Catholics and Climate Change

According to a Post called: Challenging the climate sceptics By: Ellen Teague (Link in Title)
Posted: Wednesday, February 17, 2010. Sir John Houghton: "argues that Christians and other faith communities must keep up the pressure for more action on climate change at the next UN climate meeting in Mexico in December 2010. He suggests that many of the voices of scepticism have been orchestrated by vested interests, especially in the United States, with the intent of discrediting and silencing the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change."

Sir John says the climate sceptics, (of whom I am one), "have been orchestrated by vested interests."


Now, I will admit here that I have no vested interest except for the good of humanity.

Sir John also is quoted as saying: "....with the intent of discrediting and silencing the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change." (IPCC).

Well, with all due respect, Sir John, We sceptics don't have to do a thing! The IPCC has been very efficient in discrediting itself.

Meanwhile, because atmospheric CO2 has increased, the world has been able to feed the increasing population. Sir John and the rapidly crumbling IPCC have been advocating a reduction in CO2 - a reduction in the world's ability to feed itself.

They also have been advocating planting bio-fuel in food crop fields and planting trees in fuel crop fields to create a carbon sink. Again, these people are reducing food crops to push their crazy unproven hypothesis that
a) the globe is warming (even one of their Lead authors admits that it isn't!)
b) CO2 is causing the warming. It has been proven that it isn't!

New Climate Change Minister already puts foot in mouth

From the Australian: Patricia Karvelas, Political correspondent | June 09, 2009

Mr Combet is reported as saying: "....the government has ...taken into account obviously the findings of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), which is obviously considered the international body of scientific evidence about climate change.."
If Mr Combet has read the "Summary for Policy Makers" issued by the IPCC, (to paraphrase)
"which is obviously considered the small body of political spin about climate change.."
he is deluded. He is as Wrong as Ms Wong.

Professor Robert Manne gets his facts wrong again

In an opinion piece in the Anzac Day issue of the Australian, Professor Manne gets his facts wrong again. For some previous errors of truth by Manne see Paul Sheehan's excellent book "Among the Barbarians."

Some errors in his article:

• (Ian Plimer) describes the entire climate science community as "the forces of darkness"

Think about it, Robert. Is he calling himself a part of the "forces of darkness?" Are all the scientists that he refers to part of the "forces of darkness?" on the other hand, are you, Professor Manne (a non-scientist) part of the "Forces of darkness?"

• The work of these scientists has been summarised in four cautious reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In the most recent, the IPCC argued that the evidence for human causation of climate change was unequivocal.

Well, not quite unequivocal, Professor. They actually said "very high confidence" which represents at least a 9 out of 10 chance
of being correct. Mind you in the same report they also said "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal." Warming is a bit different to man-made or as you say "human causation" warming.
These IPCC "scientists" also said in their AR4: "Carbon dioxide is the most important anthropogenic greenhouse gas." That is correct, if they pay no regard to water vapour. Science tells us that the most important greenhouse gases are:
water vapor, which contributes 36–72%
carbon dioxide, which contributes 9–26%
methane, which contributes 4–9%
ozone, which contributes 3–7%

• Many regard the work of the tens of thousands of climate change scientists as fraudulent and the IPCC as a sinister and vast international conspiracy.

Hey, Prof, you got that right. If you read the fourth Assessment report, and the science in the reports behind the Summary for Policymakers, you will find that the Summary for Policymakers is not supported by the science. If you call that a conspiracy, then so-be-it. As to the "tens of thousands of climate change scientists" - how many of them are independant of Government Grants?

• In the other camp are a few dozen scientists.

Wrong again - As an example, Professor, just google "petitionproject.org" more than 30,000 scientists, look also at the International Climate Science Coalition, The Australian Climate Science Coalition, The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition.
See also www.climatesceptics.com.au

How can one learned Professor get it so wrong, so often?

MainstreamMedia at last looking at both sides?

