Archive for the ‘Politics’ Category
Climatequiddick is best, because it reflects the media’s reluctance to acknowledge the problem posed by the evidence of fudging, fraud and bullying in the CRU emails and documents.
The media treated the embarrassment of Chappaquidick, and the fact that saving his career and reputation were more important to Edward Kennedy than the life of Mary Jo Kopechne, in the much the same way:
‘Let’s just hope it goes away.’
The almost miraculously reality denying Australian ABC radio presenter Jon Faine is a perfect example of this attitude:
“It was a small, even a tiny fragment of a sidebar of a secondary issue to the edge of the periphery of something people were talking about other than the main game. That’s how I saw it.”
Get some new glasses, Jon.
Mann, Briffa, Jones, et al were the ‘main game.’
Chappaquiddick didn’t go away, and the Hadley CRU documents won’t go away either.
The Washington Post has joined a few other mainstream media outlets in attempting to assess wht the CRU emails really do mean for the future of climate science and climate change policy:
Scientific progress depends on accurate and complete data. It also relies on replication. The past couple of days have uncovered some shocking revelations about the baloney practices that pass as sound science about climate change.
It was announced Thursday afternoon that computer hackers had obtained 160 megabytes of e-mails from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) in England. Those e-mails involved communication among many scientific researchers and policy advocates with similar ideological positions all across the world. Those purported authorities were brazenly discussing the destruction and hiding of data that did not support global-warming claims. …
Repeatedly throughout the e-mails that have been made public, proponents of global-warming theories refer to data that has been hidden or destroyed. Only e-mails from Mr. Jones’ institution have been made public, and with his obvious approach to deleting sensitive files, it’s difficult to determine exactly how much more information has been lost that could be damaging to the global-warming theocracy and its doomsday forecasts. …
The content of these e-mails raises extremely serious questions that could end the academic careers of many prominent professors. Academics who have purposely hidden data, destroyed information and doctored their results have committed scientific fraud. We can only hope respected academic institutions such as Pennsylvania State University, the University of Arizona and the University of Massachusetts at Amherst conduct proper investigative inquiries.
Most important, however, these revelations of fudged science should have a cooling effect on global-warming hysteria and the panicked policies that are being pushed forward to address the unproven theory.
The wheels are turning!
I have been looking through my electricity accounts for the last twelve months, and find that my primary residence (OK, I only have one) has consumed 6100 kWh for the year.
This compares very badly with the average US home which consumes about 20,000 kWh per year, and of course, is absolutely abysmal when compared with Al Gore’s sterling effort of over 200,000 kWh.
Even with the half ton of CO2 that I emit just by breathing each year, this amounts to a miserable CO2 contribution of about 6.5 tons per year.
I apologise, and will do my best to do better next year.
I admit I do drive 50 kilometres to work each day, but I carpool, and there are usually four people in the car, so I can’t take credit for that either. It certainly doesn’t compare with a private jet, or using 34, 000 litres of fuel flying to plant a tree on Earth Day.
I think I have CO2 production envy.
Maybe Tony Abbott did not ignore my fax. And maybe Kevin Andrews was willing to run just to test the level of support for Malcolm Turnbull, with another stronger candidate in the background.
In any case, it looks like there will be a vote on the Liberal leadership on Monday.
It is absolutely clear now that Malcolm Turnbull cannot continue.
He has not been able to set out clear policies which make the Liberals a genuine alternative to Labor, he has not been able to score any effective points against the government or Kevin Rudd, even when the points seemed to be there for the taking, and he is simply not liked or trusted by the majority of voters or even Liberal party members.
If that sounds harsh, it is not meant as any kind of personal criticism. Turnbull is clearly an able man. But equally clearly, he is not the right man to be leading the Liberal party.
The two possibilities are Joe Hockey and Tony Abbott.
I like Joe Hockey. I think most people do.
On personality and communication skills he is more likely to be able to steer the Liberals to victory than Malcolm Turnbull.
