[A] remarkable drama has been unfolding in Australia, where the new Labor government has belatedly joined the “consensus” bandwagon by introducing a bill for an emissions-curbing “cap and trade” scheme, which would devastate Australia’s economy, it being 80 per cent dependent on coal. The bill still has to pass the Senate, which is so precisely divided that the decisive vote next month may be cast by an independent Senator, Stephen Fielding. So crucial is his vote that the climate change minister, Penny Wong, agreed to see him with his four advisers, all leading Australian scientists.
Fielding put to the minister three questions. How, since temperatures have been dropping, can CO2 be blamed for them rising? What, if CO2 was the cause of recent warming, was the cause of temperatures rising higher in the past? Why, since the official computer models have been proved wrong, should we rely on them for future projections?
The written answers produced by the minister’s own scientific advisers proved so woolly and full of elementary errors that Fielding’s team have now published a 50-page, fully-referenced “Due Diligence” paper tearing them apart. In light of the inadequacy of the Government’s reply, the Senator has announced that he will be voting against the bill.
The wider significance of this episode is that it is the first time a Western government has allowed itself to be drawn into debating the science behind the global warming scare with expert scientists representing the “counter consensus” – and the “consensus” lost hands down.
I love the Aussies too – when Bob Hawke met with the UN Sec-Gen to thank him for assistance during the East Timor crisis, his exact words were, “I owe you a beer.” Not at all like the useless deadweight spineless bloodsucking pantywaists we elect in this poor country, although clearly the Aussies also suffer from this syndrome as do all Western nations, but at least they have a few with the courage of their convictions, some semblance of honor left.
Here’s some more heartening news for you:
Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth became a big part of the British secondary educational landscape when it was made part of the official curriculum. This was a big victory for those who feel the world is in imminent danger because of anthropogenic global warming. However, the High Court of London recently said “not so fast.” Steward Dimmock sued under Section 406(1)(b) of the Education Act 1996, claiming that the movie is a form or political indoctrination. That law says that school governing bodies and head teachers “shall forbid… the promotion of partisan political views in the teaching of any subject in the school”.
The court ruled that:
1.) in order to show this movie to the children teachers must make clear that the film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument.
2.) If teachers present the film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination.
3.) Nine inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children.
These nine inaccuracies are:
• The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government’s expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.
• The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
• The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that it was “not possible” to attribute one-off events to global warming.
• The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that this was not the case.
• The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.
• The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant’s evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.
• The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
• The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.
• The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.
Another quick thought: given that yeah, Antarctica likely travelled from warmer to colder parts of the world, how about the fact that here have been multimillion-year periods of NO ice on the planet, to say nothing of the Wisconsinan ice sheet melting a mere 12,000-odd years ago? 🙂
If the US Senate issues Albert Gore a subpoena to testify, it is all over.
Speaking of Aussies, here’s another one that’s good to know: Prof. Ian Plimer, geologist.
“Meet the man who has exposed the great climate change con trick”
pete, I don’t get information from Wikipedia – it’s controlled by a bunch of loonies, living in their mother’s basements. That said, the theory is still a theory.
Aaron, it may be just a theory, but the evidence I mentioned suggests it’s very likely to be true. In order for you to discount the truth of it, you can’t just dismiss “because it’s just a theory”. You must propose an alternative theory which can also explain the evidence. Otherwise, you sound like a fool.
You people are pathetic. Some guy from Toronto (Ontario) called John Moore said so in the National Post this morning.
I think he has a job in radio or something so he must know what he’s talking about.
Me? I’m just an engineer with only 45 years experience in climate-related endeavours, so I can’t be expected to know as much as a TO radio guy.
Let’s see if the NP publishes my rebuttal letter. If they don’t, I’ll post it here tomorrow.
Aaron,
I hear you. I too refuse to believe in the THEORY of Gravity. Also in the theory of evolution.
Fool.
A theory (scientifically) means the explanation supported by the scientific method. You’re using the world theory like a creationist… shame on you.
Damn those warmonger fascists. They are so abusive to our plants. Our plants(food), truly ‘green’, were hoping they could get back to their former glory days of 1500 ppm CO2. Today’s 380 ppm, a mere 0.004%, is an improvement over 280 but the environment unfriendly Gore Kult wants to nix it. Dolts with a full belly.
Jon, drop a brick on your foot and you’ll feel the gravity. Stare at Antarctic for eons and you won’t see it moving an inch. Thanks for epithet, by the way, I collect them and send them back when an opportunity arises.
To argue that AGW has the certainty of the Theory of Evolution or the Theory of Gravity is also foolish. BTW, AGW in no way, shape or form conforms to the scientific method.