In the Fairfax Paper - The Independant Weekly there is a report that challenges the "science" as quoted by Bob Brown, Penny Wong and, presumably, the IPCC. It talks about Professor Ian Plimer's new book "Heaven and Earth" and also the visit to Australia of Dr. Miklos Zagoni, Hungarian physicist, reviewer of the IPCC 2007 Assessment Report Four.

He is delivering a lecture in Mount Gambier on May 23 about how Greenhouse gases cannot cause climate change.

What the article fails to mention is that Dr. Zagoni and also David Stockwell are addressing a meeting at Newcastle University at 1pm tomorrow - 15/4/09. For details, call President "The Climate Sceptics" phone: (08) 87259561 or (08) 87235550.

Somehow, I think that the tide is turning.

The chair of the Australian Environment Foundation, Dr Jennifer Marohasy, was heard today on Sydney Radio.

What will happen to the IPCC and the "sell-out" scientists when the fraud is exposed?

Alarmists@Copenhagen vs Sceptics@ New York

From the Energy Tribune:

A good report contrasting the two conferences held last month.

Some Contrasts:

Copenhagen
•The climate alarmist conference in Copenhagen was attended by over 2,000 activists, mostly non-scientists.
• The conference duly warned of even higher sea levels and even higher global temperatures all presaging even greater catastrophes.
• The Copenhagen meeting was not about science, it was about politics and prophecy.

New York
•...some 700 climate “skeptics” many of them scientists...
• This was a wholly different kind of affair. It focused on the science of climate change, the latest scientific data, and climate trends.

The most distressing part of the article said:
As such, in dealing with the gritty reality of climate science, it got almost zero mass media coverage.

What happened to investigative journalism? With the current crop of reporters we would not have heard about Nixon and Deep throat nor Clinton and Levinsky.

The Confused Rachel Cohen

Rachel Cohen starts her blog entry "Dear Climate Change Deniers...." and then mentions climate change skeptics like the Heartland Institute.

I'm sure that, if she had attended the ICCC organised by Heartland a month ago, she would have learned that the 700 Climate Scientists at the convention all agree that climate changes through the course of history. She would have been hard pushed to find a solitary climate change denier.

She goes on to say the "evidence for global warming is unequivocal" and cites an UN IPCC report. Is she aware that the Assesment reports issued by the IPCC are prepared but less than 50 scientists? Is she aware that more than 31,000 scientists at petitionproject.org have said that it is all bunkum? Is she aware that the UN's IPCC is a political body, not a scientific body?

The IPCC report mentioned that IPCC Chair Rajendra Pachuari said the science has “moved on”
and he was right. The ice core samples show that rise in CO2 follows warming with a lag of 800+/-200 years.

She mentions that the world had experienced over 1 degree of warming in the last century, and can expect even more in the years to come.

She forgot to mention that the warmest decade, according to NASA's GISS, was the 1930's and that the warmest year in that century was 1934. Also, she exaggerated the warming - the official figure was only 0.6ºC

She goes on to say As people of faith, we have a moral obligation to protect the planet and its most vulnerable inhabitants, who stand to suffer the most from climate change and are already seeing its effects. Seems hard to deny...

Well, what about denying the third world the things that advanced her US, our Australia and the major G20 nations; things like Petrol and Oil and Coal Fired Power.

Or do we let these third world people tear down forests for fuel, have rotting food because of no refrigeration, etc etc. These are the most vulnerable inhabitants, who stand to suffer the most from climate change.

Pachauri appointed to Yale

Yale Daily News: Wednesday 1st April reported that Rajendra Pachauri appointed to the directorship of the newly formed Yale Climate and Energy Institute.

Dr Pachauri continues to spread untruths. When asked what he would say to climate change sceptics replied:

Well, look at the work of the IPCC. These are thousands of scientists who have functioned in a transparent, objective manner. Everything that is assessed by the IPCC, every draft at every stage is peer-reviewed. … It’s an extremely objective, knowledge-driven process.