But the reason the leadership is in dispute is not personality or communication. It is policy, and in particular the determination and ability to put forward well researched, well-argued alternatives to government proposals.
Because the ETS/CPRS/RAT scheme has the potential to cause such devastation to the Australian economy, to businesses and to families, this determination and ability have never been more important.
I have seen little evidence that Joe Hockey’s views on the ETS or other major current issues can easily be distinguished from those of the Labor government. If he is not able clearly to articulate how his views are different, and how he would oppose the government’s plans, then electing him as leader would be a fatal mistake.
Tony Abbott does not quite have the likeable charisma of Joe Hockey. But he is well-liked nonetheless. And on policy he is clearly in front.
I would have preferred a little more decisiveness and a little less pragamatism on the RAT scheme from the beginning.
The tide of public opinion has now definitely turned. An election argued on this one policy will be winnable for the Liberals if they simply present the evidence.
But whether it is an election winning issue is beside the point, or should be. The ETS is wrong. It is bad for Australia, bad for ordinary people. It will achieve nothing good.
Doing what is right is more important than appearing to do what is right. And sometimes doing what is right means saying loud and clear, ‘This is wrong, and I won’t support it.’
Whoever is chosen as leader on Monday must be willing to do what is right.
Shamelessly lifted from A Western Heart:
If George W. Bush had been the first President to need a teleprompter installed to be able to get through a press conference, would you have laughed and said this is more proof of how he inept he is on his own and is really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes?
If George W. Bush had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to take Laura Bush to a play in NYC, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had reduced your retirement plan’s holdings of GM stock by 90% and given the unions a majority stake in GM, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had made a joke at the expense of the Special Olympics, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had given Gordon Brown a set of inexpensive and incorrectly formatted DVDs, when Gordon Brown had given him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had given the Queen of England an iPod containing videos of his speeches, would you have thought this embarrassingly narcissistic and tacky?
If George W. Bush had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia , would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had visited Austria and made reference to the non-existent “Austrian language,” would you have brushed it off as a minor slip?
If George W. Bush had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with people who cannot seem to keep current in their income taxes, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to “Cinco de Cuatro” in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the 5th of May (Cinco de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried again, would you have winced in embarrassment?
If George W. Bush had mis-spelled the word “advice” would you have hammered him for it for years like Dan Quayle and potatoe as proof of what a dunce he is?
If George W. Bush had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a single tree on Earth Day, would you have concluded he’s a hypocrite?
If George W. Bush’s administration had okayed Air Force One flying low over millions of people followed by a jet fighter in downtown Manhattan causing widespread panic, would you have wondered whether they actually get what happened on 9-11?
If George W. Bush had failed to send relief aid to flood victims through out the Midwest with more people killed or made homeless than in New Orleans , would you want it made into a major ongoing political issue with claims of racism and incompetence?
If George W. Bush had created positions for 32 or more Czars who report directly to him, bypassing the House and Senate on much of what is happening in America , would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so, would you have approved?
If George W Bush had proposed to double the national debt, which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had then proposed to double the debt again within 10 years, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had spent more than all the Presidents combined since George Washington, would you have approved?
So, tell me again, what is it about Obama that makes him so brilliant and impressive?
Can’t think of anything?
He’s done all this in 10 months — so you’ll
have 3 years and 2 months to come up with an answer.
I might just add, if George Bush forgot the location of the doors on his own house and tried to get in through a window, would you …
Tony Abbott ignored my fax.
I was glad Kevin Andrews, at least, had the courage to stand against Malcolm Turnbull.
The ABC’s description of him as a ‘stalking horse’ (how many people would understand that without looking it up, I wonder – and that’s a comment on the mentality of the ABC, not the general public), is unfair.
To save you the trouble, a stalking horse is a fake candidate put forward to test the water, before jumping the shark and falling on his sword. Whatever.
But it is true that Kevin Andrews could never be a serious contender for the leadership. He is a capable and intelligent poliitician (although I would have to be dragged to the polling booth to vote for someone who uses phrases like ‘vibrant businesses’). He simply does not have the public appeal, saleability, or leadership qualities of Abbott or Hockey.
