Posted by: Grant | October 25, 2014

EU Reaches “Binding Agreement” – NOT!

Never letting the facts get in the way of their “Climate Change” reporting, AUS ABC “Lateline”, in a short, dutiful, item claims that EU leaders have reached a binding agreement to cut emissions by 40% - http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2014/s4114519.htm - WRONG!

The EU is not a sovereign state and they are very unlikely to expel any members for non-compliance because they will all fail to meet the target and they all know it.
Germany, the largest member just got rid of its nuclear power plants and is significantly boosting its coal power generation because “renewables” have failed them.

This more professional assessment -

EURACTIV
EU leaders adopt ‘flexible’ energy and climate targets for 2030
Published: 24/10/2014 – 06:42 | Updated: 24/10/2014 – 12:14  http://www.euractiv.com/sections/eu-priorities-2020/eu-leaders-adopt-flexible-energy-and-climate-targets-2030-309462

- points out -

A special “flexibility clause” was added to the final text”

“the (EU) Council can revisit the targets anytime” (French President)

“But the efficiency and renewables targets were watered down”

“The EU level target is not legally binding at the national level or EU level and will be reviewed in 2020 “having in mind” a 30% EU-level target, according to the summit conclusions.”

“The renewables target of at least 27% is binding at EU-wide level but, after opposition from countries such as the United Kingdom, it will not be binding at national level.”

“the 40% emissions reduction target is going to be broken down to individual member states based on their GDP per capita”

“Free allowances of carbon emissions to poorer countries will continue”

“”I said that we will not return from this summit with new [financial] burdens, and indeed there are no new burdens,” Kopacz (Polish PM) told Polish reporters.”

The EU were in the 195 nations who all solemnly entered into the “binding” Kyoto Protocol in 1995 – this is what happened -

global totalhttp://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/glo.html

Posted by: Grant | October 18, 2014

Professional Journalism 101

For the cheap sensationalism reporters and editors in the Mass Media, this is how a spectacular scientific claim should be reported.

Someone at Lockheed Martin has claimed a Fusion Reactor breakthrough.

Here, Channel Nine gets the story and goes to other Fusion researchers who point out how difficult that has proven over five decades and urge caution – “They have an interesting design for a Fusion Reactor, but there are many interesting designs”.

This has NEVER, repeat NEVER, been done with Global Warming, now Climate Change. The plausible, entertaining, little anecdotes from Green activists are just published completely unchallenged – why complicate a good sensationalist doomsday story with any inconvenient facts and debate?!

.

Capture-1http://www.9news.com.au/National/2014/10/17/20/33/Nuclear-fusion-coming-closer

Posted by: Grant | October 17, 2014

Catalyst – See The Greenie Squirm.

Squirm Greenie squirm.

AUS ABC have let us down very badly on “Climate Change”.

Their science flagship, “Catalyst” now attempts to explain away the lack of Global Warming.

Waiting, waiting, waiting….

Capture-1

CATALYST
Thursday, 16 October 2014
Global Warming Pause http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/4107264.htm

The above piece is notable, if not historic, in that it actually presents a counter argument to Climate Change instead of dismissing it outright as denial.

It otherwise completely fails to explain the collapse of oversimplified claims made by the UNIPCC that “natural forcings” are too weak, too long term or too short term to be having any significant effect on global temperature and could thus be ignored by the Climate Change Alarmists.

The 15+ year “hiatus” in the face of huge “emissions” now proves that “natural forcings” cannot be ignored.  The Alarmists have a fundamental problem.
They cannot dismiss “natural forcings”, but they cannot quantify them to take them into account.
They have modelled and “projected” a system that they did not and still do not fully understand.

They cannot even claim that this is a “hiatus”. “Natural forcings” may just go on neutralising Global Warming for decades or centuries to come.

The viewer will not understand this feeble Catalyst attempt because it is pure obfuscation, just the latest in a long list of feeble explanations of an epic failure.
Read them all here and find links which debunk them.

