A clear sign that we are careening towards greenhouse gas induced global catastrophe...
NEW YORK (Reuters) -The 2007 hurricane season may be less severe than forecast due to cooler-than-expected water temperatures in the tropical Atlantic, private forecaster WSI Corp said on Tuesday.
"cooler-than-expected" by what? Not all those never-been-right climate models that the aforementioned catastrophes are based on?
The season will bring 14 named storms, of which six will become hurricanes and three will become major hurricanes, WSI said in its revised outlook. WSI had previously expected 15 named storms of which eight would become hurricanes and four would become major hurricanes.
In other words - about the same as there's been for the last 40 years.
"Because the ocean temperatures have not yet rebounded from the significant drop in late spring, we have decided to reduce our forecast numbers slightly," said Todd Crawford, a WSI seasonal forecaster.
The energy and insurance industries are keenly watching the 2007 storm season after the record damage caused by hurricanes two years ago.
Caused by the clowns inhabiting New Orleans' political offices, you mean. Katrina was only a Category 3 storm and should not have been able to cause the damage it did.
During the 2005 season, hurricanes Katrina and Rita devastated parts of the U.S. Gulf Coast and temporarily knocked out a quarter of U.S. crude and fuel production, sending energy prices to then-record highs.
WSI's Crawford added that wind conditions due to the lack of an El Nino event were less conducive to formation of tropical storms.
Despite the downgraded forecast, WSI still expects the 2007 season to be more active than last year, and added that storm-weary parts of the Gulf Coast could still be hit.
Last year was one of the lowest ever so it's not that tough to predict it will be more active. Do you like the way that's written in the negative? "Despite the..."
"We feel the general threat to the western Gulf is reduced slightly, with a corresponding increase in the threat to the eastern Gulf and Florida," Crawford said.
No bad news for Climate Brown Shirts to report. Bad luck for them. I'm sure they'll hunt down something suitable, though.
I turned on the TV yesterday, not knowing what was on, and found that the classic Ghostbusters had just started.
After being kicked out of university due to Dr Peter Venkman's (Bill Murray) sustained incompetence he and Dr Raymond Stanz (Dan Akroyd) are discussing what the future holds for them. Murray is saying that it's fate and things will be fine but a worried Akroyd is having none of it:
Dr Raymond Stanz: Personally, I liked the university. They gave us money and facilities, we didn't have to produce anything! You've never been out of college! You don't know what it's like out there! I've *worked* in the private sector. They expect *results*.
Ghostbusters was made in 1984. I wonder whether a much more actively politically partisan Hollywood would include that line these days?
As I pointed out the other day, the leftist mind is fundamentally immature and there's no greater example of that intellectual immaturity than in academia.
It also reminded me of the debate about torture doing the rounds last year. The left was taking the "it's never, ever OK to use torture" line even if an impending catastrophic threat of the variety dreamt up in the TV series 24 was uncovered.
Does the left really believe this or is it simply their usual knee jerk reaction to what they perceive as the right's predilection for thumb screws, truth drugs and water boarding? The latter, I suspect.
You'll recall that in another classic movie, also in a similar genre to Ghostbusters - Men In Black - that MIB has one hour to save the world from being destroyed by the Arquillians. They need to get information about what the Arquillians want and ends up interrogating Frank The Pug.
KAY - You busy, Frank?
FRANK THE PUG - Sorry, Kay, I can't talk right now, my ride's leaving in --
(Kay grabs Frank. He yelps like, well, a dog.)
KAY - Call the pound. We got a stray.
FRANK THE PUG - Hey! Get your paws off me!
(PASSERBYS glare at Kay, who appears to be seriously mistreating this poor little dog. Jay tries to explain.)
JAY - The, uh...dog owes my friend some money.
KAY (to Frank) - Arquillians and bugs. What do you know?
FRANK THE PUG - I know nothing.
KAY - Not a thing?
(Kay shakes Frank the Pug, trying to force an answer.)
FRANK THE PUG - Stop it. Okay, okay. Rosenberg wasn't some two-bit Arquillian. He was the guardian of a galaxy. They thought he would be safe here on earth.
KAY - And the bug had other plans.
FRANK THE PUG - The galaxy is the best source for subatomic energy in the universe. If the bugs get their slimy claws on it, kiss the Arquillians goodbye.
JAY - Ask him about the belt.
KAY - (to Frank) - Rosenberg said something about a galaxy on "Orion's belt." What's he talking about, Frank?
FRANK THE PUG - Beats me.
(Kay shakes Frank the Pug once more.)
In the movie it seems not only completely credible but quite reasonable, as it does in '24'. However I've done enough research on torture to know that it is, in fact, counter-productive, even in extreme circumstances. I wonder whether those that banged on loudest about torture saw the irony in the above?
Few Aussie bands have hit the international stage in recent years with the force of Wolfmother.
After releasing their self-titled debut EP through Modular Recordings in September 2004, Wolfmother began appearing at several high profile music events, such as Homebake and the Big Day Out. The EP was a success, reaching number thirty-five in the ARIA singles chart and receiving consistent radio play on Triple J.
In 2005, the band made their way to Los Angeles, working alongside producer Dave Sardy (Marilyn Manson, Oasis) to record their eponymous debut album, released in October 2005.
The first single to be released was "Mind's Eye"/"Woman" (a double A-side), making its debut on the Australian music charts at number twenty-nine. The album itself entered the Australian Charts at number three and has been a regular feature of the Top 20 ever since, having gone platinum three times. Wolfmother won the 2005 J Award from the Australian youth radio network Triple J for the best Australian album of the year,[1] and finished the year with Falls Festival appearances. Rolling Stone magazine listed Wolfmother as one of their "Top 10 Bands to Watch 2006."[2]
They achieved a record breaking six songs in the influential 2005 Triple J Hottest 100, with "Mind's Eye" their highest entry at number six. This breaks the record of five songs previously held by Powderfinger, Queens of the Stone Age, Silverchair and The White Stripes.
If you haven't seen this amazing video of what happens when a herd of buffalo comes across a pride of lions snoozing in the sun and wondering what to do about lunch then you're in for a treat. There's a surprise involved, as well, that makes it all the more amazing.
I've been keeping a record of the poll fixing happening on NineMSN's online polls. I didn't have the opportunity to take images of the latest example - Should the government give Dr Haneef his visa back?
When I checked in yesterday evening the Yes vote was around 9500 and the No vote was around 9700. That was in line with the numbers earlier in the day.
One thing I've noticed about polls is that the ratio of Yes to No doesn't change by an material amount once 2000 votes have been cast.
Given the political nature of the question on this poll it comes as no surprise that there has been some mucking about going on overnight.
