Geeeez, I hope Al Gore doesn't see those graphs, he could get some serious mileage out of them and maybe even another nobel!
Climate change
- Thread starter Pete
- Start date
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
The CSIRO calls this proof?
<B><B>Andrew Bolt <!--X-->– Monday, March 15, 10 (10:26 am)<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com
‘’climate change is real‘’. <o
></o></I></I>
The State of the Climate snapshot, drawn together by CSIRO and the ffice:smarttags" /><?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com
Bur</st1ersonName>eau of Meteorology partly in response to recent attacks on the science underpinning climate change, shows that Australia’s mean temperature has increased 0.7 degrees since 1960. The statement also finds average daily maximum temperatures have increased every decade for the past 50 years. <o></o>
The report states that temperature observations, among others indicators, ‘’clearly demonstrate climate change is real’’, and says that CSIRO and the <st1ersonName w:st="on">Bur</st1ersonName>eau of Meteorology ‘’will continue to provide observations and research so <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1lace w:st="on">Australia</st1lace></st1:country-region>’s responses are underpinned by clear empirical data’’. <o></o>
The report also found that the 2000s were Australia’s warmest decade on record<st1ersonName w:st="on">;</st1ersonName> that sea levels rose between 1.5 and three millimetres a year in Australia’s south and east, and between seven and 10 millimetres in the north between 1993 and 2009<st1ersonName w:st="on">;</st1ersonName> and that sea surface temperatures have risen 0.4 degrees since 1960.<o></o>
Why is this surprisingly scanty propaganda pamphlet bizarre, and not quite honest? <o></o>
First, no one is doubting that “climate change is real”. Climate changes all the time. This is not the debate. <o></o>
Second, we’re talking about global warming, so why does the CSIRO and BOM’s pamphlet give only Australian temperatures? Is that because it knows that to show world temperatures stayed flat since 2001 actually casts doubt on just how much man’s gases are driving the post-mini-ice-age warming? <o></o>
Third, given the CSIRO praised the since-discredited An Inconvenient Truth, claiming ”its scientific basis is very sound”, can we really trust its advocacy science? <o></o>
Fourth, the CSIRO and BOM’s document does not address any of the recent challenges to the processes which produced the concensus that man is almost certainly to blame for most of the recent warming. Nor does it mention recent debate about adjustments made to Australian temperature records of the kind that increase the reported warming trend. <o></o>
Fifth, what’s most at issue (other than man’s contribution to any warming) is whether any warming will in fact be disastrous, and something we must spend billions to help avert. The record so far of alarmists such as Al Gore, Tim Flannery, Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, the IPCC and even the CSIRO itself is that the catastrophism is wildly exaggerated and we might often do better to keep our money in our pockets for the day that we’re called on to cope with whatever happens in the far-off future. But on this, again, this document adds zero to our understanding. <o></o>
<B><B>Andrew Bolt <!--X-->– Monday, March 15, 10 (10:26 am)<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com
></o></I></I>The State of the Climate snapshot, drawn together by CSIRO and the ffice:smarttags" /><?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com
ersonName>eau of Meteorology partly in response to recent attacks on the science underpinning climate change, shows that Australia’s mean temperature has increased 0.7 degrees since 1960. The statement also finds average daily maximum temperatures have increased every decade for the past 50 years. <o></o>The report states that temperature observations, among others indicators, ‘’clearly demonstrate climate change is real’’, and says that CSIRO and the <st1
ersonName w:st="on">Bur</st1ersonName>eau of Meteorology ‘’will continue to provide observations and research so <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1lace w:st="on">Australia</st1lace></st1:country-region>’s responses are underpinned by clear empirical data’’. <o></o>The report also found that the 2000s were Australia’s warmest decade on record<st1
ersonName w:st="on">;</st1ersonName> that sea levels rose between 1.5 and three millimetres a year in Australia’s south and east, and between seven and 10 millimetres in the north between 1993 and 2009<st1ersonName w:st="on">;</st1ersonName> and that sea surface temperatures have risen 0.4 degrees since 1960.<o></o>Why is this surprisingly scanty propaganda pamphlet bizarre, and not quite honest? <o