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK
Monday, July 28, 2014
Updated list of 52 excuses for the 18-26 year ‘pause’ in global warming http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/2014/07/updated-list-of-29-excuses-for-18-year.html

“1) Low solar activity
2) Oceans ate the global warming [debunked] [debunked] [debunked]
3) Chinese coal use [debunked]
4) Montreal Protocol
5) What ‘pause’? [debunked] [debunked] [debunked] [debunked]
6) Volcanic aerosols [debunked]
7) Stratospheric Water Vapor
8) Faster Pacific trade winds [debunked]
9) Stadium Waves
10) ‘Coincidence!’
11) Pine aerosols
12) It’s “not so unusual” and “no more than natural variability”
13) “Scientists looking at the wrong ‘lousy’ data” http://
14) Cold nights getting colder in Northern Hemisphere
15) We forgot to cherry-pick models in tune with natural variability [debunked]
16) Negative phase of Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation
17) AMOC ocean oscillation
18) “Global brightening” has stopped
19) “Ahistorical media”
20) “It’s the hottest decade ever” Decadal averages used to hide the ‘pause’ [debunked]
21) Few El Ninos since 1999
22) Temperature variations fall “roughly in the middle of the AR4 model results”
23) “Not scientifically relevant”
24) The wrong type of El Ninos
25) Slower trade winds [debunked]
26) The climate is less sensitive to CO2 than previously thought [see also]
27) PDO and AMO natural cycles and here
28) ENSO
29) Solar cycle driven ocean temperature variations
30) Warming Atlantic caused cooling Pacific [paper] [debunked by Trenberth & Wunsch]
31) “Experts simply do not know, and bad luck is one reason”
32) IPCC climate models are too complex, natural variability more important
33) NAO & PDO
34) Solar cycles
35) Scientists forgot “to look at our models and observations and ask questions”
36) The models really do explain the “pause” [debunked] [debunked] [debunked]
37) As soon as the sun, the weather and volcanoes – all natural factors – allow, the world will start warming again. Who knew?
38) Trenberth’s “missing heat” is hiding in the Atlantic, not Pacific as Trenberth claimed
[debunked] [Dr. Curry's take] [Author: “Every week there’s a new explanation of the hiatus”]
39) “Slowdown” due to “a delayed rebound effect from 1991 Mount Pinatubo aerosols and deep prolonged solar minimum”
40) The “pause” is “probably just barely statistically significant” with 95% confidence:
The “slowdown” is “probably just barely statistically significant” and not “meaningful in terms of the public discourse about climate change”
41) Internal variability, because Chinese aerosols can either warm or cool the climate:
The “recent hiatus in global warming is mainly caused by internal variability of the climate” because “anthropogenic aerosol emissions from Europe and North America towards China and India between 1996 and 2010 has surprisingly warmed rather than cooled the global climate.”
[Before this new paper, anthropogenic aerosols were thought to cool the climate or to have minimal effects on climate, but as of now, they "surprisingly warm" the climate]
42) Trenberth’s ‘missing heat’ really is missing and is not “supported by the data itself” in the “real ocean”:
“it is not clear to me, actually, that an accelerated warming of some…layer of the ocean … is robustly supported by the data itself. Until we clear up whether there has been some kind of accelerated warming at depth in the real ocean, I think these results serve as interesting hypotheses about why the rate of surface warming has slowed-down, but we still lack a definitive answer on this topic.” [Josh Willis]
43) Ocean Variability:
“After some intense work by of the community, there is general agreement that the main driver [of climate the "pause"] is ocean variability. That’s actually quite impressive progress.”
44) The data showing the missing heat going into the oceans is robust and not robust:
” I think the findings that the heat is going into the Atlantic and Southern Ocean’s is probably pretty robust. However, I will defer to people like Josh Willis who know the data better than I do.”-Andrew Dessler. Debunked by Josh Willis, who Dessler says “knows the data better than I do,” says in the very same NYT article that “it is not clear to me, actually, that an accelerated warming of some…layer of the ocean … is robustly supported by the data itself” – Josh Willis
45) We don’t have a theory that fits all of the data:
“Ultimately, the challenge is to come up with the parsimonious theory [of the 'pause'] that fits all of the data” [Andrew Dessler]
46) We don’t have enough data of natural climate cycles lasting 60-70 years to determine if the “pause” is due to such natural cycles:
“If the cycle has a period of 60-70 years, that means we have one or two cycles of observations. And I don’t think you can much about a cycle with just 1-2 cycles: e.g., what the actual period of the variability is, how regular it is, etc. You really need dozens of cycles to determine what the actual underlying variability looks like. In fact, I don’t think we even know if it IS a cycle.” [Andrew Dessler]
47) Could be pure internal [natural] variability or increased CO2 or both
“this brings up what to me is the real question: how much of the hiatus is pure internal variability and how much is a forced response (from loading the atmosphere with carbon). This paper seems to implicitly take the position that it’s purely internal variability, which I’m not sure is true and might lead to a very different interpretation of the data and estimate of the future.” [Andrew Dessler]
48) Its either in the Atlantic or Pacific, but definitely not a statistical fluke:
 It’s the Atlantic, not Pacific, and “the hiatus in the warming…should not be dismissed as a statistical fluke” [John Michael Wallace]
49) The other papers with excuses for the “pause” are not “science done right”:
” If the science is done right, the calculated uncertainty takes account of this background variation. But none of these papers, Tung, or Trenberth, does that. Overlain on top of this natural behavior is the small, and often shaky, observing systems, both atmosphere and ocean where the shifting places and times and technologies must also produce a change even if none actually occurred. The “hiatus” is likely real, but so what? The fuss is mainly about normal behavior of the climate system.” [Carl Wunsch]
50) The observational data we have is inadequate, but we ignore uncertainty to publish anyway:
“The central problem of climate science is to ask what you do and say when your data are, by almost any standard, inadequate? If I spend three years analyzing my data, and the only defensible inference is that “the data are inadequate to answer the question,” how do you publish? How do you get your grant renewed? A common answer is to distort the calculation of the uncertainty, or ignore it all together, and proclaim an exciting story that the New York Times will pick up…How many such stories have been withdrawn years later when enough adequate data became available?”
51) If our models could time-travel back in time, “we could have forecast ‘the pause’ – if we had the tools of the future back then” [NCAR press release]
[Time-traveling, back-to-the-future models debunked] [debunked] ["pause" due to natural variability]
52)  ‘Unusual climate anomaly’ of unprecedented deceleration of a secular warming trend

