Just don't tell me the debate's over…
Thanks for all your support this year, I very much hope you have enjoyed reading. Have a great holiday, and we will be posting again straight after Christmas (no rest for the wicked sceptics!) to provide you with your daily dose of climate sanity.
I will leave you with a festive cartoon, courtesy of Nicholson in The Australian:
Censorship at work
And by “vandalism” it means honest attempts to remove the fraudulent and discredited hockey stick graph. William Connolley, climate editor in chief at the ‘pedia (and coincidentally Green party activist), still up to his old tricks, and since Lawrence Solomon’s article earlier in the week (see here), the plot has thickened further, as Solomon reports again:
With the hockey stick graphs so thoroughly discredited, you’d think they would become a footnote to a discussion of the Medieval Warm Period, or an object of amusement and curiosity. But no, on the Wikipedia page for the Medieval Warm Period, the hockey stick graph appears prominently at the top, as if it is settled science.
Because the hockey stick graph has become an icon of deceit and in no way an authority worthy of being cited, fair-minded Wikipedians tried to remove the graph from the page, as can be seen here. Exactly two minutes later, one of Connelley’s associates replaced the graph, restoring the page to Connelley’s original version, as seen here.
Battles like this occurred on numerous fronts, until just after midnight on Dec 22, when Connolley reimposed his version of events and, for good measure, froze the page to prevent others from making changes — and to prevent the public, even in two-minute windows, from realizing that today’s temperatures look modest in comparison to those in the past. In the World of Wikipedia, seen as here, the hockey stick graph, and Connolley’s version of history, still rules. (source)
Let’s look at Wikipedia’s own definition of “vandalism” in respect of content:
Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Vandalism cannot and will not be tolerated. Common types of vandalism are the addition of obscenities or crude humor, page blanking, and the insertion of nonsense into articles.
Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not vandalism. For example, adding a controversial personal opinion to an article once is not vandalism; reinserting it despite multiple warnings is (however, edits/reverts over a content dispute are never vandalism, see WP:EW). (source)
And the following is listed as an example of what is not vandalism:
Repeated deletion or addition of material may violate the three-revert rule, but this is not “vandalism” and should not be dealt with as such.
So by labelling such attempts at editing “vandalism,” Connolley isn’t even complying with Wikipedia’s own editorial guidelines. But Connolley has the final say anyway, and has the power to disable editing of pages where such edits don’t fit with his personal views.
So the moral is: you still can’t trust Wikipedia on climate.
At least he'll be OK…
The UK Telegraph used to be a serious newspaper, but, as I have mentioned before, it’s now more like a broadsheet version of Hello. In fact, Private Eye always refers to it as the Daily Hellograph. Despite Climategate, they still parrot any old press release that lands on the “climate change desk” and this story is no exception. From our old friend, Chris Field (see here, and here), we have a lovely alarmist Christmas present:
Plants and animals will need to move at an average rate of a quarter of a mile a year to escape climate change over the course of this century, according to scientists.
For species in flatter, low-lying regions such as deserts, grasslands, and coastal areas, the pace of the retreat could exceed more than half a mile a year, it is claimed.
Creatures and plants only able to tolerate a narrow range of temperatures will be most vulnerable, said the researchers.
Those unable to match the migration speeds needed to escape the effects of global warming could vanish into extinction.
Plants in almost a third of the habitats studied were thought to fall into this category, the scientists reported in the journal Nature.
Author Dr Chris Field, director of the Carnegie Institution’s Department of Global Ecology in Stanford, California, said animals will be forced to migrate while many plants will die out.
“Expressed as velocities, climate-change projections connect directly to survival prospects for plants and animals. These are the conditions that will set the stage, whether species move or cope in place,” he said. (source)
Yawn. We’ve had enough of alarmism. We’re not listening any more. Climate change scientists need to rebuild their shattered credibility before we will take anything they say seriously again.
De Boer: clearly wishing he was somewhere else
With the air thick with blame and recrimination, and with any hope of a global deal disappearing faster than a Himalayan glacier, UN climate chief Yvo de Boer has appealed to the various factions to stop bickering:
“We need to work together constructively, whereas countries are in the media blaming each other for what happened, the same countries that are going to have to be back at the negotiating table next year with an open willingness to work together,” he told AFP in a phone interview from London.
“It’s bad for the atmosphere, it’s bad for the relationship among people that ultimately have a common goal to move this forward.”
De Boer did not name names but chose to give the interview after Britain and China swapped verbal blows as to who was to blame for the Copenhagen outcome, while Brazil took aim at the United States.
…
De Boer urged all parties not to inflate or pull down the importance of the Copenhagen Accord.
“We shouldn’t pretend it is anything more or anything less than what it is — an agreement, a sense of direction that can help us in further negotiations.”
He acknowledged, though, that what happened in Copenhagen “was a very extraordinary event.”
