climaterealists's blog

Richard Treadgold | June 2, 2011

The Taranaki Daily News two days ago published a polemic notable more for its rancour than its precision regarding climatic facts.

It’s a good example of one-eyed thinking, skewed views and perfectly furious ad hominem attacks — all teeth and talons and only the hissing missing.

Written by the doubtless-locally-renowned scribe Rachel Stewart, it strikes some of the sourest notes I’ve come across in the climate debate since finding Hot Topic. But her thunderous venom simply accents her foolhardy logic. She wears a filthy expression in the accompanying photo. Did someone steal her favourite cuddly toy? It would certainly explain the spleen.

Richard Treadgold | June 5, 2011

Principled sceptical stance

Press release from Act deputy leader Hon John Boscawen

In a joint press release today, New Zealand’s and Australia’s Greens are now trumpeting the seemingly imminent imposition of a carbon tax in Australia and the superiority of such a tax over New Zealand’s Emissions Trading Scheme, notes ACT New Zealand Parliamentary Leader John Boscawen.

This, in advance of Australian Green Senator Bob Brown’s visit to New Zealand to speak to the Greens’ annual conference this weekend.

“As it happens, ACT agrees that if one is to have either, on the untenable premise that CO2 is a pollutant, then a low, transparent tax would be preferable to the ETS. It at least makes the ‘polluter’ (read: anyone engaged in productive activity) pay,” says Mr Boscawen.

“Where the NZ Greens display typical confusion is in repeating the claim that the ETS subsidises ‘polluters.’

Andrew Bolt
 

Tim Flannery has had years of practice trying to terrify us
into thinking human-made climate change will destroy Earth, says Andrew
Bolt.

TIM Flannery has just been hired by the Gillard Government to
scare us stupid, and I can't think of a better man for the job.
This Alarmist of the Year is worth every bit of the $180,000
salary he'll get as part-time chairman of the Government's new Climate
Commission.

His job is simple: to advise us that we really, truly have to
accept, say, the new tax on carbon dioxide emissions that this
Government threatens to impose.
This kind of work is just up the dark alley of Flannery,
author of The Weather Makers, that bible of booga booga.
He's had years of practice trying to terrify us into thinking
our exhausts are turning the world into a fireball that will wipe out
civilisation, melt polar ice caps and drown entire cities under hot seas.
Small problem, though: after so many years of hearing
Flannery's predictions, we're now able to see if some of the scariest
have actually panned out.

http://www.galileomovement.com.au/untruths_nutshell.php

Did you know that reports by the UN's climate body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC are the basis of the Rudd-Gillard and Greens climate policies?

• 4,000 scientists did not claim human production of CO₂ caused global warming. Only 5 IPCC reviewers endorsed its core claim - and there's doubt they were even scientists;
• For its 1995 report, UN IPCC scientists advised five times there was no evidence of humans causing warming. Yet IPCC politicians' reported to national governments and media: "The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate";
• UN IPCC data on the air's carbon dioxide (CO₂) levels show carbon dioxide is a consequence of temperature, not a cause. This is true for every period in Earth's history and over every duration;
• The 2007 report's sole chapter claiming warming and attributing it to humans contains no specific scientifically measured real-world evidence (AR4, chapter 9) for its claim. It relies on computer models programmed to predict warming. Yet cooling has occurred;
• The UN IPCC chairman repeatedly publicly claims the IPCC uses 100% scientifically peer-reviewed literature. Yet its 2007 report cites and relies on 5,587 references not peer-reviewed - including hikers' stories, newspaper articles and political activists' campaign material;
• UN IPCC figures reveal scientific peer-review is corrupted, often bypassed and even prevented. In the real world these reports would be rejected. In business, the writers would be prosecuted;
• UN IPCC guidelines force scientists to change their report to be consistent with the political Summary for Policy Makers released months earlier;
• The UN IPCC does no scientific research and is not accountable to any national governments.

The dubious science of the climate crusaders.