The implementation of some form of RAT scheme now seems inevitable. I can’t be angry at the Labor Party for this. One expects expensive, evidence-free, ideology driven polices from the Labor Party.
I can be angry at the Liberals. You are supposed to be THE OPPOSITION, for heaven’s sake.
I say some form of RAT scheme because it is now so heavily modified that it cannot even pretend to do what the government says it will do. Which is nothing. Well, no, it will do that. Or be a positive example to the rest of the world. Of monstrous stupidity. Or something.
The Government calls it a ‘Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme’ – because the idea of the RAT/CPRS is to reduce pollution. Never mind that CO2 is not a pollutant but a vital part of the atmosphere, necessary for all life on Earth, and currently at low levels compared with most of Earth’s history.
Let’s assume for a moment that CO2 is a pollutant. Very nasty stuff. Got to get rid of it before it destroys the planet.
So the idea is that the RAT scheme makes it more expensive to pollute. So people stop polluting. So we can all breath again. And go for holidays on the Gold Coast without burning our feet on the footpath.
Except that that the new improved Turnbull approved RAT scheme takes billions of dollars from ordinary taxpayers …
Takes billions of dollars cash money from ordinary taxpayers and gives it to industry and power producers to help cover the fines imposed by the government to make them stop producing CO2. Which isn’t a pollutant anyway. So they can keep producing it without worrying.
All clear so far? And even with the billions of dollars added to my tax bill each year, major industry spokesmen say that we will see massive price increases for energy (and consequently everything else), job losses, mine closures, loss of competitiveness for Australian industry, etc, etc.
It just gets better and better.
Meanwhile Komrade Rudd is telling us to ‘get real’ on climate, and Komrade Turnabull is saying the opposition need credibility on climate.
I couldn’t agree more.
Except, doesn’t getting real imply some connection with reality? And doesn’t credibilty depend on searching for and standing up for the truth?
The Hon Tony Abbott
Fax No (02) 6277 8407
Dear Mr Abbott,
Please stand for the leadership of the Liberal Party.
I know you are reluctant to do so, and I understand the extra pressure the leadership would put on you and your family.
Malcolm Turnbull, for all his positive qualities, cannot win an election for the Liberal Party.
At least as importantly, you will have the courage to put an end to what is possibly the worst piece of legislation ever to be put to the parliament – a ration and tax scheme on every aspect of transport and industry.
Opposition and government both have an absolute obligation to ensure that legislation which would attack the wealth of every Australian is necessary and based on clear evidence. The ETS is neither.
Please allow yourself to be considered for the leadership, and put an end to this nonsense.
This article in the Wall Street Journal Hacked Emails Show Climate Science Ridden with Rancor may be the beginning of some very reluctant coverage by the commercial media.
They were always going to be a bit slow. After all, disastrous global warming has been one of their major headline grabbers for the last decade.
Higher sales of papers, higher number of viewers and listeners, mean more advertising revenue.
So the media are not going to give up on global warming until either it is clearly a scam, and they look like hypocrites if they continue to support it, or some other story comes along which will sell as many papers as AGW (anthropogenic global warming).
It has been clear for several years to anyone who examined the evidence that the anthropogenic global warming scare was a scam.
It has been clear for several years that there is no ‘consensus’ on the nature and causes of climate change.
But just how carefully and successfully this has been kept from ordinary people is demonstrated in the comment by Donna on this story by Miranda Devine Science Cooks the Books, in which Miranda mentions the book Global Warming False Alarm by Ralph Alexander.
Donna says: If your one scientist and his one book are right and the rest of the scientists are wrong, well, then our world would still benefit from less pollution, but if the scientists are RIGHT and Mr Alexander and his book are WRONG, then we may be destroying a world’s health and the health of all our future children. Now, I don’t think I’m prepared to take that gamble. Are you?
There are two things to note here.
First that Donna, who seems an intelligent and concerned person, has bought completely the line that CO2 is a pollutant.
