|
|
On the World Today on ABC radio today (may 21st 2010) Shane McLeod interviewed Alarmist environmentalist Bill McKibben. Was there any serious questioning of McKibben of some of his outrageous claims? – Of course not – this is the ABC remember – back on the climate change bandwagon.
Bill McKibben says: “Everything frozen on Earth is melting” . Everything?? . Antarctica with its increasing sea ice levels?
Bill McKibben also says: “The kind of 100 year storm comes every three or four years now in many places around the world” Where? What 100 year storms have we had in Australia every 3 or 4 years?
And the incisive question that follows these alarmist claims – with no evidence - from Shane McLeod – “This is all pretty depressing stuff.”
No questioning of what is obviously just hyperbole. Typical of the ABC. If you want to get on air to promote your latest Global Warming is the end of the world disaster book – no problem, we won’t ask any complicated questions!
Read the transcript here.
 Dew Station Greenland, buried under 50 years of snow Bill McKibben founder of 350.org is currently on a book and lecture tour throughout Australia, promoting his book Eaarth.I am sure more of his alarmist views will be uncritically broadcast on Australian ABC radio over the next week or so.
Having just heard another obsequious interview by Alison Carabine on ABC Radio National Breakfast about the ACF (Australian Conservation Foundation) and ACTU (Australian Council of Trade Unions) report entitled “Green Gold Rush: How ambitious environmental policy can make Australia a leader in the global race for green jobs“, I thought I would download it to have a read.
40 pages of claims with no evidence.
The ACF and ACTU wants to increase the cost of Electricity for every Australian, the cost of fuel for every driver, make many industries no longer internationally competitive, and this will somehow magically result in more green jobs???
I wonder what some of the ACTU’s members in the Brown Coal Industry, and the Aluminium industry will make of this? You can read about the report (” A New National Report” – funded by the ACF and ACTU – how unbiased is that) here.
The ACTU call it a “Green Gold Rush”. Is it a gold rush for members of the ACTU, or for the economic modellers that make this stuff up.
Professor Tim Flannery speaking on ABC Radio Darwin here, interviewed by a fawning ABC announcer, makes more way out comments about Climate Change.
He says that most Climate Change skeptics are “men over 65″. This is contracticted by this Galaxy Poll here that shows that two thirds of the population now do not believe that humans cause climate change. Perhaps that two thirds of the population are men over 60?
The Great Moral Challenge, but Kevin Rudd now thinks its a challenge that can be put off for a few years. Kevin Rudd who said we had to have the ETS (Emissions Trading Scheme) in place before Copenhagen December 2009, to set an example to the world. We would loose the Great Barrier Reef if we did not have an ETS.
Now its not so desperate?
That would not be because Climate Change Skepticism is on the rise would it Kevin?
If Kevin Rudd really believed this, he would go to a double dissolution Election and fight his case, and get the ETS bill passed as a joint sitting of the House of Reps and the Senate after the election (if he won).
The real reason is that Kevin Rudd and the Labor party have embraced Climate Change is that it is a trendy political cause, and that cause has lost its popularity. We don’t here the “Global warming the end is nigh” stories every day, because even the naive journalists have realised its more religion than science.
And what about the Greens? Political purity is more important than practice? They want to reduce Carbon emissions, they block the bill because its not “pure” enough for them, and they end up with no bill, no scheme to reduce carbon at all. What were they thinking?
In another incisive interview by Sarah Clarke on ABC radio nationals PM, Greg Ayers from the Australia Bureau of Meteorology is interviewed about Climate Change.
Greg Ayers says “Well, when we look back over the last 50 years or so…we see increasing temperatures, a trend to increasing temperatures from decade to decade.”
Of course 50 years is a nice range to pick because it starts in the cold period of the 1960s and 1970s making the rise look bigger. As well the world has been warming since the Little Ice Age in the 1600’s, why does that mean its human caused?
Greg Ayers continues: “So all of those things together, simply observed changes in the regional climate.”
Again, why does observed changes in the regional climate mean its caused by humans?
Sarah Clarke doesn’t ask anything complicated like this – lets get a doomsday warning – lets find out how the world will end.
Sarah Clarke : “So, if we continue down this path, what does this translate to in the future, if we don’t reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, what kind of temperatures and what kind of Australian climate could we be looking at?”
Thankfully Greg Ayers answers that predictions are not his business (but he is happy to state that BOMs observations mean its human caused climate change).
Greg Ayers is sure ite Climate Change: “Well, the existence of climate change from the Bureau’s perspective just goes back to what we’ve observed and if you see over a 50 year period”
50 years of data is all they have to go on. He is so sure it is human cause climate change with only 50 years of data. No urban heat island effects, all the station data is robust- there cannot be any doubt.
Here is an example of a site, with no urban heat island effect – see any warming?
After years of listening to ABC (Australian Broadcasting Commission) reporters uncritically report the latest Climate change doomsday story, there is finally change in the air. You can read the interview here with the Chairman of the ABC Maurice Newman, where Brendan Trembath spends most of his time trotting out the usual “the melting of polar ice caps” line (Antarctic sea ice is growing), rather than addressing the ABC problem that they have accepted the AGW line completely with no criticism, or analysis for years.