The numbers have been manipulated to 208,000 to 18,000. I'm not surprised. Manipulating the truth is the left's number one talent.
I have to thank Oscar for leaving a comment on my post The United Nations' principles to ruin the world, as it provides a clear demonstration of the immaturity of the leftist mind. Perversely, this intellectual immaturity does not mature over time in line with the body, as shown by the destructive ideas of our 'cultural elite', educators and media cabal.
Using your own words: “I am – also -- beyond being shocked” of how little and stupid is the mind of some people, arriving to so extreme limits of writing “things” like your “comments” …
If you can decode what is fraudulently trying to pass as a sentence in English then I think Oscar is saying that he's beyond being shocked by my being beyond being shocked.
First of all, “corruption” -- as many other tares -- was not originated in the Third World. They were “imported”. “Imposed” to be more exact.
Poor Oscar doesn't get to first base by trotting out the old "all things bad that happen in the developing/Third World are because we 'imposed' them." It's a pity that Oscar is about as familiar with the history of these places as he is with the English language. If you've ever lived in developing countries, as I have for nearly 10 years in Africa and SE Asia, then it is as plain as the nose on your face the advantages British colonialism left for her former colonies. The same can't be said for French, Italian, Portugese or Spanish involvement with only the rare exception. Notice the the United States isn't on the list. Oops. A bit inconvenient, really.
Since “discovering” and/or “colonization” times, most of that tares where typical “rules” of the “discoverers” and/or “colonizators” … right ? The ones which did not accept them, were – simply -- “eliminated”, “disappeared” , … etc. (I mean: tortures, killed,… etc.); using the long “experience” and all unimaginable “methods” the “discoverers” and/or “colonizators” had in these domains. .. doesn’t it ?
As of today, all this, it is still valid, … correct ? … and … in all “areas” (human rights, labour standards, environment protection, anti-corruption,...) ...true ?
What the heck is this man babbling on about? If he thinks that human rights abuses, labour abuses, environmental damage and corruption are due to Western involvement then he's living in a parallel universe. The most destructive force in these areas over the last one hundred years has been socialism. Point blank.
In conclusion, by now, terrorism and dictatorial regimes, are only simple, effective and efficient consequence of that “rules”. And, ONLY for all these reasons, any action to avoid that “rules” may, should, must be fully encouraged. In the current and/or so terrible “world (or “humanity”) situation”, if an international organization, like the United Nations, is not able to do it, who – in your “opinion” – will be able ?
Oscar. Oscar. Oscar. How do you think these sorts of disputes were handled before the United Nations and League of Nations existed? Hmm? Affected countries either sat down and hashed out a political solution or, in the rare circumstances that didn't work out, went to war.
Moreover, for many “First” and “Second” World’s geo-politicians, all this, is the “normal” consequence of that “rules”.
“Who” you think are the real “profiteers” ? … of what really happened with the so famous “Oil for Food” Program and related … funds ? I am sure, you will be completely surprised to know “who” really are the ones who really profit all that “corruption”, “extortion”, “bribery”, … etc.
Kofi Annan. One of his predecessors, Boutros Boutros Ghali and a host of countries (particularly the world's worst country, France). There's a big list that Saddam was bribing.
“Who” you think are “ruling” the United Nations ? … the Third World Countries ?...
Third World Countries have the same power as First World Countries. One country, one vote. They've put together voting blocs that have resulted in the UN Human Rights Council only passing resolutions against one country in the last 12 months - Israel - while pretty much ignoring the slaughter in Darfur, the concentration camp that is North Korea and the subjugation of women in most of the Arab world. They recently appointed Zimbabwe to Chair the Development and Sustainability Council. Zimbabwe!
“What” it is the real power – and use -- of the “veto” ?...
Please, read a little bit about, before proposing so stupid principles and/or lists...
Now, about all the current “corruption”, “incompetence”, “favouritism”, “nepotism”,... in United Nations, it is another – and completely different – story, specially in peace keeping activities. We should do whatever necessary to avoid, all of them.
If you can give me ONE example of UN peacekeepers bringing peace to a region in the entire history of the organisation then I'll give you a brownie point.
Having all this well in mind, please think twice, before writing so stupid and so clearly oriented, 'concerned', 'deeply concerned' and 'gravely concerned' comments...
Oscar.
Why not go to the UN website and do a search through their archives for the word 'concerned' or the other phrases above. You will be truly astonished at how much time the UN spends being concerned while sitting on its hands doing absolutely nothing.
Thanks, Oscar, for dropping by and demonstrating that wisdom and leftism are mutually incompatible concepts. Look forward to more amusing, intellectually vapid contributions from you. Please, though, get a proof-reader.
Taliban kidnappers have shot dead a South Korean hostage and are threatening to kill 22 others unless their demands are met, a Taliban spokesman says.
A local government official confirmed the death.
"Yes, they have killed one of the hostages and efforts are under way to have the others released," district chief of Qarabagh in Ghazni province, Khowja Seddiqi, told Reuters.
Aid workers, Christians, mothers, fathers, wives, husbands, brothers, sisters - all working in a high risk area to rebuild Afghanistan for the good of the Afghan people.
The sooner we get really serious about dealing with Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Warizistan the better.
Islamic terrorists, their material supporters and their enablers in the Western media are the scum of the earth.
I am beyond being shocked by the United Nations' support for, and enablement of, international terrorism, dictatorial regimes, Third World corruption and human rights abuses while at the same time propounding the views outlined in its Global Compact.
The Global Compact's ten principles in the areas of human rights, labour, the environment and anti-corruption enjoy universal consensus and are derived from:
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
The International Labour Organization's Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work
The Rio Declaration on Environment and Development
The United Nations Convention Against Corruption
The Global Compact asks companies to embrace, support and enact, within their sphere of influence, a set of core values in the areas of human rights, labour standards, the environment, and anti-corruption:
Human Rights
Principle 1: Businesses should support and respect the protection of internationally proclaimed human rights; and
Principle 2: make sure that they are not complicit in human rights abuses.
Straight off the bat, the UN demonstrates that it is profoundly anti-business. The left can't see anything in other than a political context and therefore it can't understand that business is, and must be, both apolitical and amoral. It is simply not the job of business to support human rights; it already has the two most morally important tasks that exist - the employment of people and generation of profits in order to deliver tax revenue to the state. It is up to individual governments to ensure that human rights abuses do not occur in their countries.
At this point the educated know-nothings posing as the left's elite will bleat on about sweat shops and the like without admitting that workers in Third World sweatshops earned more than the average salary in their countries. When pressure came to bear on companies like Nike jobs were lost (from South America to China) and former workers were left with no income and no prospects. This is a clear example of what happens when the rubber of what appears to be a morally correct, compassionate position actually hits the road.