CO2 is not a pollutant. It is a natural part of the atmosphere that is essential for all life on Earth, and which is at very low levels compared with most of Earth’s history. Increases in CO2 reduce desertification and increase crop production. More CO2 is a good thing.
Secondly, Donna seems completely unaware that a large number of scientists have not fallen for the IPCC view.
See previous posts for 450 peer reviewed articles questioning the fundamental science of AGW, or visit the Petition Project site to view the petition signed by over 30,000 US scientists rejecting the claim that human activity is causing harmful climate change.
An objective look at the evidence shows very minor warming of less than 1 degreee over the last 100 years, warming that occurred over the same period on Mars and other bodies in our solar system, and which matches perfectly the natural cycles of climate change which have been part of Earth’s history from the beginning.
But there were vast amounts of money to be made, so evidence was manufactured, graphs were faked, opposing opinions were shut out. See the Hadley emails.
The emails and documents apparently released from the Hadley CRU by a disgrunted insider do not prove that AGW is a scam – there was already plenty of evidence for that.
But they may be turning point at which the mainstream media is finally forced to acknowledge that the science of global warming is very thin indeed.
And that may just be enough to give courage to the sceptics on both sides of the Australian parliament. Which might just be enough prevent the implementation of the devastatingly stupid wealth-of-the-nation-destroying ETS proposed by the current government.
Look up ‘Sarah Palin is an idiot’ in Google and you’ll get 26,200,000 results.
She’s an idiot I would be proud to have as a friend.
‘George Bush is an idiot’ used to be the standard left-wing joke.
‘George Bush is an idiot.’ Ha, ha, ha. Then five minutes later ‘George Bush is an idiot.’ Ha, ha, ha, as if they had never heard this before, and it was so, you know, hilarious.
I guess it made it easier to avoid talking about policies and stuff.
It looks like ‘Sarah Palin is an idiot’ is the new left-wing joke de jour. Or joke de year.
But calling Palin an idiot won’t alter the fact that she is vastly more qualified to be president than the present incumbent.
In the video below Newt Gingrich responds to a derogatory comment about Sarah Palin’s resume by MSNBC interviewer Ron Allen.
‘It’s stronger than Barack Obama’s. I don’t know why you guys walk around saying this baloney. She has a stronger resume than Obama. She’s been a real mayor, he hasn’t. She has been a real governor, he hasn’t. She’s been in charge of the Alaskan National Guard, he hasn’t. She was a whistleblower who defeated an incumbent mayor. He has never once shown that kind of courage. She’s a whistleblower who turned in the chairman of her own party and got him fined $12,000. I’ve never seen Obama do one thing like that. She took on the incumbent governor of her own party and beat him, and then she beat a former Democratic governor in the general election. I don’t know of a single thing Obama’s done except talk and write.’
Then Gingrich asks Allen:
‘I’d like you to tell me one thing Sen. Obama’s done.’
No response. Allen clearly can’t think of anything, because Gingrich is right.
That hasn’t changed.
Well, it was either that or ‘Big Banana Bonks Barmaid.’
I am no fan of Mike Rann. His is a government that has achieved very little at great expense.
But I am less than impressed by suggestions his term as Premier should be brought to an end by revelations about his relationship with parliament house waitress and barmaid Michelle Chantelois.
Rann and Chantelois had been friends for some before the relationship became sexual. He has been consistently polite and supportive in his comments about her, describing her as a ‘terrific person, great mother, and … a friend.’
It seems likely the relationship was sexual in nature, although at this stage there is only Ms Chantelois’ word for that – and she has apparently been paid $200,000 to say so.
It used to be the case that not commenting about one’s sexual exploits was considered a good thing. I am not sure why Rann’s unwillingness to comment about or confirm the nature of his relationship with Chantelois is being painted as something negative.
As far as I can see, if her claims are true, he and she had a long standing friendship which became a sexual relationship. She was married, he was not.
Both are adults. Both behaved badly. Despite her present complaints, there is no reason to believe her claims that she was simply his puppet.
