From SMH, 17/3/09 in an article without a byline - what no-one would claim credit for this tosh?
"One of the country's top scientists has told politicians to act quickly on climate change or devastate the lives of unborn generations. Penny Sackett, the Government's Chief Scientist, delivered her blunt message to politicians at a dinner at Parliament House on Tuesday night."
So Prof Penny, what was your message?
"Professor Sackett warned the actions of this generation "may deny the next generation the prosperity that we have enjoyed and endanger the lives of millions".
I'm confused. Was it you, Penny, that warned the actions of this generation? Or was it sloppy journalism and it should have read...
Professor Sackett warned this generation that their actions....
"She said slashing carbon emissions now was "the only real future that a baby born today has".
So, how does a baby slash carbon emissions?
What effect will slashing emissions ( presumably you mean Co2 emissions?) have?
Do you, our chief scientist understand that CO2 has been found innocent?
Vostok Ice Core samples have proven that CO2 does not cause globalwarming.
I notice that the report says: "The politicians left midway through Professor Sackett's speech.."
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Climate may heat Christians, too, military analysts say!?
The Christian Science Monitor/ March 17, 2009.
Article by Kelly Hearn.
"Top US defense officials are envisioning ways that American military personnel, equipment, and installations might be affected by extreme weather events, rising ocean temperatures, shifts in rainfall patterns, and other natural resource stresses projected to accompany global climate change – stresses that may exacerbate existing security threats and breed new ones. Experts disagree on the scale and timing of threats."
Hey, Experts disagree on the fact that extreme weather events, rising ocean temperatures, shifts in rainfall patterns, and other natural resource stresses will accompany global climate change.
"The US intelligence community, for example, recently wrote a National Intelligence Assessment on the national security impacts of global climate change through 2030."
The US intelligence community! That would be Military Intelligence,wouldn't it? That's an oxymoron!
"Another presidential report prepared by the US intelligence community, Global Trends 2025, has climate change as a top talking point."
"US intelligence community! Again the oxymoron. Climate change is the top talking point? OK! CO2 is not guilty! CO2 is not pollution! Vostok ice core samples show that temperature rise precedes rises in atmospheric CO2. Anyone still believing in Co2 causing Global Warming should make sure their membership to the flat earth society is still current because they are that far behind the science.
Christian Science - either get up to date with the latest science or rejoin the flat earthers!
Article by Kelly Hearn.
"Top US defense officials are envisioning ways that American military personnel, equipment, and installations might be affected by extreme weather events, rising ocean temperatures, shifts in rainfall patterns, and other natural resource stresses projected to accompany global climate change – stresses that may exacerbate existing security threats and breed new ones. Experts disagree on the scale and timing of threats."
Hey, Experts disagree on the fact that extreme weather events, rising ocean temperatures, shifts in rainfall patterns, and other natural resource stresses will accompany global climate change.
"The US intelligence community, for example, recently wrote a National Intelligence Assessment on the national security impacts of global climate change through 2030."
The US intelligence community! That would be Military Intelligence,wouldn't it? That's an oxymoron!
"Another presidential report prepared by the US intelligence community, Global Trends 2025, has climate change as a top talking point."
"US intelligence community! Again the oxymoron. Climate change is the top talking point? OK! CO2 is not guilty! CO2 is not pollution! Vostok ice core samples show that temperature rise precedes rises in atmospheric CO2. Anyone still believing in Co2 causing Global Warming should make sure their membership to the flat earth society is still current because they are that far behind the science.
Christian Science - either get up to date with the latest science or rejoin the flat earthers!
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Climate Sceptics get political; Taxpayers $$$s down the tube.
Fairfax press' slightly tongue-in-cheek journal titled The Independant Weekly dated 17 March 2009
reports on the newly formed Climate Sceptics Party (TCS).
Interesting to note that they report the budget for the Department of Environment and Climate Change to be $50 Billion.
Page four of the budget's portfolio overview for DCC shows administered appropriations as $32 billion and departmental appropriations as $56.5 billion giving a total $88.5 billion. That's a lot of taxpayers dollars
reports on the newly formed Climate Sceptics Party (TCS).
Interesting to note that they report the budget for the Department of Environment and Climate Change to be $50 Billion.
Page four of the budget's portfolio overview for DCC shows administered appropriations as $32 billion and departmental appropriations as $56.5 billion giving a total $88.5 billion. That's a lot of taxpayers dollars
Monday, March 16, 2009
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?
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?
Friday, March 13, 2009
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!
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!
Monday, March 9, 2009
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].
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].
Saturday, March 7, 2009
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)