Penny Sackett and Climate Hoax Policy

Our chief scientist, Penny Sackett, at the climate change conference on the Gold Coast this week seems to be confused.

From the Chief Scientist's Website: The Office of the Chief Scientist supports the Chief Scientist for Australia in her role of providing independent advice to Government on a wide range of scientific and technological issues and her engagement with the science, research and industry communities, learned societies and other governments.



My interpretation is that, by independent advice, it would mean reviewing all science as it applies to Australia and not just science as it relates to the Labor Government's AGW policies. Ms Sackett has been known to say publicly that there are no peer-review papers against the hoax hypothesis of AGW. This is despite her knowledge that they do exist. Therefore she pushes the Labor Government line.


Prof Sackett said: "Often a scientific argument for climate change, and the ways in which humanity has contributed to it (AGW), is confused with political or economic arguments for or against a particular course of action to mitigate or adapt to climate change."

Well, Ms Sackett, practise what you preach!



AUSTRALIA'S chief scientist, Penny Sackett, says polarising debate on which policy is best to address climate change is often unhelpfully confused with the scientific argument for global warming.

At a climate change conference on the Gold Coast this week, Professor Sackett told The Age acting on climate change should be the role of all Australian political parties.

It was the responsibility of politicians, scientists and the public to engage with each other on the issue, she said.
Advertisement: Story continues below

''Often a scientific argument for climate change, and the ways in which humanity has contributed to it, is confused with political or economic arguments for or against a particular course of action to mitigate or adapt to climate change,'' she said.

''The consensus within the scientific community about the main points of the science is strong, whereas the consensus within the political community - and those who elect them - about what to do about it is less strong.

She continued:"While it is unfortunate that Australian politics and a large fraction of the citizenry may be polarised with respect to the best course of climate action, it would be not only unhelpful but tragic if this polarisation led to a societal divide in our commitment to act."

Well, Ms Sackett is polarised on the hoax hypothesis and will not looks at the evidence against the hoax.

''My expectation as a citizen is that every political party would be engaging in learning about more the science, so together they can, in Parliament - where everybody has one voice regardless of their political party - make the most of an opportunity to make the best policies for Australia,'' she said.

Why, oh why does she not practise what she preaches. Why does she close her mind to the overwhelming evidence that CO2 is innocent?

Green Activist Defends Climate-Change Skeptics

IN the Atlantic Wire in an article headed: Green Activist Defends Climate-Change Skeptics Heather Horn writes about a faulty article and makes her own mistakes. Take her first two sentences:

A new study claims to show that the few scientists who doubt human-caused global warming are less expert than their climate-change-believing peers. In other words: the climate skeptics aren't just in the minority--they're not very good scientists, either.


I will look at the flawed study in a moment, but "the few scientists who doubt human-caused global warming.." Really Heather! If you wanted to talk about few, that is the number that wrote the flawed IPCC Assessment Reports. Less than 100! But Heather, look at Senator Inhofe's list....more than 400; Look at the Petition Project...31487 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9029 with PhDs.

Then she goes on to say "they're not very good scientists, either." Well, sorry, Heather, but the "not very good scientists" are the IPCC scientists who, instead of being objective and looking openly at results, but instead tried to prove man-made warming then wondered why there was no current warming and then tried to HIDE THE DECLINE

Heather, go to and find out how flawed your original list is!

Follow the science on Climate Change

The Financial Times advises us to Follow the science. It's a pity that they didn't follow their own advice.

They claim: "...especially in the Arctic, where summer sea ice has shrunk alarmingly over the past five years." oh, really - follow the science:

http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=01&fd=01&fy=2004&sm=01&sd=01&sy=2009

The FT says: The geological record shows that natural change can happen extremely fast.."

Well, the 650,000 years of Vostok Ice core samples show that warming causes atmospheric Co2 to rise with a lag of 800=/-200 years. The Medieval Warm Period was approximately 800 years ago.