“The fact of the matter is a small group of countries put this accord together, there wasn’t enough time to get buy-in from the larger meeting and have it adopted in any kind of formal sense, and that’s the reality.” (source)
All a bit childish and unseemly, really.
Amazing work
From Jo Nova:
You have to see this to believe it. Look up close and admire the detail while you despair at how long science has been going off the rails. To better appreciate the past and what was exposed by the CRU emails, the time-line chart consolidates and chronologically organizes the information uncovered and published about the CRU emails by many researchers along with some related contextual events. That the chart exists at all is yet another example of how skilled experts are flocking in to the skeptics position and dedicating hours of time pro bono because they are passionately motivated to fight against those who try to deceive us.
There is a dedicated page on Jo’s site where you can download various different versions for viewing on screen and printing:
SS Copenhagen - doomed before she set sail
When did it finish? Last Friday? What day is it now, Wednesday? Five days later? A week is a long time in climate change negotiations:
Cracks emerged on Tuesday in the alliance on climate change formed at the Copenhagen conference last week, with leading developing countries criticising the resulting accord.
The so-called Basic countries – Brazil, South Africa, India and China – backed the accord in a meeting with the US on Friday night, and it was also supported by almost all other nations at the talks, including all of the biggest emitters.
But on Tuesday the Brazilian government labelled the accord “disappointing” and complained that the financial assistance it contained from rich to poor countries was insufficient.
South Africa also raised objections: Buyelwa Sonjica, the environment minister, called the failure to produce a legally binding agreement “unacceptable”. She said her government had considered leaving the meeting.
“We are not defending this, as I have indicated, for us it is not acceptable, it is definitely not acceptable,” she said.
There was even harsher criticism from Andreas Carlgren, environment minister of Sweden, current holder of the rotating European Union presidency, who proclaimed the Copenhagen accord “a disaster” and “a great failure”.
Can’t imagine Bonn or Mexico will be any different.
Read it here.
Ella: starred in An Inconvenient Truth, and now at Build-a-Bears worldwide
How a major retailer can shoot itself in the foot at Christmas, in three easy stages:
Stage One: indoctrinate thousands of children innocently visiting the B-a-B website with cute story about Santa which just happens to mention that the ice at the North Pole is melting because of the changing climate (transcript and comments from biggovernment.com):
Here’s an excerpt (1:07-2:22):
Girl Elf: Santa, it’s gone!
Papa Elf: It’s gone, It’s gone!
Santa: What’s gone?
Girl Elf: Tell ‘em, Dad!
Papa Elf: The North Peak.
Santa: A mountain? A mountain’s gone? How is that possible?
Ella the polar bear: Santa, sir, that’s why I’m here. That’s why we’re here. The ice is melting!
Santa: Yes, my dear, we know, the climate is changing. There’s bound to be a little melting.
Ella: It’s worse than that, Santa, a lot worse! At the rate it’s melting, the North Pole will be gone by Christmas!”
Santa: My, my…all of this gone by next Christmas? I don’t think so.
Ella: No sir, not next Christmas, this Christmas! The day after tomorrow!
And this is merely the tip of the dialogue iceberg, if you’ll forgive me for putting it that way … Children of the world can look forward to priceless exchanges such as, “Oh my! Where will the polar bears live?” and my personal fave: “Where will the elves live?”
I suspect you’d like to think it can’t get any worse than that. Thus, it pains me to tell you that animated characters actually break into a discussion of satellite photos and that Mrs. Claus conducts a rather unscientific experiment involving ice cubes.
Stage two: receive sackloads of complaints about subliminal indoctrination of children.
Stage three: pull the video and publish a grovelling apology on your web site:
Our intention with the Polar Bear story was to inspire children, through the voices of our animal characters, to make a difference in their own individual ways. We did not intend to politicize the topic of global climate change or offend anyone in any way. The webisodes concluded this week with Santa successfully leaving on his journey to deliver gifts around the world. The webisodes will no longer be available on the site.
Doesn’t matter what you intended, Ms Clark, the fact is, you did.
Read the full gory story at Watts Up With That (and watch the video too, if you can “bear” it).
Waterloo's Science Isn't Settled department
Fresh from the “Science is Settled Department.”
Cosmic rays and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), both already implicated in depleting the Earth’s ozone layer, are also responsible for changes in the global climate, a University of Waterloo scientist reports in a new peer-reviewed paper.
In his paper, Qing-Bin Lu, a professor of physics and astronomy, shows how CFCs – compounds once widely used as refrigerants – and cosmic rays – energy particles originating in outer space – are mostly to blame for climate change, rather than carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. His paper, derived from observations of satellite, ground-based and balloon measurements as well as an innovative use of an established mechanism, was published online in the prestigious journal Physics Reports.