The affair stopped before Rann married in 2006. Rann claims his wife knows about the relationship.
This is a matter for Rann, Chantelois and their spouses.
I hope the Labor government in SA comes to an end. The sooner the better for the people of South Australia
But the hapless State Liberal Party will be making another major bungle if they try force Rann out on the basis of his relationship with Chantelois.
There is no electoral ground to be made in sleazy accusations which have nothing to do with political performance.
There is plenty of electoral ground to be made in positive leadership and in policies which are clearly differentiated from those of Labor.
Jose Juan Ortiz, UNICEF’s representative in Cuba, clearly knows what side his bread is buttered on.
In ceremonies in Cuba yesterday to celebrate Universal Children’s Day, Mr Ortiz said:
Cuba is among the countries that have best implemented the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Countries in the world should learn from Cuba on the protection of children’s rights. All countries in the world should follow Cuba’s example and strive to provide better conditions for children in judicial and social welfare fields. In this way most countries will be able to meet the targets set by the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Despite the nasty Norte Americanos and their nasty president, or at least their nasty former president, and their nasty trade embargo, Cuba has won! Yay! Cuba’s children are all happy and healthy and Cuba is an example to the rest of the world! Yay!
Cuba is certainly an example, but it is hard to see how any rational person could regard it as a positive example.
Just a couple of links to check before joining in the UN celebrations.
Cuba is the North Korea of the Americas, and the UN is run by ideologically driven bureaucrats to whom the gospel of socialism is more important than truth.
It is looking more like the email and document files taken from the Hadley Cimate research Centre, and now confirmed as genuine, were leaked by an insider rather than hacked.
This link will download the complete zipped file of Hadley documents – FOI2009.zip. It is a 61MB file, so if you are on dial-up, don’t bother!
If you don’t want all the files, but want to have a look through, An Elegant Chaos has entered the emails (not the other documents) into a searchable database.
Interesting that the BBCs story about the leak of the Hadley CRU emails and documents is about how naughty those darned hackers are, and how unfair it all is.
This story from the Telegraphs’ James Delingpole asked what the leaked documents mean for the global warming crusaders:
One of the alleged emails has a gentle gloat over the death in 2004 of John L Daly (one of the first climate change sceptics, founder of the Still Waiting For Greenhouse site), commenting:
“In an odd way this is cheering news.”
But perhaps the most damaging revelations – the scientific equivalent of the Telegraph’s MPs’ expenses scandal – are those concerning the way Warmist scientists may variously have manipulated or suppressed evidence in order to support their cause.
Here are a few tasters. (So far, we can only refer to them as alleged emails because – though Hadley CRU’s director Phil Jones has confirmed the break-in to Ian Wishart at the Briefing Room – he has yet to fess up to any specific contents.) But if genuine, they suggest dubious practices such as:
Manipulation of evidence:
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.
Private doubts about whether the world really is heating up:
The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.
Suppression of evidence:
Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.
Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.
We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.
Fantasies of violence against prominent Climate Sceptic scientists:
time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat
the crap out of him. Very tempted.
Attempts to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP):
……Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back–I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back….
And, perhaps most reprehensibly, a long series of communications discussing:
How best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees with AGW can be written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority.
“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?”
“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.”“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !”
Hadley CRU has form in this regard. In September – I wrote the story up here as “How the global warming industry is based on a massive lie” – Hadley CRU’s researchers were exposed as having “cherry-picked” data in order to support their untrue claim that global temperatures had risen higher at the end of the 20th century than at any time in the last millenium. Hadley CRU was also the organisation which – in contravention of all acceptable behaviour in the international scientific community – spent years withholding data from researchers it deemed unhelpful to its cause. This matters because Hadley CRU, established in 1990 by the Met Office, is a government-funded body which is supposed to be a model of rectitude. Its HadCrut record is one of the four official sources of global temperature data used by the IPCC.
The leaked documents show a high level of contempt by Hadley researchers for anyone who disagrees with them, and a willingness to ‘enhance’ their reporting of temperature data to make it agree with their throries about what should be happening.
