Wednesday, February 25, 2009

Want a Good Laugh?

The American Association for the Advancement of Science had Al Gore as Guest.

What an oxymoron! Al Gore and Advancement of Science.

The New York Times DotEarth Column reports that Big Al dropped a slide from his presentation. The slide blamed "global warming" for almost everything.

Now Mr. Gore is dropping the graph, his office said today. Here’s why.

Two days after the talk, Mr. Gore was sharply criticized for using the data to make a point about global warming by Roger A. Pielke, Jr., a political scientist focused on disaster trends and climate policy at the University of Colorado. Mr. Pielke noted that the Center for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters stressed in reports that a host of factors unrelated to climate caused the enormous rise in reported disasters.

Will Al report back to the The American Association for the Advancement of Science and report that he was actually advancing phantasy - not science?

Monday, February 23, 2009

Carbon trading is not the answer, Co2 is not the culprit!

In a story in The Australian Newspaper dated on Saturday 21 Feb 09 with the sub-heading:
We need to hear other ideas on greenhouse gas reduction.
They give an explanation why the Rudd Government shut down the parliamentary inquiry into the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme after calling it only a week earlier.

Kevin Rudd is demonstrating he will brook no dissent to an immensely complex plan he intends to make law by the middle of the year. Under the CPRS, the Government will set a cap on greenhouse gas emissions and auction or give to industry permits to pollute.


Then the article goes on to mention the word that is always near to the alarmist's surface: Consensus.

The Government has a plan, the Opposition supports reducing emissions, although it is a little hazy on how to do it, and public opinion wants something done about climate change. But that is where the consensus ends...

Well, on February 6th, ABC News Radio ran a poll: Is Global Warming to blame for the current heatwave in Australia?

- Global Warming is a myth
- Yes

The result showed that more than 90% thought that (Anthropogenic) Global Warming was a myth
and because the result showed a consensus that didn't fit into the ABC's global warming theology the result was pulled fromtheir past records.

The article goes on to state:

A carbon trading scheme is also open to manipulation by the financial engineers whose derivative trading packages came close to crippling the world banking system last year.
The system also subsidises the producers who receive carbon credits, in effect giving the Government the power to pick winners, with all the risk of political manipulation this brings.

Sunday, February 22, 2009

Penny - Look at this

Steven Goddard has posted a graph showing CO2 rises lags behind temperature rise on Anthony Watts award winning blog Watts up With That?

Consider the earth 14,000 years ago. CO2 levels were around 200 ppm and temperatures, at 6C below present values, were rising fast. Now consider 30,000 years ago. CO2 levels were also around 200 ppm and temperatures were also about 6C below current levels, yet at that time the earth was cooling. Exactly the same CO2 and temperature levels as 14,000 years ago, but the opposite direction of temperature change. CO2 was not the driver.

As I said in my just previous post -

The lack of evidence showing CO2 to cause warming means Penny Wong has no excuse to introduce her new HAT (Hot Air Tax)

Crash or burn as Penny's Wrong Tax faces collapse

From SMH dated 20/Feb/09 in an article by Phillip Coorey and Marian Wilkinson:

The Climate Change Minister, Penny Wong, will tell a business lunch in Sydney the global financial crisis was no excuse for backing away from implementing the (ETS) scheme next year.

The lack of evidence showing CO2 to cause warming means Penny Wong has no excuse to introduce her new HAT (Hot Air Tax),25197,25047319-2702,00.html
In the above link dated 13 Feb 09, Wayne Swann asked the House of Representatives economics committee to inquire into "the choice of emissions trading as the central policy to reduce Australia's carbon pollution".
However, one week later, according to the government biased and pro-global warming biased ABC, Treasurer Wayne (I'm not sure what I'm doing) Swan has asked the House of Representatives Economics Committee to call off an investigation into emissions trading, saying it has become "politicised".His decision late yesterday came after a day of confusion about whether the Government would delay the introduction of the scheme.

Back to the first SMH story. Penny is quoted as saying: "Our Government remains undeterred in our determination to implement the [trading scheme] because we know it is the economically responsible course of action for Australia."

Well Ms Wong, it will ruin the economy. Queensland, for example has already stated that it will cost 370,000 jobs.Your own government's research arm has warned of thousands of job losses and a $1.8b hit to the economy.,23739,23747571-3102,00.html

Do you honestly believe it is the economically responsible course of action for Australia? Get out of here!

Saturday, February 21, 2009

Heathrow Runway Protest by Idiots.

From the Guardian UK:

The ever-growing coalition of protest against airport expansion rolls up outside Downing St tomorrow. The Campaign Against Climate Change march will set off from Westminster tube station at 5.30pm under the banner of "the green future versus the Brown past".

Well, diddums, as Climate is constantly changing and you are against it, whom are you protesting against? God?