The greatest human rights abuses occur every day in Sudan, Somalia, Iran, North Korea, China, Cuba and, increasingly, Venezuela and other nascent South American dictatorships. None of these abuses, in which millions of people have been killed, tortured or imprisoned in the few years since the beginning of the new millennium have had anything to do with business. They are all down to corrupt regimes, religious intolerance and the predictable outcome of socialist policies.
How can business make an impact on the human rights abuses of Darfur? The violence of expansionist Islam? The gulag known as North Korea?
It can't. Obviously.
Labour Standards
Principle 3: Businesses should uphold the freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining;
Principle 4: the elimination of all forms of forced and compulsory labour;
Principle 5: the effective abolition of child labour; and
Principle 6: the elimination of discrimination in respect of employment and occupation.
These standards show how corrupted the UN has become in our lifetime by socialist doctrine. Twenty or thirty years ago it would have couched these policies in language that hid their true, socialist roots. Collective bargaining costs jobs. Simple as that. It costs tax revenue. It costs economic prosperity. The last thing business should be doing, if it is upholding its moral responsibility to employ people and generate profits, is supporting collective bargaining.
Cuba, North Korea, China etc etc all have forced and compulsory labour regimes yet the United Nations does nothing to deal with them. Furthermore, it propounds eliminating compulsory labour while at the same time advocating for business to compulsorily negotiate with labour organisations.
The issue of child labour is probably only in the list to pull at people's heart strings, as it has been pretty effectively dealt with over the last couple of decades. Not to say it doesn't go on at all, it does, but it's hardly an endemic problem.
The UN and its supporters puts themselves in an awkward position when they attack Western Countries (and particularly the US) for having discriminatory employment regimes. The fact is that if a person is hired as a public servant, for example, then it doesn't matter whether they're black, white, yellow, Christian, Muslim, Jew, gay, straight, tall, short, thin, fat or think that Al Gore really cares for the environment - they are all paid exactly the same amount. The same goes for the left's supposed bogeyman - big business - if you're employed in a bank or a stockbroker or at Hewlett-Packard or at General Motors then you're getting paid pretty much exactly the same regardless of your particular group. Is that how it works in the Middle East (Israel excepted)? In Africa? In South America?
Environment
Principle 7: Businesses should support a precautionary approach to environmental challenges;
Principle 8: undertake initiatives to promote greater environmental responsibility; and
Principle 9: encourage the development and diffusion of environmentally friendly technologies
The 'precautionary principal' emanated from the environment movement and has as its fundamental position that unless a company can guarantee no harm will come from its products then they should not be allowed on the market. Of course, using this logic we wouldn't have penicillin or antibiotics or antiseptics or a vast array of drugs and chemicals that have saved millions of lives while at the same time having adverse affects on a tiny percentage of the population. Also using this logic we shouldn't drive, swim in the ocean, use herbal remedies or even exercise given the potential for fatal consequences. When an aeroplane crashes it's a tragedy for those on board but the lessons learned save the lives of countless future travellers. We learn from our mistakes not by trying to avoid those we can only imagine.
When the Soviet Empire collapsed, as I've pointed out before, the scale of environmental catastrophe shocked even the regime's most ardent critics. Free markets and private ownership have proven to be the most effective at protecting the environment because people have a financial incentive to ensure an ongoing supply of trees, for example, as distinct from the destruction of forests that takes place when governments pander to environmentalists and don't do enough clearing to ensure fires don't wreak massive damage, as happened in Canberra a few years ago.
What product is not more environmentally friendly now than twenty or thirty years ago? Cars certainly are. In order to match the massive fuel consumption of your average 1970 V8 you need to buy a dirty, great Hummer. Today's V8s are more efficient - and thus better for the environment - than most four cylinder cars were back then. This didn't happen through business consciously seeking to create more environmentally friendly cars but by competition to deliver cheaper to run products. Markets create efficiency, including environmental efficiency given a few decades to sort themselves out.
Anti-Corruption
Principle 10: Businesses should work against corruption in all its forms, including extortion and bribery.
There is no more corrupt major institution than the United Nations, of which the Oil For Food scandal was just one example. If it's going to lecture on corruption, extortion and bribery then it really needs to get its own house in order first. It turns a blind eye to rapes committed by its peacekeepers, actively supports the North Korean regime by giving it money allocated for aid and ensures a spotlight is not cast on people like Robert Mugabe for the destruction he has wrought to Zimbabwe. It is not for no reason that the United Nations was #1 in my 10 Institutions That Ruin The World list.
The major activities of the UN seem to be hand wringing while being 'concerned', 'deeply concerned' and 'gravely concerned'.
This list of ten principles, if enforced, would immiserise more people by undoing the positive effects of globalisation while at the same time negatively impacting the environment.
Update 24/7 - Strange happenings indeed. The images in this post all disappeared, except for the one of the road that I'd modified. I've received no notification from Blogger of any complaint. If it happens again then we know that someone is really concerned about being exposed this way.
The BBC is one of the loudest voices in the push to immiserise Europe through its promotion of global warming hysteria. In a section titled In pictures: How the world is changing they present the following as proof that we're all doomed. I refer to it as 'mishonesty' - the mistaken belief that it's OK to bend the truth because the cause is 'just' - and in the piece they use the old before/after technique to show the damage that mankind is purportedly doing.
BBC comments against each picture below in blue.
While the effect of human activity on the global climate is hotly debated, physical signs of environmental change are all around us. Some scientists say an increase in the rate of melting of the world's glaciers is evidence of global warming. Argentina's Upsala Glacier was once the biggest in South America, but it is now disappearing at a rate of 200 metres per year. Other scientists say its reduction is due to complicated shifts in glacial dynamics and local geology.
In fact, those 'other scientists' say that the Upsala Glacier is what's referred to as a fast-flowing calving glacier. From its name you can divine that more activity takes place in this glacier than other, slow-flowing ones. From the conclusion of this analysis:
Comparison with velocity measurements obtained by tracking surface features 30 years ago suggests that UWT was subject to strong acceleration after the release of backstress, coincident with a large glacier thinning rate which may in turn be responsible for the drastic recession affecting UWT from 1978 to 1999.
According to NASA this glacier retreated more than 4 km northward between 1968 and 1995, but appears to have stabilized in recent years. The variation between 1944/5 and 1985/6 is just -1.37% (against an overall -3.7% of the Southern Patagonian Ice Fields). Not only that but it's been pointed out recently that the pictures and captions are being wrongly used as evidence of global warming.