Anthropogenic global warming is zombie science. Even though it is dead it will contiunue to thrash around annoyingly for a few more years. But it is dead.
Time to start looking for a new catastrophic, world-ending, terrifying scare that will sell papers and generate grant money.
So there must be a global climate crisis.
That’s the argument of the Labor nitwits trying to foist on the nation what is almost certainly the worst piece of legislation in Australia’s history, the ‘Destroy Our Economy And Cause Massive Unemployment Because We Have To Follow The Latest Lunatic Media Scare Scheme,’ or ETS for short.
Boys and girls, two weeks of warm weather in Australia, or two weeks of any sort of weather anywhere, do not amount to a global climate anything.
Meanwhile, for those who still claim no reputable scientists doubt AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming), and there is no peer reviewed research which questions AGW, here is a list of 450 such peer reviewed journal articles:
A clear and well-written article titled Ideology and Money Drive Global Warming Religion by physicist and engineer Andrew Kenny, in South Africa’s Business Day (which, incidentally, reports unseasonable cold weather).
I don’t usually simply copy and paste whole articles, but this is such a good summary of some of the problems with global warming alarmism that it is worth reading in its entirety:
LESS than a month before the Climate Conference in Copenhagen there is fierce competition to see who can produce the most absurd global warming scare. Hence the hysterical warnings of disappearing ice caps and temperatures rising 2°C. The winner must be President Mohamed Nasheed of the Maldives, who held a cabinet meeting underwater to warn about rising sea levels.
In reality, the Maldive Islands are not threatened. Dr Nils-Axel Mörner, a world expert, points out that sea levels there are now lower than they were in 1970. Like other climate horror stories, it is nonsense.
From about 1850 to now, carbon dioxide (CO² ) ) in the air has risen from about 280ppm (parts per million) to 390ppm. Global temperatures have also risen modestly — about 0,6°C in the 20th century. This is the flimsy basis of the scare that rising CO² is causing harmful global warming. Overwhelming scientific evidence shows it is not.
CO² is not a pollutant. It is a harmless, life- giving gas on which green plants depend. Over the past half-billion years, CO² levels have averaged more than 2000ppm. Present levels are low, way below optimum for green plants. CO² has never been seen to affect temperatures (although they affect it, as cooling oceans dissolve more of it). It is a feeble greenhouse gas (by far the most important is water vapour) and its only significant absorption band is already saturated.
The climate is always changing. From about 900 to 1200 was the worldwide Mediaeval Warm Period, when temperatures were rather higher than now. This is confirmed by hundreds of scientific studies and historical record. It saw booming agriculture, good health and great advances in Europe, and a doubling of the Chinese population. The Vikings colonised Greenland and grew crops, where it is now too cold.
Then temperatures dropped to the Little Ice Age from about 1400 to 1850. The Thames used to freeze over. The Vikings abandoned Greenland. It was a time of crop failures and ill health. In the bitter cold of Shakespeare’s time, malaria (known as the ague) decimated the European population.
Since about 1850, temperatures have been rising in a natural recovery from the Little Ice Age. They peaked in 1998. All the years of the 21st century have been cooler.
What causes these ups and downs? Certainly not CO² . . Mounting evidence points to the sun. There are variations in the sun’s emission of charged particles, known as “the solar wind”. Sunspots give a measure of this. There was high solar activity in the Mediaeval Warm Period and the 20th century, and low activity in the Little Ice Age. In the coldest period, or Maunder Minimum (1645- 1715), there were no sunspots at all.
Clouds are the most important determinant of the climate on earth, especially low clouds (cumulus), which cause cooling by reflecting away sunlight. A theory, developed by physicist Henrik Svensmark, is that cosmic rays from outside our solar system induce clouds by providing sites for droplet condensation. The solar wind wards off the cosmic rays. The more active the sun, the fewer cosmic rays, the fewer low clouds, and the warmer the earth.