First of all, the Theory of Gravity is falsifiable unlike AGW which uses computer models (that do not work in the present or past) to forecast future events. If observations do not fit the model then the Armageddon time lines are moved or the observed data is corrected. There is also no way to disprove this theory since every event is deemed to be proof of AGW.
Secondly, the AGW proponents will not openly debate their theory. They scream that the science is settled and deniers must be idiots, traitors to the planet or in the employ of Big Oil.
Finally the main beneficiaries and biggest promoters of AGW are also the ones positioned to benefit through carbon markets, alternative energy subsidies, new bureaucracy and science grants. No other theory in history had as many financial rewards as AGW. The whole thing stinks of collusion and opportunism.
AGW is a fraud that is attempting to imitate science without the inconvenience of following any of the basic protocol.
Stare at Antarctic for eons and you won’t see it moving an inch.
Really?
I did a cut-and-paste and emailed this article to my MP. I hope everybody else does the same. We have to let our representatives know that public sentiment is changing on this global warming/carbon gas crap. You can rest assured that the other side is filling their in boxes with propoganda. Here is the e-contact info for all Canadian MPs: http://webinfo.parl.gc.ca/MembersOfParliament/MainMPsCompleteList.aspx?TimePeriod=Current&Language=E
Give’em hell….they deserve it!
It’s ok, for Aaron “science” is only what he can perceive without tools. So for him I assume nuclear power is merely magic.
As for calling him a fool, I just call them like I sees them.
The Lying Liar: Goreacle and his “‘Inconvenient Truth'”.
*”HEATHER EWART: There was also, though, a British judge who ruled that there were in fact, I think, nine errors when it was challenged in court?
AL GORE: Well, the ruling was in my favour.”
Goreacle: A serpent of Gaia.
…-
“Al Gore urges Australia to move on carbon emissions trading
Australian Broadcasting Corporation
Broadcast: 13/07/2009
Reporter: Heather Ewart”
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2009/s2624723.htm
Continental drift is how Antarctica got where it is… not theory … proven.
Fact not theory:
Continental movement is a larger climate impacting force than any trivial atmospheric variation.
Fact not theory:
Climate change is inevitable and you can’t do an effin thing about it.
Fact not theory.
Discredited Theory:
Greenhouse gas impacts on climate and the ability of mankind to influence in any significant way. AKA Global Warming.
Anyone who persists in promoting this garbage is a fraud.
More proof that society will only lose if it aligns itself with Gore and friends.
The pic of stacks showing at that website are just a-smoking, belching ….
If you look closely there is an icon of St. Albert in the belch from the top stack at the right; a Gaia miracle.
…-
“‘Fraction’ of CO2 cuts driven by govt”
“Only 15 per cent of carbon cuts direct result of government policies”
“By Alex Stevenson
The government’s climate change policies have been responsible for just 15 per cent of emissions reductions between 1990 and 2006, it has emerged.
Coming in the week the government uses a major white paper to outline how it plans to meet its commitments to cutting CO2 emissions by 80 per cent by 2050, the admission has raised eyebrows among campaigners.
Climate change minister Joan Ruddock revealed the figures in an answer to a question tabled by Labour backbencher Colin Challen, chairman of the all-party group on climate change.
Improvements in energy efficiency, structural changes in the economy and lower carbon fuels were together responsible for 20 per cent, 30 per cent and 25 per cent of the reductions.”
http://www.politics.co.uk/news/environment-and-rural-affairs/-fraction-of-co2-cuts-driven-by-govt-$1311372.htm
I am not the least surprised by the Aussie’s stance on climate change, given this country came into existence as an “Island Jail”. Convicts were shipped to Australia to serve out their sentences – the simple truth is – it is difficult indeed to con a country founded on con’s.
I see a parallel between the public swallowing Darwinism and today’s acceptance of global warming. When Darwinism came into serious scientific scrutiny – neo-Darwinism was introduced to explain away the obvious errors in Darwinism. History is repeating itself. Now Climate Change is being introduced to explain away the obvious scientific errors with “global warming”. In my view, both absurd theories were and are politically motivated. Same game; different name. I predict the Pseudoscience of climate change will be accepted just like Darwinism was.
Cou Rouge, I did the same thing. Sent it to my MP, to the PM, to the Environment Minister and the Minister of Science and whatever (I can’t remember the full title of the portfolio). Remember folks, letters sent to MPs don’t need postage. Go for it.
Jon, no amount of theorizing can prove where Antarctic came from. I know, it is hurting, just give it another try. That theory can only explain how the continents drifted relative to each other, but not relative to sun. We have no idea how the axis moved in time.