Kerplunk and the climate Skeptics: 1 BBC and the Climate Brown Shirts: 0
American photographer Gary Braasch has been documenting images of environmental change since 1999. The image on the left is from an 1859 etching of the Rhone glacier in Valais, Switzerland, and shows ice filling the valley. In 2001, the glacier had shrunk by some 2.5km, and its 'snout' had shifted about 450 metres higher up.
If you want to understand glaciers who should you be talking to? Al Gore? Leonardo Di Caprio? Meteorologists? Greenpeace? How about the people whose job it is to understand this stuff - geoscientists?
From the European Geosciences Union comes a piece, in 2005, called Evidence for repeated advances and retreats of the Rhône glacier during the last glaciation in lake Geneva, from 2d and 3d seismic imaging. '...repeated advances and retreats of the Rhone glacier...' Oops. That's a bit inconvenient.
There, basement is covered by a thin layer of subglacial till overlain by markedly laminated glaciolacustrine sediments. Within this glaciolacustrine unit another till is present. We interpret these deposits as witnesses of advances and retreats of the Rhone glacier during deglaciation. Along the southern edge of the glacier, a periglacial lake formed where sediments accumulated. When the glacier expanded, the glaciolacustrine body was overridden by ice. As a result, subglacial deposits are observed above glaciolacustrine sediments. The high elevation of this series differentiates it from other glaciolacustrine sediments observed elsewhere in the lake that are associated with proglacial lakes. Sedimentary sequences from on land boreholes located near our seismic lines show striking similarities with our data. According to age dating on plant remains, the glaciolacustrine sequence is older than 32 000 years BP.
As shown, the clear evidence for the Rhone glacier to be repeatedly advancing and retreating is overwhelming. Furthermore, the first picture is from 1859 - right at the end of the Little Ice Age - so you'd expect glaciers to be significantly advanced.
Kerplunk and the climate Skeptics: 2 BBC and the Climate Brown Shirts: 0
Some scientists predict that a warmer climate will trigger more violent storms, which will cause increased rates of coastal erosion. This is a section of shoreline at Cape Hatteras in North Carolina in the USA, pictured in 1999 and 2004. The southern United States and Caribbean region were battered by a series of powerful hurricanes last year. Rising sea levels are also expected to speed up coastal erosion.
There's those unnamed 'some scientists' again, making predictions as wildly inaccurate as the climate models they're based on. If you want to know about storms then ask good old Bill Gray, who knows a thing or two about storm activity. He'll tell you point blank that there's been no discernible change in hurricane activity in the 50 years he's worked in the field. Furthermore, warmer oceans create fewer storms, not more. Here's the NOAA's history of US hurricane activity:
The record is pretty clear. Hurricane activity is lower now than it has been since records began. You can bet your bottom dollar that Climate Brown Shirts will use the recent past as the baseline for future hurricane activity to show that global warming is responsible for an increase. However, the facts are unequivocal - there is no evidence to link storm activity to global warming.
Kerplunk and the climate Skeptics: 3 BBC and the Climate Brown Shirts: 0
Other parts of the world could face even more drastic change. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a consortium of several thousand independent scientists, predicts that sea levels could rise by between 9 and 88cm in the next century. This would threaten low-lying islands such as Tuvalu in the Pacific. These images, taken this year, show the effects of a higher than usual tide.
The hooha about Tuvalu being affected by rising sea levels has been so profoundly debunked that it's unusual to still find references to it. And how hilarious is the claim that the IPCC is '...a consortium of several thousand independent scientists'? Independent thought has not hitherto been a feature of the IPCC climate brigade.
Let's take a close look at the photos above. The bottom one shows waves crashing over the road, depositing mud and sand in the process.
Now have a close look at the top one:
I've marked the areas showing clearly that the sea deposits mud and sand on the road regularly. Thus, the before and after photos are a set up. Looks like they just waited for the tide to come in to get the more dramatic shot.
Kerplunk and the climate Skeptics: 4 BBC and the Climate Brown Shirts: 0
As the climate warms up, mountainous regions may experience lower levels of snowfall. This image shows Mount Hood in Oregon at the same time in late summer in 1985 and 2002.
Mount Hood is a much more interesting case than the rest presented here. Of course, Climate Brown Shirts pick an extreme year - 1985 - to use as their baseline in order to demonstrate change. 1985/6 was an extreme coastal year with increased snow cover.
The situation for Mount Hood, Oregon in 1985-86 demonstrates extreme coastal climate characteristics. The relatively deep snowpack, and warm and low diurnal ranges of temperatures are evident.
Since initial measurements in 1940, the glacier has retreated and thinned. The lower (A) profile, which once spanned the glacier, now spans the valley floor (possibly stagnant ice) 350 m down-valley of the terminus. If stagnant ice exists it is covered by > 2 m of debris as we discovered when attempting to dig to the ice surface. Unfortunately, this area was not included in our GPR survey. At the (B) profile, we estimate the 1901 surface elevation from historic photographs (H.F. Reid) at about 2053 m suggesting local ice thickness was ~105 m. The current glacier elevation at (B) is ~2000 m and is remarkably close to that in 1940, suggesting a local ice thickness of 52 m. From 1982 to 2004 the glacier thinned 15-30 m (average rate = 1.0 m yr-1), returning to its 1940 elevation.
So the current glacier cover has simply returned to its pre-global warming 1940 level? Hardly seems much of a cause for concern. While doing research on Mount Hood I came across umpteen articles talking about what a fantastic place it is to ski in summer. No mention in any of them about shortened seasons.
Kerplunk and the climate Skeptics: 5 BBC and the Climate Brown Shirts: 0
Tree-eating wood beetles are likely to benefit from a warmer climate and reproduce in ever-increasing numbers. These images show damage to White Spruce trees in Alaska caused by the pests.
If this is not the most stupid example of the potential impact of anthropogenic global warming then I don't know what is. If tree-eating wood beetles increase in number due to warming then that same warming will cause the growth of more trees for the erstwhile tree-eating beetles to munch on. Furthermore, any species that reproduces in ever-increasing numbers eventually overburdens its environment and numbers stabilise. These people are lunatics.
Kerplunk and the climate Skeptics: 6 BBC and the Climate Brown Shirts: 0
Notice that in the examples cited by the BBC the base years used to demonstrate change are 1859, 1928, 1985 and 1999. If anyone on the pro side of the argument was being truly honest then they'd pick data for all of the above from the one year and compare to current conditions. Obviously, this wouldn't support their thesis so they have to cherry-pick the data. It's no different to using 1850 as the base year for the start of man made climate change, as it happens to coincide with the minimum of the Little Ice Age.