Posted by: Grant | October 11, 2014

ALP Drops The Carbon Tax

After fighting doggedly in the Senate to keep the world’s first Carbon Tax , the ALP have suddenly decided that “the Australian people have spoken” and quietly dropped it at a Saturday morning press conference.
The long delay in repudiating it has merely produced a cynical response to “Electricity Bill” Shorten.
Having created the mess, the ALP can now take political advantage when the Government fails to reduce the power bills.
The Carbon Tax didn’t cause the huge power bills, the mandatory RET and “renewables” did.
The populists in the Senate have blocked repeal of the RET and the large, sterile, Renewables industry is somewhat politically entrenched, albeit doomed.

No amount of media performance coaching is ever going to turn Bill into prime minister material is it?

Posted by: Grant | October 10, 2014

Mainstream Media – FAIL – Again!

First they sold us the – “power prices must necessarily skyrocket” – LIE – a lie that power companies were quite happy to oblige.

Now the fracking boom in the USA has made the USA a bigger oil producer than Saudi Arabia and oil prices are “in free fall” but the poor mug aussie public are still blissfully paying huge petrol prices at their local duopoly supermarket bowser.

oilhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/11140156/World-on-the-brink-of-oil-war-as-Opec-bickers-over-price.html

Of course the Government will be in no hurry to correct this rip off because they make much more money out of petrol than the oil companies! Like the Carbon Tax, our fuel tax is a nasty regressive tax because it taxes production not profits and earnings, acts as a brake on the economy, and makes us uncompetitive with the many countries who don’t tax fuel.

 

Posted by: Grant | October 10, 2014

Don’t Mention Der Vor – On Coal

wsj

 

http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB0QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticles%2Fgermanys-coal-binge-1411599265&ei=NuI2VOesOMK68gWykILABA&usg=AFQjCNGj0ABq_H10avK2hDApFU9Itg0wEA&sig2=WTn6nbXch9Ugx3ad-zeZKA

http://www.thegwpf.com/germanys-coal-binge/

Posted by: Grant | October 9, 2014

Torturing Data ‘Till It Screams

bomIn case anyone is interested, unlike the rest of the planet, the Globe’s smallest continent, or largest island, Australia, is warming slightly.

Well, according to the greenies at the local Bureau Of Meteorology that is.

We can trust them.

Highly professional, objective, giving farmers and industry the best most reliable information available.

Or can we?