Turnbull's 'Hamlet' stance on climate under fire

In a SMH article by Marion Wilkinson dated 20/2/09:

At a meeting of the Australian Business Economists forum in Sydney today, Senator Wong renewed her attack on the Opposition Leader, calling on him to support the Government's key climate change policy.

Well, surely, Senator Wrong should have to produce some science that shows CO2 causes Global Warming before introducing her HAT (HOT AIR TAX )- her ETS. As the IPCC has been trying, without success after 20 years, to show that CO2 causes warming, it will be hard for MS Wrong to prove it.

"The challenge will be for Mr Turnbull to stand up to the climate change sceptics in the coalition who do not want action taken on climate change", Senator Wong said.

Better yet, tell them to join the new Australian Party opposed to any form of Carbon Tax, the Carbon Sceptics Party. (See previous entry)

Asked about the chances of getting the policy through the Senate this year, Senator Wong said: "We will talk to all parties but ultimately, when this legislation gets to the senate, the opposition and all parties will have to decide whether they want Australia to start reducing its emissions from next year."

Let us hope and pray that the Senate has some sense and rejects her CRAP (Carbon Reduction Australia Policy) her ETS - her new HAT (See previous entry - Penny's new Hat.) Australia's already teetering after Kevin Rudd's Buy More Votes stimulation package.
To introduce an ETS would completely bankrupt the country.

Thursday, February 19, 2009

Climate Sceptics Party - A world first

Launch of The Climate Sceptics - A New Political Party
Thursday, February 19th 2009, 6:29 AM GMT
Dear fellow Australians

As President of the world`s first up front political party representing climate sceptics I am asking like minded friends and contacts across Australia to do two things to help us.

(Update: Associate Membership now available to people not on Australian electoral rolls.)

1) Pass this email onto your contacts and
2) Check our web site and consider becoming a member.

We want to get the news of our existance to every climate sceptic in the country and we need your help to do that.

We are under no illusions about the difficulties of politics with many of our team experienced in public and past political roles.

To assist our membership drive, our first 500 members will be given "Foundation Member" status.

500 Foundation members will enable us to qualify for government funds per vote after each election.

Now if you have never joined a political party before, may I reassure you not to judge us on other political parties. Our goal is to make The Climate Sceptics as easy to particpate in and to become as effective as possible.

We have a constitution that upholds accurate science, logical decisions and due accountable processes - things ignored by other parties.

We can meet by email so members can participate from home (a world first for a political party I believe) and
You can immediately sign up as a member on our website within a few minutes.

The team of climate sceptics driving the formation of this party have a broad political base - e.g. from Liberal, Labor, National & minor party backgrounds.

We have realised a new political party is needed to give Australians a voting choice at the next federal and state elections to say clearly we reject an emissions trading system - (as well as many other policies based on alarmist assumptions).

You may think it`s unlikely a new party can get enough votes to make a difference so look carefully at the following three surveys from the ABC

Remember a 12% vote could translate into an upper house seat in any State & Federal election

Past Votes on questions run by the ABC

Question 50

Should Australia sign up to carbon emission reduction targets of between 25-40% by 2020?
Yes, it's necessary as part of a global effort. 76%
No, it would be economically irresponisble. 24%
1424 votes counted

Question 200

Are you willing to pay the extra $7 a week the emissions trading scheme will cost the average household?
No 28%
Yes 72%

Question 267

Has global warming contributed to the conditions causing the bushfires?
Yes 48%
No 43%
Don't know 9%

1742 votes counted

We realise the above ABC votes are not perfect surveys, but even so a substantial climate sceptic vote is noticable and appearing to be growing.

Please consider going to our web site signing up as a member and passing this info on to others who you think may be interested in knowing of our existance.

Yours Sincerely

Leon Ashby

President of The Climate Sceptics

PO Box 721, Mt Gambier SA (Australia) 5290

Ph 0887259561

Wednesday, February 18, 2009

A parched, Scorched Story in the Australian

From an article in today's (18/2/09) Australian by CLIVE MCALPINE AND JUSTIN RYAN

1. If the Australian Government's climate policy remains unchanged, the devastating bushfires which swept Victoria on Saturday, February 7, will become more frequent.

As responsible journalists, on what do you base this statement?

2. Without urgent action to reduce global greenhouse emissions, the landscapes of south-eastern Australia will become drier and hotter and more prone to catastrophic fires.

As responsible journalists, on what do you base this statement? Co2 emissions promote plant growth! Won't plant growth promote more rain and therefore wetter rather than drier?

3. The Government's current policy response to climate change needs to do more to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.


Native forests and woodlands moderate climate fluctuations by recycling moisture back into the atmosphere as well as cooling the land surface. The net effect is a cooler and more moist landscape.

Right! See response to #2 above.