></o>First, no one is doubting that “climate change is real”. Climate changes all the time. This is not the debate. <o
></o>Second, we’re talking about global warming, so why does the CSIRO and BOM’s pamphlet give only Australian temperatures? Is that because it knows that to show world temperatures stayed flat since 2001 actually casts doubt on just how much man’s gases are driving the post-mini-ice-age warming? <o
></o>Third, given the CSIRO praised the since-discredited An Inconvenient Truth, claiming ”its scientific basis is very sound”, can we really trust its advocacy science? <o
></o>Fourth, the CSIRO and BOM’s document does not address any of the recent challenges to the processes which produced the concensus that man is almost certainly to blame for most of the recent warming. Nor does it mention recent debate about adjustments made to Australian temperature records of the kind that increase the reported warming trend. <o
></o>Fifth, what’s most at issue (other than man’s contribution to any warming) is whether any warming will in fact be disastrous, and something we must spend billions to help avert. The record so far of alarmists such as Al Gore, Tim Flannery, Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, the IPCC and even the CSIRO itself is that the catastrophism is wildly exaggerated and we might often do better to keep our money in our pockets for the day that we’re called on to cope with whatever happens in the far-off future. But on this, again, this document adds zero to our understanding. <o
></o>
Last edited:
Pete, Smoke and mirrors, they throw some crap against the wall and see what sticks!
Official UK Government position.
You signed a petition asking the Prime Minister to " suspend the Climate
Research Unit at the University of East Anglia from preparation of any
Government Climate Statistics until the various allegations have been fully
investigated by an independent body."
The Prime Minister's Office has responded to that petition and you can view
it here:
UEACRU - epetition response | Number10.gov.uk
You signed a petition asking the Prime Minister to " suspend the Climate
Research Unit at the University of East Anglia from preparation of any
Government Climate Statistics until the various allegations have been fully
investigated by an independent body."
The Prime Minister's Office has responded to that petition and you can view
it here:
UEACRU - epetition response | Number10.gov.uk
Classic New Labour Spin! Answer to a petition criticising the handling of the Climate Change Science and the Govt turn it into a bloody press release for Global Warming!
That's it, I've had enough of their bull shit. I will never sign another one but will find other ways (he says ominously) of registering my increasing dissatisfaction with this bunch of half wits ...
In any event, it was probably written by a junior clerk. That's the contempt they show us.
:thumbsdown:
That's it, I've had enough of their bull shit. I will never sign another one but will find other ways (he says ominously) of registering my increasing dissatisfaction with this bunch of half wits ...
In any event, it was probably written by a junior clerk. That's the contempt they show us.
:thumbsdown:
Electric cars cause more polution than dino fuel - read more:
Study: Electric cars 'worse' for the environment - Story - Environment/Sci - 3 News
we all knew that anyway
Study: Electric cars 'worse' for the environment - Story - Environment/Sci - 3 News
we all knew that anyway
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
We should feel good that Global Warming has been debunked, but we don't. Why? Because developed world Governments are moving at full speed as if GW fraud never occurred!
America through it's EPA head Lisa Jackson, declared CO2 a dangerous pollutant.
The Rudd Government is pursuing it's ETS Tax despite the senate knocking it back twice.
Obama has proposed a a new climate change agency within the Nat'l Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration with all it's attendant bureaucracy regulation and costs.
The EU is proceeding quickly with carbon tax and regulation plans. As is the U.K.
These Governments have ignored the Climate change fraud and are proceeding to roll out Taxes and regulations. Why? FOLLOW THE MONEY!
Senator James Inhofe, has called this "the greatest scientific scandal of our generation" and called for Al Gore to re-testify before the Senate to depend IPCC'S "work of fiction", which Gore unreservedly endorsed.
Watch the Democrats defeat that request.