When the whole climate change hooey is done and dusted there are going to be a lot of people with a lot of explaining to do. Unfortunately, there'll be fewer people to explain it to, as the misanthropic policies of environmentalists take effect, but that probably suits them just fine.
Here's an article to warm the hearts of all of us skeptical of the proposed carbon trading schemes being the solution to global warming.
Australia's first carbon trading exchange went live at midday on Monday, setting the bid price of $8.50 a metric tonne.
The exchange is a joint venture between the existing niche bourse - the Australian Pacific Exchange - and a new entity, the Australian Carbon Exchange.
Diversified telecommunications services provider M2 Telecommunications Group Ltd became the first buyer - placing an order to purchase $5,000 worth of carbon offsets on the exchange.
"M2 has made a commitment to social and environmental responsibility within our company charter," M2 managing director Vaughan Bowen said.
"While the carbon footprint generated by the telco industry is not as substantial as other sectors, every sector should be contributing."
At 1201 AEST on Monday, 600 metric tonnes of Australian Greenhouse Office - accredited voluntary emission reductions (VERs) - were traded on the exchange at $8.50 each.
Let me work that out. 600 x $8.50 = ......$5,100. So the twat from M2 Telecommunications is the only one to have made a trade. If this exchange lasts then I'll be quite impressed, especially as it must be starting from a squillion dollars behind in set up costs.
All of the babble over the last six months has been that a price of $30/tonne is needed in order to drive behaviour. I have a huge doubt about the reality of that figure, as the tax on petrol in Europe equates to more than $200/tonne and usage since 1990 is up around 25% while CO2 emissions have also risen. Maybe that's why industry is pushing so hard for the $30 figure to be adopted - the impact will be minimal.
Still, it's all about appearances so if enough supercilious ninnies want to spend their money decorating their offices in the latest New Age bling - carbon emission certificates - then who am I to argue?
Sydney band The Sunnyboys remain one of the most highly regarded and best-loved bands of the Australian 'post-punk' era. Fronted by the enigmatic and youthful singer/songwriter cum guitarist Jeremy Oxley, the band breathed some freshness and vitality into the Sydney music scene in the early 80s.Essentially The Sunnyboys wore their influences on their sleeve; The Remains, The Flamin' Groovies, The Kinks and The Beatles with a dash of Detroit muscle thrown in for good measure. They produced melodic power pop classics and were rewarded with an immediate positive response.Things happened very quickly for The Sunnyboys, who went from playing inner-city venues to scoring hit singles for the prestigious Mushroom label all within a year of formation. What set the band apart in many ways was Oxley's song writing ability. The chemistry between the four members was perfect too.
Here are a few of what I reckon are their best tunes.
As I pointed out at the time, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation disgraced itself by its politically one-sided attack on Martin Durkin's The Great Global Warming Swindle. Now, Durkin responds to the ABC in a piece in The Australian:
WHEN I agreed to make The Great Global Warming Swindle, I was warned a middle-class fatwa would be placed on my head.
So I wasn't shocked that the film was attacked on the same night it was broadcast on ABC television last week, although I was impressed at the vehemence of the attack. I was more surprised, and delighted, by the response of the Australian public.
The ABC studio assault, led by Tony Jones, was so vitriolic it appears to have backfired. We have been inundated with messages of support, and the ABC, I am told, has been flooded with complaints. I have been trying to understand why.
First, the ferocity of the attack, I think, revealed the intolerance and defensiveness of the global warming camp. Why were Jones and co expending such energy and resources attacking one documentary? We are told the global warming theory is robust. They say you'd have to be off your chump to disagree. We have been assured for years, in countless news broadcasts and column inches, that it's definitely true. So why bother to stamp so aggressively on the one foolish documentary-maker - who clearly must be as mad as a snake - who steps out of line?
I think viewers may also have wondered (reasonably) why the theory of global warming has not been subjected to this barrage of critical scrutiny by the media. After all, it's the theory of global warming, not my foolish little film, that is turning public and corporate policy on its head.
The apparent unwillingness of Jones and others at the ABC to give airtime to a counterargument, the tactics used to minimise the ostensible damage done by the film, the evident animosity towards those who questioned global warming: all of this served to give viewers a glimpse of what it was like for scientists who dared to disagree with the hallowed doctrine.
Why are the global warmers so zealous? After a year of arguing with people about this, I am convinced that it's because global warming is first and foremost a political theory. It is an expression of a whole middle-class political world view. This view is summed up in the oft-repeated phrase "we consume too much". I have also come to the conclusion that this is code for "they consume too much". People who believe it tend also to think that exotic foreign places are being ruined because vulgar oiks can afford to go there in significant numbers, they hate plastic toys from factories and prefer wooden ones from craftsmen, and so on.
All this backward-looking bigotry has found perfect expression in the idea of man-made climate disaster. It has cohered a bunch of disparate reactionary prejudices (anti-car, anti-supermarkets, anti-globalisation) into a single unquestionable truth and cause. So when you have a dig at global warming, you commit a grievous breach of social etiquette. Among the chattering classes you're a leper.
But why are the supporters of global warming so defensive? After all, the middle classes are usually confident, bordering on smug.
As I found when I examined the basic data, they have plenty to be defensive about. Billions of dollars of public money have been thrown at global warming, yet the hypothesis is crumbling around their ears.
To the utter dismay of the global warming lobby, the world does not appear to be getting warmer. According to their own figures (from the UN-linked Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), the temperature has been static or slightly declining since 1998. The satellite data confirms this. This is clearly awkward. The least one should expect of global warming is that the Earth should be getting warmer.
Then there's the ice-core data, the jewel in the crown of global warming theory. It shows there's a connection between carbon dioxide and temperature: see Al Gore's movie. But what Gore forgets to mention is that the connection is the wrong way around; temperature leads, CO2 follows.
Then there's the precious "hockey stick". This was the famous graph that purported to show global temperature flat-lining for 1000 years, then rising during the 19th and 20th centuries. It magicked away the Medieval warm period and made the recent warming look alarming, instead of just part of the general toing and froing of the Earth's climate.
But then researchers took the computer program that produced the hockey stick graph and fed it random data. Bingo, out popped hockey stick shapes every time. (See the report by Edward Wegman of George Mason University in Virginia and others.)
In a humiliating climb down, the IPCC has had to drop the hockey stick from its reports, though it can still be seen in Gore's movie.
And finally, there are those pesky satellites. If greenhouse gases were the cause of warming, then the rate of warming should have been greater, higher up in the Earth's atmosphere (the bit known as the troposphere). But all the satellite and balloon data says the exact opposite. In other words, the best observational data we have flatly contradicts the whole bally idea of man-made climate change.