Land and Water Australia recently funded joint research by the University of Queensland and the Queensland Climate Change Centre of Excellence to model the impact of historical land-cover change on Australia's climate. Their findings suggested it was too simplistic to attribute climate change solely to greenhouse gases.

Ah, some research quoted.

Like the IPCC Assessment Reports (as opposed to the backing details) all sorts of "could," "possibly," "might".....

and still no link to CO2 causing Global Warming

Melbourne's Hottest Day

From Andrew Bolt's Blog:

What the preachers have seized on to blame the fires on man-made warming is that Melbourne suffered its hottest day on record—46.4C—a week before the flames roared over our towns.

Global warming, right? Wrong.

First, Melbourne did in fact have a hotter day before, four years before the Bureau of Meteorology started officially recording temperatures.

As the Argus newspaper reported at the time, the temperature on February 6, 1851, soared to 47.2C, helping to superheat the fires that then roared across 10 times more land than was burned last week.

AND despite claims that global warming is now heating this land like never before, Victoria’s highest recorded temperature is still the 50.7C measured in Mildura 103 years ago.

South Australia’s is also 50.7C, recorded 49 years ago.
NSW’s is the 50C of 70 years ago.
Queensland’s is the 49.5C of 37 years ago.
Not much recent warming obvious there.

Jobs for the "Working Families"

In a column by Andrew Bolt re Peter Costello:

"Prime Minister Kevin Rudd last November boasted he had a $10.4 billion stimulus package that would “create up to 75,000 additional jobs over the coming year”. The same month he produced another “$15.1 billion package to create 133,000 jobs”, and weeks later he gave us a $4.7 billion “nation-building program” to “help create up to 32,000 Australian jobs”.

So where are those 240,000 new jobs now? And if those billions were so well spent, why is Rudd now spending a colossal $42 billion more? Then count all his other big-dollar pledges piling up as our economy tanks—paid maternity leave, a new tax on emissions, a rise in pensions. . ."

So, the Co2 spewing Kevin747 is creating 240,000 jobs? And yet, in an AAP report:

"The government has been up front about the fact that Australians will be affected, growth will slow, unemployment will rise given the deteriorating global outlook," Rudd was quoted as saying in an AAP report.

Honto Kana? He is creating 240,000 jobs yet umemployment will rise?

Warming or Cooling? Hans Labohm

From The web site of Roger Helmer; Member of the European Parliament

First the bad news and then the good. Everybody knows through the media as well as Al Gore's ‘documentary’, ‘An inconvenient truth’, that the rise of worldwide temperatures is accelerating and a climate catastrophe is imminent. Everyone knows that mankind is causing CO2 to accumulate in the atmosphere as a result of burning fossil fuels. Everyone also knows that all scientists agree about the AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) hypothesis and that we should take urgent action to prevent a climate disaster. Everyone knows that sea levels are rising rapidly and that low-lying countries like the Netherlands will shortly be inundated. Everyone also knows that millions of plant and animal species are threatened with extinction; in particular the polar bear, which is the poster child of global warming.

Now the good news: none of these statements is true.

Tens of thousands of scientists are of the opinion that mankind is not to blame for climate change. Everybody acknowledges that the climate is indeed changing. But that is nothing new and will probably continue as long as the earth exists. But it has nothing to do with humanity.

Sunday, February 15, 2009

Flat-Eath IPCC: Warning of wildfire threat to tropical forests

Chris Field, co-chair of the UN's Nobel prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change told the American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting in Chicago that the panel's report on climate change in 2007 had underestimated the severity of global warming this century.

Does that mean that their GCM's were wrong? Does that mean the, despite saying the contrary, the IPCC does predict future temperature and weather?

"We now have data showing that from 2000 to 2007, greenhouse gas emissions increased far more rapidly than we expected, primarily because developing countries, like China and India, saw a huge upsurge in electric power generation, almost all of it based on coal," Field said.

But, with respect, Mr Field, you do not as yet have data linking Greenhouse gases with Global Warming despite Billions spent over twenty years.

In fact, your flat-earth society IPCC has ignored, or chosen to not take into calculations, the Ice-Core samples that show that rise in CO2 follows temperature rise.

The next report, which he will oversee, is due in 2014 and will now include future scenarios where warming is more serious than previous reports have suggested.

Will; you even issue AR5 if there has not been warming for 16 years?

Expect Climate Exaggerations

From a report on the on-line service of the Arizona Daily Star, some extracts:-

The debate on why the world is warming has ended, according to the presenting scientists.

Quite right, since it's stopped warming, the debate is over.

"Be prepared for surprises," said Jonathan Overpeck, director of the University of Arizona's Institute for Environment and Society, one of three speakers at the symposium.