America through it's EPA head Lisa Jackson, declared CO2 a dangerous pollutant.
The Rudd Government is pursuing it's ETS Tax despite the senate knocking it back twice.
Obama has proposed a a new climate change agency within the Nat'l Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration with all it's attendant bureaucracy regulation and costs.
The EU is proceeding quickly with carbon tax and regulation plans. As is the U.K.
These Governments have ignored the Climate change fraud and are proceeding to roll out Taxes and regulations. Why? FOLLOW THE MONEY!
Senator James Inhofe, has called this "the greatest scientific scandal of our generation" and called for Al Gore to re-testify before the Senate to depend IPCC'S "work of fiction", which Gore unreservedly endorsed.
Watch the Democrats defeat that request.
Last edited:
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
Can't get it done one way. We'll try another. In other words we don't care how congress votes.
Obama mulls carbon-trading shortcut
<!-- Class 'push-0' just right-aligns the element so that the main content comes first. --><!-- cT-storyDetails --><CITE>March 16, 2010</CITE> <BOD>The Obama administration is considering a carbon-trading system under existing law if the US Congress doesn't pass cap-and-trade legislation that allows companies to buy and sell the right to pollute, a US Environmental Protection Agency official said.
The existing Clean Air Act ''could enable us to include emissions trading'' within agency regulations aimed at reducing carbon dioxide and other gases that scientists have linked to climate change, Anna Marie Wood, a senior policy analyst at the EPA, said at an event in Washington hosted by the American Bar Association.
''We're considering all that right now and thinking about what might make sense,'' Wood said. While the agency ''strongly prefers'' that Congress pass new laws dealing with greenhouse gases, ''we think that there's a lot of progress that can be made using certain tools under the Clean Air Act.''
EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said last week the agency has no plans to independently set up a cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gases. Jackson said she believed Congress will establish a national program. Cap-and-trade legislation that narrowly passed the House last year is stalled in the Senate.
'Source performance standards'
Emissions trading for greenhouse gases might be set up under part of the Clean Air Act that lets the agency set ''new source performance standards'' for large polluters such as power plants, oil refineries and cement plants, Wood said.
The EPA's authority over greenhouse gases stems from a 2007 Supreme Court decision on the scope of the Clean Air Act. The agency's Feb. 1 budget request, which is subject to congressional approval, includes $US7.5 million ($8.2 million) to examine new source performance standards for greenhouse gases that include ``market-oriented mechanisms.''
The budget request showed the EPA's interest in carbon trading under existing law and there are ''continuing signals from the agency that they're looking at this and evaluating this internally,'' Allan Bedwell, a vice president at CantorCO2e, the emission markets unit of Cantor Fitzgerald LP, said in a telephone interview.
'Any way it can'
If Congress doesn't pass a cap-and-trade bill this year, it's likely that the EPA will try ''any way it can to reduce emissions in a cost-effective way'' using the existing Clean Air Act, Bedwell said.
''Emissions trading is one of the most cost-effective approaches,'' Bedwell said.
Considering a program doesn't mean the EPA has decided to set one up, Raymond Ludwiszewski, a Washington-based partner at law firm Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP and a former EPA general counsel under President George H.W. Bush.
''I'm confident that they haven't decided exactly how they're going to do everything,'' Ludwiszewski said.
The agency's deliberations are complicated by its failure under President George W. Bush to set up a cap-and-trade program for mercury emissions and amend the rules of existing trading systems for acid rain and smog pollution rights, he said.
When legislation with these amendments to the Clean Air Act stalled in Congress, the Bush administration tried to make the changes through agency regulations. In 2008, a federal appeals court said in two separate cases that those regulations overstepped the bounds of the existing Clean Air Act and overturned them.
Judicial review
The EPA under President Barack Obama isn't likely to set up an emissions trading system for greenhouse gases under existing law that can ''survive judicial review,'' Ludwiszewski said.
''It will be very difficult for the administrator to find tools that will allow cap-and-trade approaches to regulating greenhouse gases under the current Clean Air Act,'' he said.