They concede that CO2 cannot have caused the warming at the beginning of the 20th century, which was greater and steeper than the recent warming. They can't explain the cooling from 1940 to the mid-'70s. What are they left with? Some mild warming in the '80s and '90s that does not appear to have been caused by greenhouse gases.
The whole damned theory is in tatters. No wonder they're defensive.
The man-made global warming parade, on one level, has been a phenomenal success. There isn't a political party or important public body or large corporation that doesn't feel compelled to pay lip service. There are scientists and journalists (a surprising number) who have built careers championing the cause. There's more money going into global warming research than there is chasing a cure for cancer. Many important people and institutions have staked their reputations on it. There's a lot riding on this theory. And it has bugger-all to do with sea levels. That is why the warmers greeted my film with red glowing eyes.
Last week on the ABC they closed ranks. They were not interested in a genuine debate. They wanted to shut it down. And thousands of wonderful, sane, bolshie Australian viewers saw right through it.
God bless Australia. The DVD will be out soon.
There's not much that needs to be added to Durkin's piece.
The opening question on my recent 10 more questions for climate scientists is "If 'the science is settled' then why does the United Nations' IPCC need 17 climate models when just one should do?"
The infallibility ascribed to climate science by its proponents is an order of magnitude stronger than that of other fields of scientific endeavour stretching back a century or more yet climate models have never got within cooee of an accurate prediction, even when starting in the past and running forward.
The ABC's hysterical reaction to Durkin's piece demonstrates how weak Climate Brown Shirts know their arguments are becoming.
It occurred to me to do a Google news search on the phrase "global warming" to see what's in the headlines. I think that the responses say quite a bit about the state of the debate.
Miller, Bachchan urge India to curb global warming Xinhua, China - Actress Sienna Miller and Indian superstar Amitabh Bachchan use their star power to ask India to drive its burgeoning economy into the ground.
Poll: Global Warming Top Environmental Problem Environment News Service - An unsurprising headline from these guys
Greenpeace plan nude global warming stunt ABC Online, Australia - Trust the Swiss to get back to nature by posing nude on a glacier to 'draw attention' to global warming. I'm not too sure global warming needs any more attention drawn to it given the wall to wall coverage it gets in the media.
Global Warming: How Do Scientists Know They're Not Wrong? FOX News - 17 Jul 2007 - Good for Fox News for asking the question!
Congress takes its first halting steps to confront global warming ... Houston Chronicle, United States - 17 Jul 2007 - Apparently, Alaska's coastline is melting. Who knew?
Japan and Iran, Discussion on Global Warming Journal of Turkish Weekly, Turkey - I suspect that Iran's idea of how to warm the globe is a little bit different to the current orthodoxy.
Calimesa City Council ponders local global warming remedies Yucaipa/Calimesa News Mirror, CA - That's exactly what I do when I want to get the big issues solved. I give them to the local council to ponder.
Global warming predictions dire for state Lexington Minuteman, MA - The clowns from the Union of Concerned Scientists are at it again, claiming that in 100 years all Massachusetts residents will be living in South Carolina. I would have thought that most would be dead in Massachusetts.
CEOs Team Up to Fight Global Warming Christian Broadcasting Network, VA - You know there's a dollar to be made if CEOs are lining up in support of it.
Global Warming now world's most boring topic The Age, Australia - 17 Jul 2007 - A true statement in a spoof article.
Doug Frost: Global warming has its upside Kansas City Star, MO - 17 Jul 2007 - Uh, oh. Poor old Doug now has an environmental fatwa to contend with.
Don’t Ignore Global Warming Harrisonburg Daily News Record, VA - Thanks for the reminder. I knew there was something I'd missed.
Proper insulation slows global warming Today's Zaman, Turkey - There's no doubt about it. The Turks are on the ball. Insulate your house. Use less energy.
Save the planet with a vegetarian diet Baltimore Sun, United States - If eating meat means that I'm taking the planet with me then so long Gaia!
A brilliantly Swiss scheme to ignore global warming Times Online, UK - 17 Jul 2007 - Snow making machines burn oil but add snow so it looks like the place isn't melting. Hardly seems fair, does it?
Top Ways to Fight Global Warming U.S. News & World Report, DC - 17 Jul 2007 - "You don't have to stage benefit concerts on seven continents to do your part in the fight against global warming." You don't? You don't?
BC teens’ skateboard trek aims to raise global-warming awareness The Chronicle Journal, Canada - More awareness raising. It really is an important issue, this 'awareness'.
Nichols says governor wants her to fight for a cleaner environment Los Angeles Times, CA - 18 Jul 2007 - I'd rather see her fight for the Miss California Old Hag's Jelly Wrestling crown.
Global Warming Exacerbating Allergies Daily Green - For stuff sake, the temperature has gone DOWN since 1998. How the heck is it exacerbating allergies?
China Says Global Warming Hurting Rivers Forbes, NY - 16 Jul 2007 - Seriously!!?? Global warming is somehow managing to divert the massive waste from China's expanding manufacturing sector from its normal safe, clean recycling path into its formerly pristine river system.
We are all contributing to global warming: Mike Pandey CNN-IBN, India - Will somebody please set an example and stop using electricity and oil rather than gibber on about it being all our fault?
Group calls for action on global warming Tuscaloosa News (subscription), AL - 18 Jul 2007 - That's what Groups do.
Gray Whales Thinner: Global Warming Blamed Hippy Shopper, UK - 18 Jul 2007 - But Gay Gray Whales have porked up a bit meaning they aren't as welcome at the Blue Oyster Bar any more.
Voters want action on global warming Hot Springs Village Voice, AR - 17 Jul 2007 - Voters want everything. It's what we do.
Do something about global warming LaCrosse Tribune, WI - 17 Jul 2007 - I am. I'm writing about what a crock it is. Thanks for the idea.
Long-haul flights blamed for global warming Manila Bulletin, Philippines - 16 Jul 2007 - Will multiple short-haul flights overcome the problem?
'Global warming cuts water levels in rivers' Independent Online, South Africa - 16 Jul 2007 - I thought that was due to increased water use and things like El Nino.
DoT wages war vs global warming Manila Bulletin, Philippines - 16 Jul 2007 - Good for DoT. Why does she capitalise the last letter in her name?
Global warming prompts freezing swim RTE.ie, Ireland - 16 Jul 2007 - More efforts to raise awareness.
Global warming may bring hurricanes to Mediterranean MRT online, Macedonia - 17 Jul 2007 - I thought that long-haul flights were the culprit.