“My findings do not agree with the climate models that conventionally thought that greenhouse gases, mainly CO2, are the major culprits for the global warming seen in the late 20th century,” Lu said. “Instead, the observed data show that CFCs conspiring with cosmic rays most likely caused both the Antarctic ozone hole and global warming. These findings are totally unexpected and striking, as I was focused on studying the mechanism for the formation of the ozone hole, rather than global warming.”
He wasn’t even looking for something on global warming! It must be so frustrating to the alarmists when researchers actually carry out unbiased research and come up with interesting, challenging results, instead of just fudging data, destroying emails and hiding inconvenient facts in order to fit a pre-conceived political agenda.
Read it here.
Ramesh: priorities right
Probably because they’re both more interested in raising millions of their own populations out of a miserable life of poverty rather than flushing trillions of dollars down the toilet on pointless efforts to “tackle climate change”, which, as any fule kno, will change nothing about the climate.
India has confirmed it worked with China and other emerging nations to ensure there were no legally binding targets from the Copenhagen climate talks.
Facing parliament for the first time since the UN talks last weekend in the Danish capital, Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh said India had “come out quite well in Copenhagen”.
He listed what he said were a series of accomplishments, including the thwarting of moves to impose binding targets for global reductions in carbon emissions – something India has always rejected.
“We can be satisfied that we were able to get our way on this issue,” declared Mr Ramesh, who has consistently said India would be one of the countries hardest hit by climate change.
Well done. At least some countries have got their priorities right.
Read it here.
Did it happen?
It’s as if the disaster that was Copenhagen never happened. Kevin Rudd has vowed to press on with the ETS exactly as before, same targets, same timetable, despite the fact that Copenhagen achieved virtually nothing. Finally speaking publicly for the first time since his return from No-Hopenhagen, the rhetoric is unchanged:
KEVIN Rudd has ruled out any change in the government’s emission-reduction targets as business exploits the uncertainty following the Copenhagen conference to press for a review of Labor’s climate change strategy.
The Prime Minister declared there was no way the government would agree to a target for cuts in excess of 25 per cent, as the Greens had been urging.
“Australia will do no more and no less than the rest of the world,” he said.
Mr Rudd said the government would stick to its target of reducing emissions by a minimum of 5 per cent by 2020, with the possibility of the target being increased to between 15 and 25 per cent depending upon what action other nations take.
He blamed opposition from developing countries for the failure of the Copenhagen talks to reach a comprehensive agreement, although he declined to specifically criticise the Chinese.
He said the final deal at Copenhagen had, for the first time, set a target of reducing world temperatures by 2C, which all nations said they would aim to achieve, with an agreed system of national and international monitoring. (source)
Not only that, but AGL has labelled the administration of the other plank of the emissions reduction plan, the renewable energy target, a “fraud”:
AGL threatened not to invest in alternative energy forms until the Government addressed a collapse in the price of certificates designed to encourage investment.
The threat highlights the risks hanging over $30 billion of expected investment needed to reach a target of obtaining 20 per cent of power from renewable sources by 2020.
The managing director of AGL, Michael Fraser, said the Government’s approach was a fraud that threatened the industry’s ability to meet the target.
To encourage investment, energy companies receive renewable energy certificates in return for building green power stations. But the value of these certificates has almost halved, from near $60 to about $30 since the Government began issuing them to consumers who install solar hot water systems and other products that do not generate power.
Because of the price fall, Mr Fraser said, plans to build the $800 million Macarthur wind farm in Victoria were under enormous pressure. The project is expected to create 500 jobs during construction and Mr Fraser said up to seven other wind farms being considered were also under threat.
The only new wind farms AGL would definitely build were those required under contracts to supply power to desalination plants for the Victorian and South Australian governments.
”Beyond that, you simply won’t see us invest until this issue gets resolved,” Mr Fraser said. (source)
Ouch. And the Copenhagen blame game is really in full swing, especially in The Guardian, under the headline “How do I know China wrecked the Copenhagen deal? I was in the room”:
Copenhagen was a disaster. That much is agreed. But the truth about what actually happened is in danger of being lost amid the spin and inevitable mutual recriminations. The truth is this: China wrecked the talks, intentionally humiliated Barack Obama, and insisted on an awful “deal” so western leaders would walk away carrying the blame. How do I know this? Because I was in the room and saw it happen.
China’s strategy was simple: block the open negotiations for two weeks, and then ensure that the closed-door deal made it look as if the west had failed the world’s poor once again. And sure enough, the aid agencies, civil society movements and environmental groups all took the bait. The failure was “the inevitable result of rich countries refusing adequately and fairly to shoulder their overwhelming responsibility”, said Christian Aid. “Rich countries have bullied developing nations,” fumed Friends of the Earth International.
All very predictable, but the complete opposite of the truth. (source)
Setting things up nicely for even less progress in 2010.
Australian Climate Madness 
Recent Comments