Sent the Aussie links to the Prime Minister and 15 other MPs.
Aaron, you’re making a fool of yourself. Your question to ask AGW believers was in regard to the two mile thick ice sheet in Antarctica where once there were palm trees. You would be the lone voice in the world in believing that
A: Antarctica has always been located over the south pole
B: it was once a tropical climate
C: climate change, not continental drift, is the reason why it is now a frozen wasteland.
Please give up your argument, you won’t convince a single person to believe you, but you will convince 99.9% of the readers here that you’re making a fool of yourself.
According to Intelligent Design scientists, before the worldwide flood, the Earth was all one temperature which would account for the palm trees found in both the North and South poles.
“Intelligent Design Scientist” is an oxymoron, if ever there was one.
Uhhhmmmmmm, no. According to Short Term Creationists maybe, but Intelligent Design Scientists don’t hold to that view.
gordinkneehill,
Took the words right out of my mouth!
Getting back to the topic, I predict the AGW alarmists will go to grownd. After seeing what happened in Oz they’ll be doubly afraid to debate and will resort to calling names, intimidation and smear tactics.
Just in case anyone is interested Al Gore is currently in Australia. It appears Senator Fielding is trying to get an audience with the Goreacle so as to convince Big Al that he is wrong about climate change.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25780407-5019059,00.html
I wish Senator Fielding luck but I think he is pushing $hit uphill.
“will resort to calling names, intimidation and smear tactics.”
When is that going to start?
It is idiotic to think that we humans can “control” the future by looking at the past. We have never controlled anything in the history of the planet.. what is the human marker?
Taking a mad-hatter theory, and applying/presenting that theory as “results based” climate control is scientifically insane.
If mother earth decides to create a new Mountain range; what brilliant plan will rule in the resulting climate change?. GORE II
We… like the Ant… are just along for the ride
The earth has been ice free in the past – even the poles. And it wasn’t because of CO2. Or Mankind !
SINGAPORE (Reuters) – A dramatic warming of the planet 55 million years ago cannot be solely explained by a surge in carbon dioxide levels, a study shows, highlighting gaps in scientists’ understanding of impacts from rapid climate change.
During an event called the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, global temperatures rose between 5 and 9 degrees Celsius within several thousand years. The world at that time was already warmer than now with no surface ice.
http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-41050320090715
Aaron, how in HELL would you know whether or not anyone would see Antarctica fail to move in “eons”? As with AGW, facts don’t exist in the future – but they do exist in the past, and they are measurable. Look up palaeomagnetism.
oz. wisdom is not what o think it is.
Aaron, I’m afraid you are wrong. We do know where seafloor is created relative to the rotational axis of the earth, even eons ago.
Like most science, there are multiple complimentary sets of data, but the simplest, and probably the best, line of evidence is paleomagnetism of the ocean floor. When new crust is formed at those mid-ocean ridges mentioned above, small crystals of magnetic minerals orient themselves with the earth’s magnetic field. Essentially, they are like millions of little magnets pointing north. Since the earth’s magnetic field is parallel to the surface at earth’s the equator, and vertical relative to the surface at the magnetic poles, one can look at the angle those little magnets make relative to horizontal at the time of their formation: the higher that angle, the closer the rocks are to the pole. Bob’s yer uncle.
When Antarctica broke off from Gondwana, about 80 million years ago (well after the Pangaea breakup), the new seafloor formed between Antarctica and Australia essentially “froze” a snapshot of the location on Antarctica relative to the poles. Verifiable, factual information.
Phil, It is idiotic to think humans will not control their future, and foolish to not look at the past for lessons about controlling that future.
You say humans have never controlled anything in history? Wow. How about the eradication of smallpox? We planned, organized, and brilliantly executed the eradication of an entire species, solely for our own purposes. How about the successful destruction of the Aral Sea? How about the complete transformation of more than 300 million acres acres of long- and short-grass prairies to monoculture cropland in the continental US alone? How about the Montreal Protocol? History if full of examples of how humans have changed ecosystems in the past. We will continue to in the future, the question is whether we are going to do it with our eyes open so we can predict and avoid unpleasant consequences, or whether we are blindly going to charge ahead and let your kids and their kids worry about the consequences. Because you aren’t the Ant that is going to be squished, it is your children.
Now, on to your ignorance of mountain ranges. They are being built as we speak. It never stops. Luckily, that process is so slow that ecosystems (and people) will have time to adapt, as we always have. If you read Jarrod Diamond, he has a great thesis on how the orientations of mountain ranges in the New World vs. the Old World were probably instrumental in the technological advances that made Europe dominant over the Americas in the 15th Century… but I digress.