Was this the person who said to David Deming (Associate Professor, College of Arts and Sciences, College of Earth and Energy,
University of Oklahoma) that the alarmists had to get rid of the MWP prior to Mann et al producing the disgraced "hockey stick" graph?

Stephen Jackson, director of the University of Wyoming's department of botany, said
"The good news is that climate change is nothing new. It's part of the world we live in, but the bad news is that a time of climate change is not a good time to be around."

Well, Mr Jackson, as climate is always changing, is there ever a good time to be around?

Tuesday, February 10, 2009

Victoria bushfires stoked by green vote

Further to my last post, in Today's Australian, David Packham - a Bushfire Scientist for more than 50 years - who, as a concerned private citizen, was prompted to raise the alarm through a memo distributed to concerned residents.

In his opinion piece he goes on:

"The science is simple. A fire disaster of this nature requires a combination of hot, dry, windy weather in drought conditions. It also requires a source of ignition. In the past, this purpose has been served by lightning. In this disaster, lightning has not played a big part, and for this Victorians should be grateful. But other sources of ignition are ever-present. When the temperature and wind increase to extreme levels, small events -- perhaps the scrape of metal across a rock, a transformer overheating or sparks from a diesel engine -- are capable of starting a fire that can in minutes become unstoppable if the fuel is present.

The third and only controllable factor in this deadly triangle is fuel: the dead leaves, pieces of bark and grass that become the gas that feeds the 50m high flames that roar through the bush with the sound of jet engines.

Fuels build up year after year at an approximate rate of one tonne a hectare a year, up to a maximum of about 30 tonnes a hectare. If the fuels exceed about eight tonnes a hectare, disastrous fires can and will occur. Every objective analysis of the dynamics of fuel and fire concludes that unless the fuels are maintained at near the levels that our indigenous stewards of the land achieved, then we will have unhealthy and unsafe forests that from time to time will generate disasters such as the one that erupted on Saturday."

David also sent a letter to his local paper, the Weekly Times, on January 25:

"I predicted we were facing a very critical situation in which 1000 to 2000 homes could be lost in the Yarra catchment, the Otways and/or the Strezleckies; that 100 souls could be lost in a most horrible and violent way; and that there was even a threat to Melbourne's water supply, which could be rendered unusable by the ash and debris. Horrifically, much of this has come to pass, and it is not yet the end of the bushfire season.

In the face of this inferno, the perpetrators of this obscenity should have the decency to stand up and say they were wrong."

He doesn't say it but I will. The perpetrators of this obscenity are the Greens, who are against control burns and the Labor Government - pandering to the Greens for Preferential votes.

Criminals - stand up and say you are wrong! Bob Brown, Kevin Rudd, Bob Carr and all of you who have use the manic Greens to advance their political careers.

Australian Bushfires due to AGW - not

In an article from the Peninsula on line dated 10/2/09 By Peter Smith in Sydney, that starts:

"Australia is a land of droughts, tropical floods and raging bushfires. But the scale of the fires that devastated rural communities in the state of Victoria at the weekend was on a scale never seen before."

Well, not quite never Pete. He later says:

"The bushfires have triggered a debate over the effects of global warning on the planet’s driest continent. Scientists say Australia, with its harsh environment, is set to be one of the nations most affected by climate change. "

He then gives a quote from that Wacko, Senator Bob Brown:

"“Global warming is predicted to make this sort of event happen 25 percent, 50 percent more,”

25 percent, 50 percent - Bob. Well that gives you , on your reckoning 100% margin of error!

Meanwhile, in the same day's "The Australian" the following quotes..

Geoffrey Blainey, in Melbourne's Herald Sun yesterday, on bushfires that occurred long before global warming:

"IN our recorded history, there has been no bushfire as spectacular as February 1851, on the very eve of the first gold rushes. They called it Black Thursday. Half of Victoria seemed to be on fire. A wild northerly was blowing, and it drove such a column of black smoke right across Bass Strait that one town near Devonport was so darkened in mid-afternoon that people actually thought the end of the world had come.

The period after World War I was especially dry in Victoria. Five devastating years for bushfires were 1919, 1926, 1932, 1939 and 1944. Those of 1926 have been largely forgotten, but in the town of Gilderoy only two of 14 forest workers survived. More than 50 Victorians were killed in bushfires during that February. I remember Black Friday: January 13, 1939. The two million hectares burned probably exceeded the extent of bush and forest destroyed this weekend. Some 1300 homes were lost, and 69 sawmills. More than 70 Victorians died that day."

Germaine Greer, in The Times of London, sets the record straight on the role of global warming in bushfires:

"FIRE is an essential element in the life cycle of Australian forests. Season by season sclerophyll or hard-leaved woodlands build up huge amounts of detritus, which must burn if there is to be new growth.