So far, the EPA has proposed greenhouse gas regulations that would toughen fuel economy standards for new cars and trucks and require new and modified industrial polluters, such as power plants, to install the ``best available'' technology to limit emissions.
There has been ''no final decision'' on greenhouse gas regulations ''beyond what EPA has previously announced,'' Brendan Gilfillan, a spokesman for the agency, said in an e-mail.
'Careful thought, discussion'
The agency will be busy getting the already announced regulatory programs started and a decision on whether to pursue emissions trading will probably be made ''further down the road,'' Jonathan Cannon, a University of Virginia School of Law professor and former EPA general counsel during the Clinton administration, said in a telephone interview.
While the EPA can make a good case for carbon trading under the existing Clean Air Act, a final decision still ''requires a lot of careful thought and discussion between the lawyers and the program people who would be designing such a scheme,'' Cannon said.
A ''cautious and responsible approach'' by EPA officials today will help the agency fend off court challenges from groups that oppose any future carbon trading regulation, he said.
''The stakes are big, and when the stakes are big, these issues get litigated, even if there's a fairly small chance of success,'' Cannon said.
Obama mulls carbon-trading shortcut
<!-- Class 'push-0' just right-aligns the element so that the main content comes first. --><!-- cT-storyDetails --><CITE>March 16, 2010</CITE> <BOD>The Obama administration is considering a carbon-trading system under existing law if the US Congress doesn't pass cap-and-trade legislation that allows companies to buy and sell the right to pollute, a US Environmental Protection Agency official said.
The existing Clean Air Act ''could enable us to include emissions trading'' within agency regulations aimed at reducing carbon dioxide and other gases that scientists have linked to climate change, Anna Marie Wood, a senior policy analyst at the EPA, said at an event in Washington hosted by the American Bar Association.
''We're considering all that right now and thinking about what might make sense,'' Wood said. While the agency ''strongly prefers'' that Congress pass new laws dealing with greenhouse gases, ''we think that there's a lot of progress that can be made using certain tools under the Clean Air Act.''
EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said last week the agency has no plans to independently set up a cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gases. Jackson said she believed Congress will establish a national program. Cap-and-trade legislation that narrowly passed the House last year is stalled in the Senate.
'Source performance standards'
Emissions trading for greenhouse gases might be set up under part of the Clean Air Act that lets the agency set ''new source performance standards'' for large polluters such as power plants, oil refineries and cement plants, Wood said.
The EPA's authority over greenhouse gases stems from a 2007 Supreme Court decision on the scope of the Clean Air Act. The agency's Feb. 1 budget request, which is subject to congressional approval, includes $US7.5 million ($8.2 million) to examine new source performance standards for greenhouse gases that include ``market-oriented mechanisms.''
The budget request showed the EPA's interest in carbon trading under existing law and there are ''continuing signals from the agency that they're looking at this and evaluating this internally,'' Allan Bedwell, a vice president at CantorCO2e, the emission markets unit of Cantor Fitzgerald LP, said in a telephone interview.
'Any way it can'
If Congress doesn't pass a cap-and-trade bill this year, it's likely that the EPA will try ''any way it can to reduce emissions in a cost-effective way'' using the existing Clean Air Act, Bedwell said.
''Emissions trading is one of the most cost-effective approaches,'' Bedwell said.
Considering a program doesn't mean the EPA has decided to set one up, Raymond Ludwiszewski, a Washington-based partner at law firm Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP and a former EPA general counsel under President George H.W. Bush.
''I'm confident that they haven't decided exactly how they're going to do everything,'' Ludwiszewski said.
The agency's deliberations are complicated by its failure under President George W. Bush to set up a cap-and-trade program for mercury emissions and amend the rules of existing trading systems for acid rain and smog pollution rights, he said.
When legislation with these amendments to the Clean Air Act stalled in Congress, the Bush administration tried to make the changes through agency regulations. In 2008, a federal appeals court said in two separate cases that those regulations overstepped the bounds of the existing Clean Air Act and overturned them.