THE AUSTRALIAN
Climate is right for a probe into the Bureau of Meteorology 
Maurice Newman 
October 01, 2014 12:00AM http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCcQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theaustralian.com.au%2Fopinion%2Fclimate-is-right-for-a-probe-into-the-bureau-of-meteorology%2Fstory-e6frg6zo-1227075659378&ei=I4c1VLW2KI7z8gWPn4HADA&usg=AFQjCNHDTa9JW5vyP2W20H2RO6EoiFIrbw&sig2=gtHd1b-vs2OHPw2n2xF6Uw

” …The BoM is a large and expensive agency, employing 1700 people and costing more than $300 million a year to run. The importance of its database and the reliability of its forecasts go well beyond direct operating costs and daily bulletins. As the bureau says, 10 per cent of Australia’s GDP is weather sensitive. This makes its input to public policy potentially valuable. But it must first dispel suspicions of a warming bias. The memory of Climategate and its casual approach to celsius conversion, lingers. It should explain why homogenisation consistently turns cooling trends to warming and why pre-1910 records were dropped and, with them, the extreme heatwaves of the Federation drought.

The record is error-ridden. Even to an amateur, the latest information dump prompts more questions than answers. The concerns about Rutherglen raised by Lloyd as to why a 0.35C cooling became a 1.73C warming still have no satisfactory explanation. No supporting documentary evidence, algorithms or methodology have been produced, leaving the unfortunate impression that temperature records were falsified…. “

 

Posted by: Grant | October 8, 2014

The Walruses And The Greenpeace Activist.

The AUS ABC and the rest of the mainstream media left out the small detail that the claim that this crowd of Walruses was “Climate Change” came from a Greenpeace activist and had absolutely no scientist behind it at all.

In fact such crowds of the mammals are perfectly normal as a quick check with any expert would have revealed.

But then we would have missed a nice picture and the headline  – Walrus Bask Normally On Beach Waiting For Climate To Change - just doesn’t have the same ring to it, does it?

walrus

Arctic Walrus Beachings Are Nothing New –  The Daily Caller http://dailycaller.com/2014/10/01/myth-debunked-arctic-walrus-beachings-are-nothing-new/

This is how “Climate change” is pounded into the conventional wisdom – thousands of plausible  but spurious little obscure anecdotes that go completely unchallenged in the media.

The thin crust of floating ice at the north pole did show some signs of reduced area, which was seized on by greenies, but it couldn’t be global warming because the globe isn’t warming and the other pole, kilometres deep ice, has been showing record sea ice levels for a some time now.

POSTSCRIPT – The official debunking paper on the Walruses is now out - http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2014/10/walrus-fuss.pdf

Posted by: Grant | October 8, 2014

To Much Opposition To War On Coal

obamahttp://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/16/obama-epa-climate-change-power-plant-rule-delay

The “historic climate change plan” took off like a lead balloon – What – a – waste – !

This NBC report points out that it is the Democrats themselves that have stopped pushing it, rather than the Republicans opposing it. The Republicans indulge Green sentiment but don’t let it do any serious damageDecision 2014 A Campaign About Nothing – NBC News.com

Posted by: Grant | September 29, 2014

Monckton Downunder – Oh Dear – Oh My

~meThe below 2GB talkback radio interview (click 2 play) was heard by a very large number of people in Sydney, a large city even by world standards.

Alan Jones has done more good to dismantle “Climate Change” than anyone else in this country.

I am increasingly dismayed, however, that the other person largely responsible for winning the battle, Andrew Bolt, has started to totally discredit himself by provoking an anti-muslim backlash – boltexactly as the murderous middle eastern radicals wanted.

A handful of disorganised, adventurous, radicalized youth are never going to do to much damage. (But why stop them leavin’ fer crissake? Just jail them if they return.)
They are easily managed.
It is an hysterical anti-muslim backlash that is really dangerous and that IS very, very damaging because it is self-fulfilling and self-propagating.
An hysterical anti-muslim backlash is precisely what those barbaric, medieval, filthy Arabs are aiming at! DURH! (They are not stupid – very smart – very disciplined – highly strategic)

Now we see the champion of truth, the warrior against the “Save-da-planet” global governance putsch at the UN, Andrew Bolt, blindly stirring up a fascist backlash against the whole Muslim religion in this country! Groan! All that good work on Climate Change – down the drain!

This is a quote from a recent Tony Gnome/Michael Darby Email mailing list -
“Here is Andrew Bolt and Steve Price and Lord Monckton; doing some recent talk-back Radio on the Topic; including to Muslims on the phone:–http://www.2gb.com/audioplayer/62841#.VCc7vE1xn3g
Christopher refers to Sharia <“no go”> zones in Paris. Here is some YouTube:– https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-kMpqQBdNs&#8221;

 

Capture-1http://www.2gb.com/audioplayer/62856#.VChvb4101Vd

Older Posts »

Categories

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 149 other followers