The peril of global itching Cincinnati Post, OH - 17 Jul 2007 - Look out! Poison ivy is getting more poisonous! Global warming to blame!
What It Would Take to Put the Brakes on Global Warming Washington Post, United States - 14 Jul 2007 - Why not talk to a brakes specialist?
Dry Murray-Darling slows kayaker's journey ABC Online, Australia - You guessed it. More awareness raising.
Global warming? It's freezing Daily Telegraph, Australia - 17 Jul 2007 - At least someone is pointing out that parts of Australia are freezing through the coldest month in 60 years.
That was fun and quite illuminating (by a mercury filled light globe, naturally). I'll have to do it again sometime. I'll focus on those articles about raising awareness and see what we get.
History is repeating itself in Venezuela, mirroring what happened in Cuba and other repressive countries.
MIAMI (Reuters) - A surge in the number of Venezuelans seeking asylum in the United States has some drawing parallels with Communist Cuba in the early 1960s.
As populist President Hugo Chavez tightens his grip on the oil-producing country, wealthy and middle class citizens are fleeing, just as their counterparts did soon after Fidel Castro seized power in Havana more than 40 years ago.
In 1998, the year Chavez was first elected, just 14 Venezuelans were granted U.S. asylum. That number jumped to 1,086 in the 12 months ending September 30, according to the latest figures from the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.The Venezuelans seeking asylum are just a small part of a big exodus, according to Venezuelan activists in Florida, who say some 160,000 Venezuelans are living in the United States illegally or on overstayed visas.
Critics of Chavez say that could mushroom as the Venezuelan leader, who dismisses his critics as "terrorists" and "fascists," pursues his vision of a 21st Century socialist revolution."I have no doubt that the middle class and those with some stake in the old Venezuela have legitimate concerns regarding their future livelihood and in some cases safety as the regime hardens and the state moves into every sphere of economic and social activity," said Riordan Roett, director of Latin American studies at Johns Hopkins University."If you have young children, you want out. If you have assets that have been seized, or may be seized, you want out as quickly as possible," Roett added. "If you have land that will be expropriated, leave sooner than later. As the alta (upper) bourgeoisie becomes more and more of a target, you want to leave before Hugo Chavez shuts the door."
The number of U.S. asylum grants put Venezuela in 11th place, well behind nations such as its neighbor, Colombia, and deeply impoverished Haiti. But more Venezuelans were granted asylum last year than were natives of trouble spots like Iraq, a country reeling from nightmarish levels of violence.Asylum is granted by the United States to people who are unable to return to their homeland because of credible fears of persecution. Cases may be filed by individuals or families.
The high rate of approval for Venezuelan asylum applicants has angered the Chavez government and those who see it as a back-handed stab by Washington at his socialist policies and defiant anti-Americanism. Venezuela today is not a despotic state, and granting Venezuelans asylum is a way to embarrass its government, they say.
POLITICIZING ASYLUM
The anger is compounded by the fact that vigorously anti-Castro Cuban American lawmakers from Florida have become prominent supporters of anti-Chavez Venezuelan exiles and staunch critics of Chavez because of his close ties to Cuba."
The United States has politicized the sacrosanct principle of political asylum," Bernardo Alvarez, Venezuela's ambassador to Washington, told Reuters in a recent interview. "There is no political persecution in Venezuela."
Critics disagree, however, saying asylum seekers are legitimately protesting a president who was acting like a dictator and leading Venezuela toward Cuban-style communism and forcing them to seek refuge abroad."Nobody takes the trouble of emigrating to another country because they're OK back home," said Chavez opponent Carlos Fernandez, who was detained in Venezuela in February 2003."The fact that there are so many Venezuelans coming here and seeking protection clearly demonstrates the persecution."
Fernandez, 57, was charged with civil rebellion and treason for spearheading a December 2002-January 2003 strike against Chavez that battered Venezuela's economy.A trucking executive, he headed the country's Fedecamaras business chamber before fleeing to the United States and his current home in the upscale Fort Lauderdale suburb of Weston, known locally as "Westonzuela."
Horacio Medina, 54, was a leader of Venezuela's oil workers' union before fleeing the country in December 2004, in the face of what he says were death threats and an arbitrary arrest order for his prominent role in the two-month strike.He too is in Weston and said he is one of thousands of former employees of the state oil company Petroleos de Venezuela now working abroad from Alberta, Canada, to Argentina.
"Chavez accused us all of being terrorists," said Medina."I'm capable of doing whatever I have to, as long as it's dignified and something clean," said Medina, who noted that his jobs since he left Venezuela had included everything from home inspection to pizza delivery.
"I would never agree to work for a government like Chavez's," he said.
So let me understand this. When people are oppressed in countries that become virtual dictatorships such as Venezuela or actual ones like Cuba where do they go? The United States. Why would they go there if it's racist, fascist, intolerant of other religions, populated by warmongering cowboys, lacks universal health care, doesn't have jobs for life and could care less about the views of leftist intellectuals?
Give me a cogent answer to that and I'll give you a Kerplunk Brownie Point.
I've been a bit busy at work over the last week meaning blogging has been a bit lighter than normal. I have a number of posts half prepared that I'll get up in the next day or so but in the meantime here's a repost of one of my very first postings on Kerplunk that people might have missed. It's to the point and remains spot on.
What is the difference between those on the Left and those on the Right? Why does there seem to be such a wide gap in opinion between them at the moment? Why is any discussion on the topic du jour so bitter?
The fundamental difference between Left and Right is that the Left thinks with its heart and the Right thinks with its head. To those on the Left, compassion and good intentions are what matter most. On the Right the most important consideration is 'does it do good?' This is why the Left thinks the Right is bad and the Right thinks the Left is wrong (as distinct from bad).
There's a quote that is attributed to Churchill (apparently wrongly but nobody quite knows who said it first) that goes along the lines, "If you're young and not on the left then you have no heart. If you're middle-aged and not on the right then you have no brain."
This pithy aphorism explains the bad/wrong view that Left and Right have of each other. The vast majority of the Right (more than 90%) when they were young had leftist ideals, from wanting to be good to the environment to helping the poor. However, there comes a time when young people begin to 'grow up' attitudinally, they begin to see the world as it really is and the gravitation to the Right is a natural result. This is how come the Right knows that the Left is wrong; it's been there. Meanwhile, those on the Left continue to believe that all cultures are equal, that because their cause is morally good that any negative results don't matter and that equality of outcome is more important than equality of opportunity. This is why the Left thinks that the Right is bad; i.e. you don't agree with my high moral values then you must be bad. All good, logical stuff.