For 40 or maybe 60 millennia, Aboriginal peoples managed fire proactively, setting alight woodland, scrubland and grassland, so that they could pass freely, so that game was driven towards them, so that fresh green herbage was available. Aboriginal languages have dozens of words for fire. As the Endeavour sailed up the eastern coast, Captain Cook noted that the skies were darkened with smoke by day and lit up by fire at night.

Bushland that is not burned regularly turns into a powder keg, as the fuel load inexorably increases. The cause of these disasters is not global warming; still less is it arson. It is the failure to recognise that fire is an intrinsic feature of eucalypt bushland. It cannot be prevented but it can and should be managed. Unless there is a fundamental change of policy across all levels of government in Australia, there will be more and worse fires and more deaths."

So, fires of this intensity have occured regularly over history.
As GG points out, our eucalypts discard dead branches and woody weeds grow under the trees. The Australian Aborigines regularly did control burns which reduced bush fire fuel and generated new growth. Rural fires Services did the same until Labor governments started to pander to the Greens (watermelons actually, green on the outside and pink on the inside!)
The funny thing is, you never see Bob Brown or any other Greens around disasters like this, trying to help preserve native forests and native wildlife.

Apologise, Bob and stop using this terrible event as a time to spread your evil propaganda.

California told to free inmates in crowded jails

In an Article from Agence France-Presse dated February 10, 2009

"CALIFORNIA must release thousands of inmates from its overcrowded jails in order to improve conditions which violate prisoners rights, a panel of judges said in a preliminary ruling Monday."

Well, perhaps governor Arnie could take in some of them. While on this subject, POTUS Obama wants the terrorists in Guananamo
Bay to be re-located. Perhaps he could put them up in the Left Wing.

ABC Delete Poll -didn't show result they wanted

Global Warming is a myth 94.1%
No 5.1%
Yes 2.8%
12800 votes counted

This results of this on-line poll from the week-end of 7-8/02/09 obviously didn't suit the Australian Broadcasting Commission.

It has been eliminated from the past results. Like all reporting on the ABC, they do not show anything that doesn't fit the man-made global warming lie that they have been pushing.Their charter is to evenly report all news, not to take a stand on one side and ignore all evidence and reports from the other side.

What hypocracy! I want my money back!

Monday, February 9, 2009

Rudd lies again in Parliament

In Today's SMH, Columnist Paul Sheehan suggests Mr Kevin747 is preparing for an early election trigger with his politically based $42 billion Nation Building and Jobs Plan.
Paul mentions that former Labor leader Mark Latham observed last week

"They have jumped all over the financial crisis, not with a clear economic strategy in mind, but with an urgent sense of the political opportunity it presents."

Paul goes on to say:
Above all, an early election would buy Rudd time to deal with the disconnect between his rhetoric and his performance, such as this lightning bolt delivered last Tuesday: "Australia is in a stronger position than these countries because the Government built a strong surplus last year as a buffer for tough times."

This is blandly recorded in Hansard without a hint of what was going on in the chamber. It was noisy. Not from interjections, but from laughter. The opposition was laughing at the Prime Minister's gall.

His government had not "built" a $20 billion budget surplus; it had inherited one, part of a massive $90 billion financial firewall left behind by the Coalition government. Within the Rudd Government's first full fiscal year, that budget surplus would be gone.

It had taken 11 years for the Howard-Costello government to unwind the $96 billion federal debt left behind by Labor in 1996. It had taken 11 months for the Rudd Government to commit to debt on the same scale.

Obviously, Mr KRudd is either suffering from delusions or is aware of the lies he is perpetrating.

HometownAnnapolis Wrong about AGW

In an article entitled "Eric Hartley: A first step toward a cleaner Maryland" datedMonday, February 9, 2009, some strange statements were made.

"There are skeptics, of course - people who argue the science on climate change is still unclear. "
"We know for a fact that our greenhouse gas emissions - man-made - are increasing," (Secretary of the Environment Shari) Wilson said. "The science today tells us that there's a correlation between (them and climate change). So we have to act."

Well, sorry, but the sceptics know that the science is clear. The IPCC has had 20 years to find a causal link between Global Warming and Greenhouse gases including CO2 without success. Whereas the Vostok Ice Core samples show that rise in CO2 follows rise in temperature. F-O-L-L-O-W-S... get it?

"Think of this logic. If, say, Al Gore is wrong, ...."

Well, substantially wrong, with 41 inconvenient untruths in his inCONvenient movie. British courts ruled that in order for the film to be shown, the Government must first amend their Guidance Notes to Teachers to make clear that
1.) The Film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument.
2.) If teachers present the Film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination.
3.) Eleven inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children.

"(Wilson) notes there already have been sea-level rises in Maryland."

She should know that Florida today agrees with her about sea-level rises

Doom-and-gloom maps show Cape Canaveral would go under.
But at the current rate of sea-level rise in Florida -- 2.3 millimeters a year -- the ocean would take more than 400 years to rise by the 4 feet needed to make that happen, some oceanographers say.