The FT says: (Climatologists) suggest a real (though probably small) risk that, by pumping carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to levels not seen for millions of years, we could trigger catastrophic, runaway global warming.

Hello!?! Look at the Vostok Ice Core samples - CO2 does not cause warming. And as for millions of years, well, it's a bit shorter than that. FT should follow the science. The determination of atmospheric CO2 by the Pettenkofer method shows levels around 450 ppmv at c1820 and c1948.

FT should examine the science before it exhorts others to "follow the science."

Guide to "Layman's guide to the climate debate."

Bronwyn Lay says: "One is a climate change denier, the other a believer..."
I think she actually means Anthropogenic Global Warming sceptic (realist) and believer (alarmist). If she asked any of the realists, they would tell her that they agree that climate changes, that climate has always changed.

So, both sides of the argument should be described as climate change believers.

The confusion came about when the alarmists realised warming had stalled and had to find an alternate term to global warming.

As a Masters of English Lit, I'm sure Bronwyn would prefer to use correct terminology.

David K still lies away! Blown Away

In an article by David K. (Is his last name potassium?)

Headed: More lies by Climate Denialists.

Starting from the title, what a stupid statement! Is there anyone who denies that there is climate. Good Heavens, K, wake up and smell the roses.

I think he means Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) Denialists. I proudly stick my hand up.

Then he says "The truth: There is a scientific consensus based on decades of research. And every major scientific organization in the world agrees." Another stupid statement. True scientists push and probe at any hypothesis. AGW is an unproven hypothesis. Scientific Consensus is an oxymoron. Hey K! Have a look at petitionproject.org and count the more than 31,000 US Scientists that don't agree with your "consensus." Myth busted. Truth one is a lie!

Shot down, clown.

The truth: There really are only a handful of scientists that are most often cited, and they are all associated with free market lobbying groups whose mission it is to deny anything that might result in regulations they don't like.

31000 is just a few more than a handful. The handful is on the AGW alarmist side and they are all on the public purse. Oh Dear, K. Another blown away!

I couldn't be bothered to go beyond that. Surely you would start with your strongest points first and they have all been blown out of the water.

Don't worry. old deKay. All will out soon! The US chamber of commerce is out to expose the sham scam:


The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, trying to ward off potentially sweeping federal emissions regulations, is pushing the Environmental Protection Agency to hold a rare public hearing on the scientific evidence for man-made climate change.

Chamber officials say it would be "the Scopes monkey trial of the 21st century" -- complete with witnesses, cross-examinations and a judge who would rule, essentially, on whether humans are warming the planet to dangerous effect.

The proposed finding has drawn more than 300,000 public comments. Many of them question scientists' projections that rising temperatures will lead to increased mortality rates, harmful pollution and extreme weather events such as hurricanes.

In light of those comments, the chamber will tell the EPA in a filing today that a trial-style public hearing, which is allowed under the law but nearly unprecedented on this scale, is the only way to "make a fully informed, transparent decision with scientific integrity based on the actual record of the science."

Give global warming sceptics a voice

Very interesting article in the Atlanta JC by J Winston Power

"The “science is settled” side is pushing massive plans in Congress to reduce carbon dioxide. But the science is not settled. If it were, we would have great confidence in all these statements:
1. The world is getting warmer.
2. That’s more bad than good.
3. Humans are causing the warming.
4. We know how to fix the problem.

We-ell, Is the world getting warmer. It warmed as it came out of the little ice age around 1850. During the 20th Century it warmed about 0.6ºC and from 2007 to 2008 it cooled by o.6ºC. In fact the world has been cooling since Al Gore's 41 Inconveniet Lies movie was released.

2 - Warmer is better.
3.- Unproven
4.- What problem???