I can now hear those of you on the Left reading this post accusing me of being some right wing death beast, some sinister, Karl Rovian apostle of conservatism or, shock horror, a fascist. Shooting the messenger is the Left's way of not having to deal with the message (see my other post on that subject).
If you're on the Left then ask yourself this question. Should we sign the Kyoto Protocol? At least 90% of you will agree that we should. I would then ask why we would sign it to which you would answer that Global Warming is an existential crisis and that we need to do something about it. I would point out that a fully implemented Kyoto Protocol (i.e. all countries including USA and Australia sign but China and India etc don't) would cost more than $20 trillion dollars and save, tops, 0.1C in the next 50 years, which doesn't seem to be much of a return on investment. That may be true, you would respond, but it's a symbolic first step. Symbolism is a large part of a Leftist's identity and the cost of it is irrelevant as long as the cause is good. Contrast this example with the environmentalist Bjorn Lomberg's Copenhagen Consensus Centre to see where people from countries dealing on a day to day basis with the real issues of life - disease, clean water and enough food - rank things in terms of spending priorities. The problem for me with the Global Warming debate is that it takes time and resources away from more important issues that need to be dealt with in the here and now, not in a hundred years' time.
Global Warming also introduces us to the flexible nature of Leftist opinion. We are told that we should believe in the anthropogenic (man made) origin of the current increase in temperature because there's scientific consensus on the matter. Since when is consensus a substitute for science? The general consensus a couple of thousand years ago was that the earth was flat. The consequences for the early nay-sayers were quite dire. When Einstein was told that a hundred leading scientists had signed a letter saying that his theories were wrong his response was to question why a hundred were needed when only one would do? If consensus settles the matter as inviolable truth then how did the consensus on Iraq's WMD turn out? Nearly everyone on all sides of the political spectrum shared the view that Saddam Hussein had WMD and the odd person that had been in Iraq and studied the matter (rather than those with a political barrow to push) who dissented were given no platform at all. After the fact, the Left changes its position and rolls out the "Bush lied, people died" mantra.
For the Left, feelings and good intentions trump truth. It is therefore OK to exaggerate the impact of Global Warming and to use the most extreme predictions from computer models in order to further the agenda because the intention is good. On the Right, if the outcome is bad then the goodness of intention doesn't even get a look in.
Which leads me to the last point I want to make. Why is there so much bitterness and hysteria in the debate today? Why does this emanate mostly from the Left to the bewilderment of the Right? The answer is that there is a societal civil war going on in the West at the moment between Left and Right. It is being waged in our education institutions, in the media and on the Internet. After the fall of socialism as an acceptable ideology with the end of the Soviet Union its supporters moved into the compatible field of environmentalism in order to continue to promote their politics. Environmentalism offered a respectable cloak to those with totalitarian ideology (Leftism naturally promotes totalitarianism, which will be the subject of a later post) and gave rise to the term 'watermelon' to describe those that are green on the outside and red on the inside. The litany of leftist failures in the 20th century including the 100+ million people dead in socialist countries, the disastrous effect the ban on DDT has had in Africa (millions dead of malaria), the wrongness of Paul Erlich's The Population Bomb, the peak oil crisis, the dishonesty of the heterosexual AIDS crisis, the prediction that the world would run out of essential minerals by the mid-80s and, famously, the consensus in the 1970s that the world was cooling and we were entering another ice age are all examples of the Left's feel-good, morally superior positions that have had either egregious outcomes or been just plain wrong. Does the Left feel any shame? No. Their intentions were good and that's all that matters. There is no accountability.
Global Warming, therefore, is the Left's last chance to impose its will; thus the hysteria. If you question the consensus you are referred to as a Denier, as in Holocaust Denier, and it doesn't get any more evil than that. It is a bitter fight and there are quite a few more years of it to come.
Following on from the ABC's profoundly biased, unscientific hatchet job on The Great Global Warming Swindle I would like to ask another 10 questions to add to the previous 10 asked a couple of months ago.
1. If 'the science is settled' then why does the United Nations' IPCC need 17 climate models when just one should do? (Do I really need to ask 9 more questions after this one?)
2. If 'the science is settled' then why don't the 17 climate models deliver anything close to the same result?
3. If 'the science is settled' then why do the 17 climate models predict a 21st century temperature rise ranging from 1.1C to 6.4C rise? That's between 50% and an amazing 765% greater than the warming observed in the 20th century.
4. In the ABC's unbalanced discussion on The Great Global Warming Swindle, presenter Tony Jones got stuck into Martin Durkin for including a graph that ended in the late 1980s showing the correlation between solar activity and the earth's climate but excluding the subsequent divergence. Why do the graphs the IPCC produce also exclude the divergence between rising CO2 levels and falling temperatures in roughly the same period?
5. Climate models predict that warmer air will hold more water and thus the climate will become drier and surface winds will be weaker leading to less water evaporating from the ocean, which counteracts the effect of warming. Models predict that worldwide precipitation — which must match the amount of evaporation — will increase by only 1-3% for each degree of future global warming. However, satellite data for the period 1987-2006 shows that the amount of water in the atmosphere, evaporation and precipitation all increased at the same rate, by about 1.3% per decade — or about 6.5% for every degree of warming. Surface winds increased, not decreased, with warming. Given that water vapour is the largest greenhouse gas (95%+) and is the most important feedback mechanism in models, what does the climate models' inability to predict precipitation mean for future temperature predictions?
6. If the world started heating up at the end of the Little Ice Age in around 1850 (before the introduction of anthropogenic CO2) then obviously some forcing agent is at work. Why is that forcing agent not represented in climate models? Excluding whatever this background forcing agent is means that all of the 20th century warming is ascribed to CO2 and compromises models' ability to forecast accurately.
7. Why is there no skill in climate model forecasting? In 2007, the IPCC’s Working Group One, a panel of experts established by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme, issued its updated, Fourth Assessment Report, forecasts. The Report was commissioned at great cost in order to provide policy recommendations to governments. It included predictions of dramatic and harmful increases in average world temperatures over the next 92 years. Using forecasting principles as our guide we asked, are these forecasts a good basis for developing public policy? Our answer is “no.”
8. Climate models predict that both Greenland and Antarctica should be losing ice mass, leading to rising sea levels. How is it, then, that both are increasing in ice mass?
9. Land use changes are logically going to have a large impact on climate, as they have the potential to alter surface temperatures, humidity, and energy fluxes, particularly during the warm, dry summer months. Land clearing is obviously the cause of Mt Kilimanjaro's shrinking snow cover. Why do climate models not include land use changes and a prediction of future land use change?
10. And finally - and most importantly - why are climate models unable to predict past climate remotely accurately even when the rise in 20th century temperature is known?