Saturday, February 7, 2009

Is Penny Wong or Right (4)

Update on my post "Is Penny Wong or Right (3)
Where I said:
And following on from my post Is "Penny Wong or Right (2)" where she said on 4BC radio "and... and... and I... to be honest with you.. think that most Australians do have a view that this (AGW) is real ..." a poll in the Australian newspaper as at today's date records: Are the heatwaves in Victoria and South Australia evidence of global warming?
Yes 8%
No 70%
Don’t know 23%

The Australian Labor Party's own News Network are running a Poll (Link in Title)
Is Global Warming to blame for the current heatwave in Australia?

Global Warming is a myth 94.1% Poll Updated 11am 8/2/09 with 128oo votes counted
No 3.1%
Yes 2.8%

So tell me, Penny, do you still or did you ever believe "that most Australians do have a view that this (AGW) is real
And Kevin 747, Wayne Swaan and Mr Tanner: Do you think it will be wise to intruduce a crippling carbon dioxide tax?

Mainstream Media busted by Newsbusters

In an article titled "Pro-Global Warming Study Receives Worldwide Headlines; Discovery of Error in Study Garners Op-Ed in One Paper" by Amy Ridenour, Amy shows the bias of the MSM to AGW.

Professor Eric Steig published a paper in the once respected Journal "Nature" which, contrary to other reports including IPCC reports which showed Antarctica was cooling, showed by his calculations that the reverse was the "fact."

The Stieg paper's release was covered by 27 newspapers, including the New York Times, San Francisco Chronicle & Los Angeles Times, by CNN, by the Associated Press, by NPR and quite a few others.

But when a noteworthy error was found in Stieg's research less than two weeks after it's publication, of the mainstream press, only an opinion column in the London Telegraph and a blog associated with the Australian Herald Sun carried the news. After independent analyst Steve McIntyre discovered a major error in the data, and released his results on his influential blog Climate Audit beginning on February 1, based on a Nexis search I conducted today, none of these outlets chose to inform their readers.

After she lists what the Media reports were (and they are worth reading to show the MSM bias), she goes on:
Co-authors of Stieg's paper included David Schneider of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, Scott Rutherford of Roger Williams University, Michael Mann of Penn State, Josefino Comiso of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center and Drew Shindell of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Followers of the global warming issue will easily recognize Michael Mann as the proponent of the since-disgraced "hockey stick" global warming graph and an activist global warming activist and the Goddard Institute as run by one of the world's most infamous global warming alarmists, James Hansen. Stieg himself is a contributor to the ardently pro-alarmist and environmentalist-supported PR blog RealClimate. Despite this, none of the mainstream press stories I reviewed mentioned the activism activities of authors.

That Hockey stick Mann again. That name alone should have given a warning notice to the reporters!

Deconstructing the Steig AWS Reconstruction
by Roman Murelka on February 6th, 2009

Friday, February 6, 2009

McKibben outlines climate change effects -NOT

The Lexington Global warming action coalition posted their first three misconceptions.
Boy, are they misconceptions!

Their first, correctly titled
1. Scientists are divided

Consensus is a word that scientist don't own. By its very nature, Science questions everything, but having said that, the US senate lists 650 scientist that are sceptical to the IPCC view:

31,072 American scientists,including 9,021 with PhDs, have signed this petition, found at

acknowledging that they are sceptics

Whilst the IPCC ARIV was produced by less than 100 scientists mainly without peer-review and disregarding dissenting opinion from some of the writers.

Lexington's second point, correctly titled

2. We have time
Starts The melting Arctic ice will help speed up global warming.
Except the Arctic ice is a great as it was in 1980, the Antarctic Ice volume is growing and Greenland permafrost is growing, so, yes, We have time.

The third point is so stupid, I won't bother to address it!

Hottest February Days

Forecast Sydney Temperatures for
• Saturday 6/2/09 33º
• Sunday 7/2/09 34º

As Sydney prepares for a hot week-end, I will post here the hottest (over 40ºC) February days in Sydney from January 1859 to December 2005.

8/2/26 42.1
1/2/77 41.4
21/2/80 41.3
22/2/30 41.1
14/2/91 40.8
17/2/26 40.6
20/2/31 40.1

Note that two are in the roaring twenties; two in the thirties; one in the seventies, one in the eighties and one in the nineties.
So far, there are no temperatures over 40ºC in the naughties.

Wednesday, February 4, 2009

Climate change's impact on north country- Watertown

An error-filled article on by Erika Barthelmess who made the following strange statements:

The scientific community is in agreement about two important facts. First, the global climate is changing, with the average temperature of the earth increasing;

Well, no, over the last century temperatures rose by approximatley 0.6ºc, however, for more than eleven years temperatures have been steady.

and second, the changes result from a human-caused increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide.