Science says that the present climate change is natural. But a great international clamour, from politicians, activists, journalists and academics, cries out that it is caused by wicked mankind. Why? There are two reasons: ideology and money.
Climate alarm is the new religion of the rich. In the climate religion, the sin is industrialisation and damnation is the over- heating of the planet. Redemption lies in forsaking fossil fuels and returning to a simpler, purer life.
Climate alarm is also an international multibillion-dollar business, providing jobs, careers, funding, travel and conferences to a multitude. Any questioning of the alarm threatens their livelihoods. The more alarm, the more funding they get and the more secure their jobs.
The high church of global warming is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It is funded by governments to promote the belief that mankind is changing the climate dangerously. Its “technical summaries” select evidence for global warming and reject counter-evidence. Its “summaries for policy makers”, couched in scientific language, are expressions of dogma, telling the faithful what to believe.
In 2001, the IPCC was guilty of one of the worst travesties of science. The Mediaeval Warm Period was a huge embarrassment for the warmers. So they set out to eliminate it. In its third assessment report of 2001, the IPCC brandished before the world the infamous Hockey Stick curve. This graph showed temperatures in the northern hemisphere steady from 1000 to 1900 (like the handle of a hockey stick) and then suddenly shooting up to unparalleled highs (like the blade), so that the end of the 20th century was the warmest period of the past thousand years. The hateful Mediaeval Warm Period had been abolished.
After facing much prevarication and obstruction, two mathematical experts, Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, finally managed to get hold of the data and methods on which the Hockey Stick was based, and swiftly showed it was nonsense. It relied on bad data, wrong selection and contrived statistical methods. Using proper data and methods, the Hockey Stick disappeared and the Mediaeval Warm Period reappeared.
Still trying to rewrite climate history, an IPCC insider group produced new Hockey Stick curves, which depended on the work of British scientist Keith Briffa. McIntyre asked to see Briffa’s data. Briffa refused, and scientific journals in which his papers were published backed his refusal. Such is the perversion of science under climate change. A few months ago, McIntyre got the data, and found the same nonsense.
Current computer climate models are useless for prediction. This is because we do not understand many climate mechanisms and modellers deliberately use assumptions to get the result they want: global warming.
An example is climate feedback. Standard methods of radiant heat transfer give you a temperature rise of 1°C as a direct result of CO² doubling. However, there will be “feedback”. The modellers assume “positive feedback”, which amplifies change.
But all the evidence is for “negative feedback”, which counters the change (for example, by more evaporation and more cooling clouds). Prof Richard Lindzen of MIT reckons negative feedback makes CO² insignificant. Predictions of temperatures rising 2°C or more have no scientific basis. The only consequence of rising CO² will be that crops and forests grow better.
The sun became ominously quiet recently. Global temperatures have been falling since about 2004 (contrary to climate model predictions). The Antarctic has been getting colder and its ice growing since 1978, when satellite measurements began. The Arctic is now colder than it was in 1940; in recent years its ice extent decreased until 2007, and is now increasing again. All of this information, including satellite measurements, the most accurate we have, is freely available.
Politicians and activists will converge on Copenhagen next month looking for more control over our lives and more money. They will urge governments to damage their economies by restricting the use of fossil fuels. The greater their failure, the better it will be for the world.
Interesting that the comments, mostly from warming collaborators, attack (as usual) the man and not the arguments. Not one referenced counter-point is made to any of Kenny’s arguments.
Britain’s new high commissioner, Baroness Valerie Amos, has expressed surprise that Australians are still debating whether humans cause climate change and says other nations have long since ”moved on”.
Not only have we stopped thinking, she says, but you should stop thinking too.
Maybe political leaders in other countries believe thoughtful examination of the evidence is an unneccessary inconvenience, but polls show most ordinary people, and most scientists, disagree.
Politicians who allow the media to drag them along by their snouts should not be surprised when their constituents demand an explanation for the billions of wasted dollars, the lost jobs, the suppression of industry and employment, for a scare with as much substance as the Jupiter Effect.