The Australian has more here where they have more details of his speech. Of course those that push the AGW line have to compare criticism of the ABC with something more outrageous – like apartheid – Peter Martins example is here. As usual if you disagree with the mainstream Climate change line then you must be some sort of subversive that would have supported the South African government in the 1970s, disbelieved the holocaust, or some other slander.
UPDATE:
Off course the Climate Change alarmist media has gone crazy with this. Crikey here of course requires you to be a climatologist if you have anything adverse to say on climate change – but if you have a pro Climate Change alarmist view like Clive Hamilton (He holds an arts degree from the Australian National University – majoring in history, psychology and pure mathematics) you don’t need to be a Climatologist, and can write on Climate Change all you like on Crikey.com.au.
So much money is wasted by Australian Governments on so-called “Green” investments.
The latest on the Toyota Camry Hybrid read in The Australian here
A subsidy of $3500 per car provided by Australian and Victorian taxpayers. They will only be purchased by either State and Federal Governments who don’t care how much the cars cost – or by wealthy people who want to show their “enviromental credentials”.
Meanwhile a real Green project – the Mildura Solar Thermal power plant cannot get funding.
A year ago you heard nothing from Climate Change skeptics on the ABC, or read anything about skeptics in The Age or the SMH. Climate Change was the new religion, and no criticism was allowed. However now a year later, the Climate Change believers wonder what has happened.
Here is a good example : How can the Government sell its CPRS?
Here are some of their points:
Global warming threatens our future
You would think after the media pushing the Climate Change believers line now for a least a decade, this would be now part of the landscape and that it would not have to be explained again, yet the climate change believers think we just need to be educated a bit more.
Have they ever stopped to think that if the media and extremist organisations like the WWF had taken a more moderate and balanced view over the last ten years they might have convinced more people. They didn’t – they kept piling doomsday scenario on top of doomsday scenario, and not surprisingly people became more sceptical, not less
Why is it that there are so many skeptics, after years of a media never showing a skeptic line. Perhaps because the science is so dodgy?
It is happening now
Is it? If it is so obvious – why is it so hard to convince people? It wouldn’t be because Climate Change believers make statements like ” greatest dought in 1000 years” when we have records that only go back 200 years (or less). Or Tim Flannery predicting “The water problem is so severe for Adelaide that it may run out of water by early 2009.”
The fact that Adelaide’s hottest day was more than 70 years ago. Is it not surprising that the ordinary person is skeptical?
Acting now will boost our economy and create jobs
it will create jobs by closing down coal mines, importing solar panels from China, importing Wind Turbines from Denmark, increasing electricity costs for every business in Australia and not compensating them…sure it will create jobs.
Acting now will give Australia a head start
so we can export our jobs to China before everyone else…
Palmer, Bligh in $69b China coal deal
Lots of revenue for the Queensland State Government, 7000 jobs, a twenty year contract… all fantastic stuff, but this is COAL. The stuff of the devil that produces more CO2 per tonne than anything else…and everyone is celebrating?
40 million tonnes a year of thermal coal going to China power stations to be burnt to produce electricity and of course CO2, and the Queensland Premier Anna Bligh is happy?
This is the hypocrisy of the Climate Change debate. If people really wanted to reduce the planets CO2 load – they would be condemning developments like this. However they don’t because 1. The politicians really only provide lip service to Climate Change (can you imagine Prime Minister Kevin Rudd coming out and condemning another coal mine?) , and 2. A large proportion of the population are also willing to give lip service to Climate Change – as long as it doesn’t cost anything.
I look forward to the Greens press release condemning this coal mine.
UPDATE: I am pleased to see that at least some people are consistent with their views. Friends of the Earth condemned the Coal mine here – a day later.
As they correctly pointed out:
“If the project goes ahead, then emissions from the exported coal would equal 20 per cent of Australia’s total domestic emissions,” said Friends of the Earth spokesperson Bradley Smith.
I still have not seen aything from the Greens, or any other politician (Mike Rann – its an election next month?) that claims to be a Climate change believer. This is such deadly stuff why don’t we ban the export of coal? We ban the export of Uranium to some countries because of the dangers – why don’t we ban the export of coal because the CO2 released will supposedly stuff up the planet?
Where are all those politicians that believe in Climate Change?
UPDATE2: still no statement from the Greens ( I get their media statement emails) , so they are obviously happy for the millions of tonnes of coal to be converted to CO2.
This subject has been raised on Dot Earth on the New York Times. Interesting that is still doesn’t raise any interest in Australia.
Global warming alarmist forget how much harder life would have been 200+ years ago with the temperatures during and just after the Little Ice Age. The world has been naturally warming since the Little Ice Age and thank goodness it has. An article from the Wall Street Journal on why warming has benefits here
Could global warming actually be good for humanity? Certainly not, at least if we’re to believe the endless warnings of floods, droughts, and pestilences to which we are told climate change will inevitably give rise. But a closer look at the science tells a more complex story than unmitigated disaster. It also tell us something about the extent to which science has been manipulated to fit the preconceptions of warming alarmists.
|
|