Wrong again! Despite the IPCC trying to find a causal link for more than 20 years, one has not been found. A link however has been found with the Vostok Ice core samples which have shown that a rise in temperature brings on a rise in atmospheric CO2 but with a lag of 800 +/- 200 years.

Though a few skeptics try to debunk the fact of climate change, it is widely accepted in the scientific community.

Sorry - not a few, google and see more than 31000 scientists in climate related fields do not accept the theory.

For information about climate change, readers can consult the expert and politically neutral Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Political Neutral. Tell them they're dreaming, son.

Rudd neo-liberal with the facts

Journalist and Executive Director of The Sydney Institute, Gerard Henderson discusses Mr Rudd's 8000-word article on the global financial crisis for The Monthly.
..."Kevin Rudd spent his summer holiday at Kirribilli House on Sydney Harbour ..."

Would that be the same Kirribilli House that Labor continually censured the previous Prime Minister for using:
(From the Website of Anthony Albanese, Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Developement and Local Government, Leader of the House. )
The fact the (Previous) Prime Minister chooses to live at Kirribilli and not at the Lodge has provoked plenty of criticism over the decade he's been in office. Labor estimates it's cost taxpayers millions of dollars extra to maintain two residences instead of one. And every year in Senate estimates it draws attention to the running costs of both houses. Today (12 June 07) the Manager of Opposition Business Anthony Albanese had another shot.

Anyhow, back to Gerard's column:

Who do you believe? According to the view from Kirribilli, Howard and the Coalition were heavily into neo-liberalism and were opposed to taxation and regulation. But according to the view from Davos, Australia has the best financial regulation system in the world, along with a strong budget outcome which was obviously contributed to by taxation. Since Labor has been in office for just over a year, this cannot be solely the work of Rudd.

and further
Australia will suffer from the global financial crisis. But our financial institutions are stronger now than they were during the recession of the early 1990s. And the fact that Rudd Labor can readily put the budget into deficit stands testimony to the fact that John Howard and Peter Costello produced strong surpluses during the boom years. This was not achieved by George Bush and the conservatives in the US, nor by the Blair/Brown social democrats in Britain.

As he's done before, Mr Rudd is re-writing history.

Tuesday, February 3, 2009

Heads I win, tails you lose, Penny Wrong

Simon on Australian Climate Madness has pointed out that:
As inevitable as night follows day, scientists have claimed that the worst winter snow in London for thirty years is consistent with climate change. The UK's Telegraph newspaper reports this under the faintly amusing headline:
Snow is consistent with global warming, say scientists

Meanwhile, at the same time, our own dearly beloved Ms Penny Wong has said that the heatwave gripping south-east Australia is part of what scientists predicted would happen.

At the time that she said that (28/1/09) ,the BOM issued a chart that showed the more than two thirds of Australia was experiencing lower than normal temperatures. Most of the Northern Hemisphere was also experiencing record lows.

Can it be - honto kana - that record low temperatures indicate global warming?

When will these clowns apologise?

Monday, February 2, 2009

Al Gore and Venus Envy

From Fox News' Junk Science by Steven Milloy
Testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Wednesday with yet another one of his infamous slide shows, Gore observed that the carbon dioxide (CO2) in Venus’ atmosphere supercharges the second-planet-from-the-sun’s greenhouse effect, resulting in surface temperatures of about 870 degrees Fahrenheit. Gore added that it’s not Venus’ proximity to the Sun that makes the planet much warmer than the Earth, because Mercury, which is even closer to the Sun, is cooler than Venus. Based on this rationale, then, Gore warned that we need to stop emitting CO2 into our own atmosphere.

Incredibly, not a Senator on the Committee questioned -- much less burst into outright laughter at -- Gore’s absurd point. In fact, each Senator who spoke at the hearing, including Republicans, offered little but fawning praise for Gore.

Milloy points out that the Venusian Atmosphere is 97% CO2 whilst earth's is 0.038%. Milloy goes to to say Mercury doesn't really have greenhouse gases

"As a result, the daily temperature on Mercury varies from about 840 degrees Fahrenheit during the day to about -275 degrees Fahrenheit at night. Mercury’s daily temperature swing actually belies Gore’s unqualified demonization of greenhouse gases, whose heat trapping characteristics tend to stabilize climate and prevent wild temperature fluctuations."

Professor: no evidence carbon dioxide was the major driver of climate change

From The Otago Daily Times: Monday 2 Feb, 2009 A Report by Rosie Manins:

"....Climate scientist Prof Christopher de Freitas was questioned on his evidence, which had been contested in the evidence of other climate witnesses called in the hearing. Prof Freitas, of the University of Auckland, said there was no evidence to suggest carbon dioxide was the major driver of climate change.