Judicial review
The EPA under President Barack Obama isn't likely to set up an emissions trading system for greenhouse gases under existing law that can ''survive judicial review,'' Ludwiszewski said.
''It will be very difficult for the administrator to find tools that will allow cap-and-trade approaches to regulating greenhouse gases under the current Clean Air Act,'' he said.
So far, the EPA has proposed greenhouse gas regulations that would toughen fuel economy standards for new cars and trucks and require new and modified industrial polluters, such as power plants, to install the ``best available'' technology to limit emissions.
There has been ''no final decision'' on greenhouse gas regulations ''beyond what EPA has previously announced,'' Brendan Gilfillan, a spokesman for the agency, said in an e-mail.
'Careful thought, discussion'
The agency will be busy getting the already announced regulatory programs started and a decision on whether to pursue emissions trading will probably be made ''further down the road,'' Jonathan Cannon, a University of Virginia School of Law professor and former EPA general counsel during the Clinton administration, said in a telephone interview.
While the EPA can make a good case for carbon trading under the existing Clean Air Act, a final decision still ''requires a lot of careful thought and discussion between the lawyers and the program people who would be designing such a scheme,'' Cannon said.
A ''cautious and responsible approach'' by EPA officials today will help the agency fend off court challenges from groups that oppose any future carbon trading regulation, he said.
''The stakes are big, and when the stakes are big, these issues get litigated, even if there's a fairly small chance of success,'' Cannon said.
BP Shuttering U.S. Solar Plant | Energy | Financial Articles & Investing News | TheStreet.com
BPs statement of the US Government commitment to renewable energy.
BPs statement of the US Government commitment to renewable energy.
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
Yet another huge waste of time and money trying to sell climate change.
Climate scientists hope independent reviews will reverse public’s loss of trust - Times Online
Climate scientists hope independent reviews will reverse public’s loss of trust - Times Online
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
“Gambling our Future
<DIV align=center><B><I><FONT color=#984806><FONT face=Arial>on Sunbeams and Sea Breezes”<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com
www.carbon-sense.com
<DIV align=center><B><I><FONT color=#984806><FONT face=Arial>on Sunbeams and Sea Breezes”<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
TOM Smitheringale wanted to prove the world was warming. Now he's another alarmist with frostbite. <!-- google_ad_section_end(name=story_introduction) -->
<!-- // .story-intro --><!-- google_ad_section_start(name=story_body, weight=high) -->The 40-year-old from Perth planned to be the first Australian to trek unassisted to the North Pole, but announced he'd raise some consciousness along the way.
As he wrote on his website: "Part of the reason Tom's One Man Epic is taking place now is because of the effect that global warming is having on the polar ice caps."
Indeed, he wanted to see the North Pole while it was still there: "Some scientists have even estimated that the polar ice cap will have entirely melted away by 2014!"
But Antarctica isn't melting away, and Arctic ice has slowly increased since its big low in 1997.
But no one seems to have told Tom, who soon found his extremities freezing.
<!-- google_ad_section_start(name=story_related, weight=medium) -->Related Coverage
<!-- // .story-sidebar -->Two weeks ago he nearly called off his trek after suffering excruciating pain in his fingers and thumbs, forcing him to call in emergency help.
And last week he had to be rescued by Canadian soldiers after falling through the ice sheet.
"(I) came very close to the grave," he said, on being flown out.
This is actually now the fourth year running that warming alarmists have had to be rescued from expeditions to prove the Arctic is warmer than it actually is. It's a metaphor.
Last year it was British eco-explorer Pen Hadow and his two-person team who had to be flown out mid-stunt, after battling brutal sub-zero weather conditions that gave the team's photographer frostbite.
The year before, eco-adventurer Lewis Gordon Pugh was similarly thwarted.
He'd planned to kayak 1200km to the North Pole to raise awareness of how global warming had allegedly melted the ice sheet so badly that scientists warned the North Pole that summer could be ice-free.
