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?

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!

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.

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?

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.

Gosat Completed for $372M

Gosat (Greenhouse gases observing Satellite) which will monitor carbon emissions from space in an effort to assist the fight against global warming has been completed at a cost estimated to be ¥34.6 Billion (US$372M)

Named Ibuki - Japanese for "breath" - the satellite will record greenhouse gas emissions in 56,000 locations across the globe.

All I can say is why, when mean global temperatures have been falling for more than 10 years.

Honto kana?

Greenhouse gases could have caused an ice age

Well, after 11 years of cooling the Alarmists are ducking for cover.  Have you seen that website naming all the things that are supposedly caused by man-made global warming?

How about CO2 and global warming causing an ice age?

From  UK Telegraph of 1/1/09:

"Researchers at the University of Birmingham found that 630 million years ago the earth had a warm (my italics) atmosphere full of carbon dioxide BUT WAS COMPLETELY COVERED WITH ICE."

"Such glaciation could happen again if global warming is not curbed."

So there you have it, scientists say IF GLOBAL WARMING IS NOT CURBED, we could head to another ICE-AGE!

Talk about hedging your bets.

ABC and Greenhouse Gases

The ABC (Click title) states that "climate-warming" greenhouse gases rose to record highs in 2007.

So Auntie ABC, can you explain why temperatures are falling?