There may have been thousands of scientists who contributed to the IPCC but the actual assessment reports for politicians and press numbered less than 50. As to peer-review, these 50 co-wrote papers and cross reviewed papers. It's an extremely subjective, outcome driven process.

Tell me, Dr Pachauri, how is it that after trillions of dollars of expenditure and more than 20 years spent trying to prove CO2 is to blame, your IPCC has not come up with one single item of proof?

Before you start another enquiry, I will give you the answer for free. There is none. CO2 is innocent.

Ad Hominen attacks and one back at them

From the UK Independant dated 22 March 09. Various UK politicians calling Climate Change Sceptics as "Taliban"
Could there be a worse ad hominen attack? The despicable Taliban.

"David Cameron yesterday slapped down a senior Tory who compared climate change activists to the Taliban, as he continued his attempt to green his party, despite the recession and opposition from sceptics."

"Ironically, "the Taliban" is also the epithet privately used by green Tories for the party's climate change sceptics."

The article goes on to say: "Next week he is to have a special meeting with Dr Rajendra Pachauri, who – as chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – is leading scientific calls for tough action."

The head of the IPCC is calling for tough action? He should be calling for "his" scientists to establish the fact that man-made CO2 causes Global warming. After twenty years and trillions of dollars of research dollars, no such link has been made.

However, the Vostok Ice core samples show 650,000 years of proof that the rise in CO2 FOLLOWS warming.

It's not hard, Dr Pauchauri, all you have to do is look at the scientistic evidence rather than the political guff put out in the IPCC press packs. You can find plenty more science at http://www.climatesceptics.com.au

Geo-Engineering Dreams in "The Australian"

In an almost surreal article in the Australian by Jonathan Leake and Richard Woods dated March 16, 2009 some weird statements were made:

1. "....:unless emissions of greenhouse gases fall within five years"

After 20 years of research, the IPCC have not shown that greenhouse gases (mainly CO2) cause any rise in temperature.


2 Chairman of the working group John Shepherd said: "Our study aims to separate the science from the science fiction and offer recommendations on which options deserve serious consideration."

Welll, Mr Shepherd, you could start with the ice core samples from world scientists which show that the rise in CO2 FOLLOWS the rise in temperature. You could also check the fact from the samples that a concentration of 288ppmvCo2 at various times in history accompanied both rising and falling temperatures

3 Professor Launder thinks extracting carbon from the atmosphere would be too slow to prevent significant warming. In his view "the only rational scheme is to reduce the amount of sunlight reaching Earth and to reflect back more of it".

So, it's the sun that causes warming and not CO2. Actually we have been without sunspot activity for a while now and have had almost 11 years of global cooling. Is Professor Launder laundering the CO2 theory?

EPA Miracle Workers

New York Times - in a story entitled: "Leaked EPA document shows greenhouse gas endangerment finding on fast track."

EPA has been working feverishly since January to complete a scientific review of whether greenhouse gas emissions are influencing everything from crop failures to more intense heat waves and more severe coastal storms.

These must be amazing people, the IPCC has been trying to do the same thing for 20 years....20 years and have not succeeded and the EPA think that they can prove it in a few months.

I don't thnk so!

Sell your seaside Australian Property Now!

At Port Arthur, this published paper - below - estimates an ocean rise of 1mm per year.
Well, I'm not much with figures, but I think that means 100mm in a century.(4 inches)
At WA's Fremantle - 1.6mm pa or 160 mm in a century. (6 inches)
Fort Denison (Sydney Harbour) 1.2 mm per year or 120mm per century. (under 5 inches)

For Australians and other metric countrymen, who are not sure on the imperial measurements, 6 inches is half a foot. Al Gore’s movie ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ says sea levels could rise up to 20 feet. Is this true? Forty times greater than the above!

Myth Busted!


From GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 30, NO. 7, 1401, doi:10.1029/2002GL016813, 2003 (courtesy Craig Idso's www.co2science.org/)

When combined
with the estimates of land uplift given above, this yields an estimate of average sea level rise at this location due to an increase in the volume of the oceans of 1.0 ± 0.3 mm/year. This is at the lower end of the range of global average sea level rise for the 20th century (1–2 mm/year) given by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Church et al., 2001]. If it is assumed that most of this sea level rise occurred since about 1890 (the indication from long tidal records from elsewhere; Woodworth, 1999), then the corresponding estimates of rise (1890 to the present) relative to the land, and due to an increase in the volume of the oceans, become 1.2 ± 0.2 mm/year and 1.4 ± 0.3 mm/ year, respectively.
9. Discussion
[13] The above estimates of sea level rise due to an increase in the volume of the oceans may be compared with recent estimates for the two longest (continuous) Australian records. Fremantle (32
30 S, 115
440 E; 91 years to 1996) and Fort Denison (33
510 S, 151
140 E; 82 years to 1997) showed rates of rise of 1.6 and 1.2 mm/year, respectively, after adjustment for GIA [Lambeck, 2002].

Al Gore is headed for a crash!

In the Denver Examiner, a report headed: Al Gore: This roller coaster is headed for a crash, he was he was confronted about his unwillingness to debate the issue. It appears he dodged that question.

Mr. Gore pointed to the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that produced the four reports calling manmade climate change “unequivocal.” To underscore the importance of the IPCC reports he claimed that the U.N. selected the “3,000 best scientists from the relevant fields” and that they had produced, “four unanimous assessments.”

Two inconvenient untruths there, Big Al. If you go beyond the summary for policymakers, you will find there is nothing "unequivocal."
You will find weasel words like may, perhaps, tend to, could etc etc. There was nothing like 3,000 preparing the Summaries for PolicyMakers.
From http://mclean.ch/climate/docs/IPCC_numbers.pdf
The evidence shows that the claim of "4000 scientific experts supported the IPCC's claims" is dishonest in
almost every word. There were not 4000 people, but just under 2900; they were not all scientists; and it seems
that they were not all experts. There is only evidence that about 60 people explicitly supported the claim,
although that might not mean much given the vested interests and lack of impartiality of many authors and
reviewers. As mentioned at the start of this document the "support" can only be said to apply to the document as
a whole and is by virtue of the input of authors and reviewers.

Who's Dumb? Dykstra is dumber

On the strangely labelled Mother Nature Network, Peter Dykstra shows his dumbness with a post titled:Media Mayhem: Deny-a-palooza. Some quotes:

"Yeah, folks, there's a chance climate change isn't for real. There's always a chance. "

Well, that's your first mistake, Peter. Climate does change, climate has been changing all through the course of history.


"There's always a chance that the mounting evidence, the computer models and long-term forecasts are wrong."

That's right, Peter. The computer models are wrong. In fact, if they start at a previous date in time, they can't even predict the present.

"In America, climate change science and climate change politics are two different things. Two decades of a one-sided torrent of peer-reviewed data hasn’t changed that."

Right, the IPCC is the reigning king of Climate science politics that has issued two decades of a one-sided torrent of peer-reviewed data.

Now here's a thought, Peter. Why don't you get along to the 2009 International Conference on Climate Change in New York and reduce your ignorance?

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.

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.

Why?

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

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?

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.

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:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=83947f5d-d84a-4a84-ad5d-6e2d71db52d9

31,072 American scientists,including 9,021 with PhDs, have signed this petition, found at
http://www.petitionproject.org/

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!

Climate change's impact on north country- Watertown

An error-filled article on Watertowntimes.com 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 petitionproject.org 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.

Japanese Report Disputes Human Cause for Global Warming

From Daily Tech report by Michael Asher - January 14, 2009

"The Japanese Society of Energy and Resources (JSER) has published a new study on the causes of Global Warming. Entitled, "Global warming: What is the scientific truth?”, the report highlights the differing views of five prominent Japanese scientists.
All but one of the scientists disagreed that global warming is the result of human activity."

I wonder if James Hansen, Al Gore and Penny Wong would call this a consensus?