No such luck. Pugh had to pull out, still 1000km from the finish, when a great barrier of sea ice blocked his route.
The year before gave even more farcical entertainment.
"Explorers and educators" Ann Bancroft and Liv Arnesen said they were off on what reporters described as "a historic 75-day expedition to the North Pole and beyond to raise awareness of global warming's impact on the fragile Arctic".
It turned out that what was fragile was not the Arctic but the alarmists, who had to call off their big trip not long after it started, when Arnesen suffered frostbite in three of her toes, and extreme cold drained their batteries.
Explained a spokesman: "They were experiencing temperatures that weren't expected with global warming."
Like the globe, really.
The fact is that when Arctic rescuers must save more people from global warming stunts than from global warming itself, it's time to heed again the words of Franklin D. Roosevelt.
"We have nothing to fear but fear itself." So if alarmists settled down, they might just live longer, and keep their toes.
And the rest of us might not be put to so much needless expense. Like rescues, for instance
<!-- // .story-intro --><!-- google_ad_section_start(name=story_body, weight=high) -->The 40-year-old from Perth planned to be the first Australian to trek unassisted to the North Pole, but announced he'd raise some consciousness along the way.
As he wrote on his website: "Part of the reason Tom's One Man Epic is taking place now is because of the effect that global warming is having on the polar ice caps."
Indeed, he wanted to see the North Pole while it was still there: "Some scientists have even estimated that the polar ice cap will have entirely melted away by 2014!"
But Antarctica isn't melting away, and Arctic ice has slowly increased since its big low in 1997.
But no one seems to have told Tom, who soon found his extremities freezing.
<!-- google_ad_section_start(name=story_related, weight=medium) -->Related Coverage
- North Pole adventurer rescued after fall Herald Sun, 4 days ago
- WA man's North Pole bid iced Perth Now, 4 days ago
- Arctic adventurer on track Perth Now, 15 Mar 2010
- Climate of debate, not vilification The Australian, 22 Oct 2009
- Arctic to be ice-free in 20 years The Australian, 15 Oct 2009
<!-- // .story-sidebar -->Two weeks ago he nearly called off his trek after suffering excruciating pain in his fingers and thumbs, forcing him to call in emergency help.
And last week he had to be rescued by Canadian soldiers after falling through the ice sheet.
"(I) came very close to the grave," he said, on being flown out.
This is actually now the fourth year running that warming alarmists have had to be rescued from expeditions to prove the Arctic is warmer than it actually is. It's a metaphor.
Last year it was British eco-explorer Pen Hadow and his two-person team who had to be flown out mid-stunt, after battling brutal sub-zero weather conditions that gave the team's photographer frostbite.
The year before, eco-adventurer Lewis Gordon Pugh was similarly thwarted.
He'd planned to kayak 1200km to the North Pole to raise awareness of how global warming had allegedly melted the ice sheet so badly that scientists warned the North Pole that summer could be ice-free.
No such luck. Pugh had to pull out, still 1000km from the finish, when a great barrier of sea ice blocked his route.
The year before gave even more farcical entertainment.
"Explorers and educators" Ann Bancroft and Liv Arnesen said they were off on what reporters described as "a historic 75-day expedition to the North Pole and beyond to raise awareness of global warming's impact on the fragile Arctic".
It turned out that what was fragile was not the Arctic but the alarmists, who had to call off their big trip not long after it started, when Arnesen suffered frostbite in three of her toes, and extreme cold drained their batteries.
Explained a spokesman: "They were experiencing temperatures that weren't expected with global warming."
Like the globe, really.
The fact is that when Arctic rescuers must save more people from global warming stunts than from global warming itself, it's time to heed again the words of Franklin D. Roosevelt.
"We have nothing to fear but fear itself." So if alarmists settled down, they might just live longer, and keep their toes.
And the rest of us might not be put to so much needless expense. Like rescues, for instance