Global Warmng Flushed down the toilet

From Skeptic's Corner - (See also http://www.climatesceptics.com.au)

"Notable Quotes"
"The notion of a static, unchanging climate is foreign to the history of the earth or any other planet with a fluid envelope. The fact that the developed world went into hysterics over changes in global mean temperature of a few tenths of a degree will astound future generations."
Richard S. Lindzen -the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Global Warming in Australia - 1900 AD

In a report in the LA Times by Julie Cart dated 9 April 2009 noted that the drought in the Murray Darling Basin was due to AGW or climate change. (See link in title.)
When did this man-made Global Warming start, Julie?

On Jennifer Marohasy's blog she quoted a report re the year 1900 AD. (Chronicles of Australia, Ed John Ross, Legrand 1993.)

“THE oppressive heat was a major talking point of the vast and drought stricken country of Australia.

“While cyclonic winds have been lashing the coast off Townsville, the temperature today soared to 112 degrees Fahrenheit (44.4 C) in Adelaide and Broken Hill, and 104 (40C) in Melbourne.

“So dry is much of Australia that the riverboats on the Murray have come to a stand still. On a cattle station in central Queensland, it is reported that the kangaroos are too weak to hop and the kookaburras can no longer fly.

“In Western Australia, Victoria and Tasmania, the New Year sees these State’s battling to recover after recent bushfires. But if its not fires it would be floods, and if not floods it would be drought.

“In the north the odd cyclone adds a bit of interest by knocking down a few towns, or sinking the fishing fleet. Australians are used to having nature knock them off their feet every so often.

“The country has battled through the long droughts, and seen the downturn in the bush rush right to the doors of the city banks. But the crashes of the nineties are behind as the New Year [1900] comes near.”

Over to you, Julie, Was this the result of man-made climate change too?

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

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.

NZ Prime Minister awake to Climate Change Hoax?

On the Scoop NZ Web site, NZ Prime Minister John Key is quoted as saying to Investigate Magazine that he wanted..

"to have flexibility so that if the science deteriorates and the climate change sceptics are right we have an ability to alter the impact on our economy".

Well, Mr Key, it's too late. The science has deteriorated and the climate change sceptics are right.

“As a result of learning of the Prime Minister’s comments, Greenpeace, one of the worlds leading NGOs in the climate change area, advised that it would not be participating further in the ETS Review Select Committee."

What a bonus. Not having to deal with the radical, human-hating Greens!

Hey, Mr Key, Looks like you are moving in the right direction! How about jumping ship and forming a NZ chapter of the (Australian) Climate Sceptics party. They can offer you (and any other person from outside Australia) an Associate Membership.
http://www.climatesceptics.com.au/

AGW - The semantics of denial

On George Monbiot's blog on the UK Guardian Web site:

They claim they're sceptics – but when any explanation will do as long as it backs their theories, 'climate change deniers' is the only term good enough......I use the term deniers not because I am seeking to make a link with the Holocaust, but because I can't think what else to call them. They describe themselves as sceptics, but this is plainly wrong, as they will believe any old rubbish that suits their cause.

Well, George, you are wrong, sorry but you are.

The deniers are the promoters of AGW. Science has moved on. They have had twenty years and spent trillions trying to show that CO2 causes global warming and have not yet done so. (Because they cannot!)

They have denied the fact that ice core studies show that a rise in global temperature CAUSES a rises in atmospheric CO2 and not the other way around. They say that warming will cause all kinds of gloom and doom; denying the historic proof that warming during the MWP was beneficial to mankind; great wealth in Europe; farming in Greenland where the now is permafrost etc etc..

So, George, you see, we are not the deniers, they are! THEY will believe any old rubbish that suits their cause.

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.

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
-No

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.
and
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.

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.

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.

Expect Climate Exaggerations

From a report on www.azstarnet.com: 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?

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.

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!

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.

Is Penny Wong or Right (4)

Update on my post "Is Penny Wong or Right (3) http://talbyv.blogspot.com/2009/01/is-penny-wong-or-right-3.html
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?