"Climate is not responding to greenhouse gases in the way we thought it might. If increasing carbon dioxide is in fact increasing climate change, its impact is smaller than natural variation. People are being misled by people making money out of this," Prof de Freitas said.

Who is making money from this? Well, Al Gore for one.

Ocean Acidification

We hear a lot about the acidification of the Oceans due to the rise in CO2. In fact there have been conferences discussing this very "fact."

The Coral Reef Futures 07 Forum was held October 18-19, 2007: Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg of ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies (CoECRS) and the University of Queensland was quoted as saying: "There's not much debate about how it happens: put more CO2 into the air above and it dissolves into the oceans."

The 2nd Symposium on the ocean in a high CO2 world, was held at the Oceanographic Museum of Monaco from 6th to 9th October, 2008, attended by 250 scientists from 32 countries .

And upcoming: Goldschmidt Conference. Session 13a: Ocean Acidification: Past, Present and Future
A special session at the 2009 Goldschmidt Conference in Davos, Switzerland (June 21-26).

Now, on the Anthony Watts blog, Steven Goddard posts the facts:

The ocean currently has a pH of 8.1, which is alkaline not acid. In order to become acid, it would have to drop below 7.0. According to Wikipedia “Between 1751 and 1994 surface ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from approximately 8.179 to 8.104.” At that rate, it will take another 3,500 years for the ocean to become even slightly acid. One also has to wonder how they measured the pH of the ocean to 4 decimal places in 1751, since the idea of pH wasn’t introduced until 1909.

The Groundhog named Gore by Alan Caruba

On Alan Caruba's blog, he writes

"The ability to hold two totally opposite thoughts in one’s head, a winter storm and imminent destruction by sizzling hot weather, is a kind of schizophrenia or just plain stupidity. In Gore’s case, it has a lot more with lining his pockets with millions of dollars in the sale of “carbon credits” purchased to continue emitting carbon dioxide, the gas that Gore insists will destroy the world.

Carbon dioxide is the gas on which all plant life on Earth depends for growth. Without CO2 every single piece of vegetation dies and we die with it because a lot of critters we eat are herbivores. Happily, humans exhale about two pounds of CO2 every day. Burning anything, including calories, produces CO2. Even if there is more CO2, it has little to do with climate change."

Pre-election President Obama said that, when elected, he would declare CO2 a "dangerous pollutant." No more bread, cakes, wine, beer. When will this stupidity end?

Sunday, February 1, 2009

Global warming alarmism is challenging our freedom-Vaclav Klaus

From AFP -DAVOS, Switzerland (AFP) — Czech President (and President of the European Union) Vaclav Klaus took aim at climate change campaigner Al Gore on Saturday in Davos in a frontal attack on the science of global warming.
"I don't think that there is any global warming,"
Referring to the former US vice president, who attended Davos this year, he added: "I'm very sorry that some people like Al Gore are not ready to listen to the competing theories. I do listen to them."
"Environmentalism and the global warming alarmism is challenging our freedom."
"I'm afraid that the current crisis will be misused for radically constraining the functioning of the markets and market economy all around the world," he said.
"I'm more afraid of the consequences of the crisis than the crisis itself."
Klaus makes no secret of his climate change scepticism -- he is also a fierce critic of the European Union -- and has branded the world's top panel of climate experts, the UN's IPCC, a smug monopoly.

BBC abandons 'impartiality' on warming

From the UK Telegraph - article by Christopher Booker
Last Updated: 6:19PM GMT 31 Jan 2009

After part sponsoring a global warming stunt with a mock up polar bear on an ice-berg in the Thames, and doctoring film of President Obama's Inaugural speech,their Newsnight's science editor, Susan Watts, was even more bizarre. It was no more than a paean of gratitude that we now at last have a president prepared to listen to the "science" on climate change, after the dark age of religious obscurantism personified by President Bush.
At last, after years when they could not speak openly on this subject, chirped Ms Watts, "scientists calculate that President Obama has just four years to save the world". She failed to explain (although she was later forced to clarify this on her blog) that the only scientist to say anything so silly was Dr James Hansen of Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, whose utterances on climate change have lately become so wild and extreme that they have made him a laughing stock. (He was last week publicly disowned by his old boss Dr John Theon, who said that Hansen's unscientific claims had been an embarrassment to Nasa ever since he joined Al Gore in whipping up panic over global warming back in 1988.)"

In Australia, our equivalent ABC uses the same rules, recently excising Bill Kininmonth (William Kininmonth has a career in meteorological science and policy spanning more than 40 years. For more than a decade (1986-1998) he headed Australia's National Climate Centre with responsibilities for monitoring Australia's changing climate and advising the Australian government on the extent and severity of climate extremes) from a podcast and transcript of a broadcast.