth argues the ETS should be dumped in favour of energy efficiency measures and regulation.

Friends of the Earth said the environmental audit committee report was "another nail in the coffin" of the ETS and argued the government should drop its reliance on the scheme in favour of energy efficiency measures and stronger regulation.

Sarah-Jayne Clifton, a climate ¬campaigner at Friends of the Earth, said: "Not only is trading failing to drive down emissions, banks are growing fat developing ever more complex trading systems and this risks another financial crash."

Hmmmm ... that sounds a lot like the approach proposed by the Liberal Leader, Tony Abbot. No doubt this is not good news for Kevin Rudd.


Sunday, February 7, 2010

BBC on Australia's shifting Climate Politics

Simon over on Australian Climate Madness describes this BBC video as a must see. He is correct. It provides an excellent snapshot of the change in public opinion that has occurred in Australia with support for taxing the climate falling fast.

I see this amongst my own "associates". Twelve months ago non belief in catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) resulted in barely concealed sneers. Such strong opinions on science from people who couldn't plot a simple regression line if their lives depended upon it I must admit surprised me at first. Now a skeptical position receives either open support in the majority of cases or at least a considered hearing. Interestingly the most vocal supporter of climate change that I personally know (who has gone strangely quiet in recent months) also strongly believes the moon landings were faked by NASA and yet has no difficulty in basing their own belief in CAGW on "the science" - none of which they have actually read.

I still find it amazing just how quickly public opinion is shifting. What was only a few months ago political suicide now stands a chance of bringing a government undone. This of course is not certain and anything can happen, but the question is now a political one and that is where the battle is being fought. Actually thinking about it the issue has always been political right back to the original formation of the now discredited political activist body, the UN IPCC.

Any that actually know me who are reading this will recall me saying over the last year or two that as soon as the Australian CAGW believers are asked to put the first $20 of their own money on the table to pay for global warming you will see them turn and run. In Australia you see there is this belief, and it is a strongly held one, that when governments talk of "taxing polluters" that somehow that doesn't mean us i.e. the average taxpayer or citizen. Of course all costs will be passed on to the consumer. We are the polluters. We demand and buy the goods produced. This is being played upon now by PM Kevin Rudd who talks about making “polluters pay”. Kevin defines CO2 as pollution. Naturally if a power station pays for producing CO2 it will raise its electricity prices. It is so simple and yet it seems to have come as a "great big suprise" to many Australians. Perhaps it is the same everywhere.

It seems however that Australians are quickly now realising that it is us who will have to pay for climate beliefs in cold hard cash and many former CAGW believers are turning tail and running fast in the opposite direction. There is a saying here, "money talks, bullshit walks" that is particularly apt in the current political situation.

Kevin Rudd says he will "compensate" low to middle income earners for the extra cost of his great big tax on climate. Two problems:

1. that is where much of the tax dollars come from so it will be a deficit breaking expense - of course he won't do this. The promise will be quickly be broken. In fact it seems from TV interviews it has been broken before it even starts.

2. why would you compensate people when the whole point is to change behaviour by placing a price signal on carbon for heaven’s sake. Compensating consumers distorts the very signal one is trying to produce!

I commend this video to Australian readers or to anyone who wants to get a feel for the political position here as it stands today.


Saturday, February 6, 2010

Australia Out of Step on Emissions Trading Scheme

As the time for another vote on Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's Emmissions Trading Scheme approaches debate is "warming up".

From today's Australian:

AUSTRALIA is looking increasingly isolated in the global community as Kevin Rudd presses on with his government's emissions trading scheme.

US President Barack Obama admitted just two days ago he might have to abandon his proposal for emissions trading in favour of direct action in order to steer his carbon-cutting plans through the US Senate.

None of the world's top five polluters -- the US, China, Russia, India and Japan -- has an ETS

In perhaps the worst performace of any minister I have witnessed, Penny Wong managed to avoid answering ANY questions on the ETS. She was being pushed by ABC Lateline interviewer Tony Jones for the cost to consumers of increased electricity prices under scenarios ranging from a 5% cap to a 60% cap on emmissions but unfortunately for we Australians it is information that Penny Wong will not tell us. She just wants us to take the tax hikes on faith - much like her climate "science".

Read the transcript of Penny's disgraceful performance here. I urge you to read it. You will not have seen anything like it before.

Penny must think that details of her climate tax scheme are only to be available on a need to know basis. I will be one of the unfortunates paying for Penny's radical activism and I NEED TO KNOW. If the government doesn't trust us with their costings and modelling are we going to trust them to put their hand in our back pocket? Australian's are not that stupid Penny.

The only reason Penny would keep the details of costs from us is that it is going to cost AN ARM AND A LEG. Time to email, phone, write your sitting members and senators now and make sure Sneaky Penny and her delusional boss Kevin Rudd don't get their way on this one.

Could the pair of you PLEASE stop saying "Let me just say this/can I just say this" etc etc etc ad infinitum in interviews. It is nauseatting, pompous and entirely unnecessary.


Wednesday, February 3, 2010

ALERT: NIWA Did Not Keep Records of Adjustments to Temperatures

A press release by the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition (NZCSC) reveals that New Zealand’s weather bureau (NIWA: The National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research) no longer holds any records supporting its “adjustments” and manipulation of its official raw temperature observations. From Scoop,

"In December, NZCSC issued a formal request for the schedule of adjustments under the Official Information Act 1982, specifically seeking copies of “the original worksheets and/or computer records used for the calculations”. On 29 January, NIWA responded that they no longer held any internal records, and merely referred to the scientific literature."
Well isn’t that a surprise. NIWA “adjusts” the official temperature record of New Zealand which shows no measureable change in average temperature for the last 150 years and ends up with a graph of “adjusted” temperatures showing a sharp warming trend. In other words the entire warming trend in the NZ record was in the NIWA “adjustments” but they do not have any record of the adjustments (the dog ate my data). NIWA cannot justify the warming trend it built into its published data.

For a scientific organisation this is a "travesty".

“The only inference that can be drawn from this is that NIWA has casually altered its temperature series from time to time, without ever taking the trouble to maintain a continuous record. The result is that the official temperature record has been adjusted on unknown dates for unknown reasons, so that its probative value is little above that of guesswork. In such a case, the only appropriate action would be reversion to the raw data record, perhaps accompanied by a statement of any known issues,” said Terry Dunleavy, secretary of NZCSC.

“NIWA’s website carries the raw data collected from representative temperature stations, which disclose no measurable change in average temperature over a period of 150 years. But elsewhere on the same website, NIWA displays a graph of the same 150-year period showing a sharp warming trend. The difference between these two official records is a series of undisclosed NIWA-created ‘adjustments’.


“Well qualified climate scientist members of our coalition believe that NIWA has forfeited confidence in the credibility of its temperature recording procedures, and that it cannot be trusted to try to cover up its own ineptitude by in-house adjustments. What is needed is open access in the public domain to all of the known reasons for post-reading adjustments to enable independent climate analysts to make their own comparative assessments of temperature variations throughout New Zealand since the middle of the 19th century,” said Mr Dunleavy.
New Zealand’s adjusted temperature data is now faith based. It is mere guesswork. I support Terry Dunleavy, secretary of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition in calling for NIWA to dump its unverifiable adjusted temperate data.

Just what kind of credibility can NIWA expect to have when it does not bother to maintain detailed documentation of the critical adjustments to its own data? The answer is none.