Panic! Seas are rising 6cms a century!

We’ve got to ride this global warming issue.
Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
we will be doing the right thing in terms of
economic and environmental policy.

– Timothy Wirth,
President of the UN Foundation

The only way to get our society to truly change is to
frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe
– emeritus professor Daniel Botkin

Andrew Bolt

Herald Sun | August 3 2013


Reader Jamie meets the global warming cult:

Watching ABC news after the footy tonight (the only AU news for me in Bali.. grrr) and saw clip on the Youth Climate Conference in Melbourne. The most hysterical clips were of ‘youths’ being interviewed about Sea Level Rise. When i saw ‘adult’ Flannery interviewed, I too got hysterical and thought I’d check out the sea level rise data for myself.

As I thought, no acceleration in Australian SLR for 130 years (like everywhere in the world, except Pacific island nations where there’s been no SLR since records began). Surely ideology doesn’t overrule science or data?


Journal Article 2009: New Perspective on Global Warming & Sea Level Rise: Modest Future Rise with Reduced Threat “It is concluded that the best guess value of SLR for the next 100 years is a relatively modest 23 cm +/- 5 cm which poses little threat to coastal areas of the world either at present or in future.”

2011: A Level Look At Sea Levels

2012: Rate of sea level rise is dropping

2013: Obama was right–‘the rise of the oceans began to slow’

2013: ‘There is no scientific consensus’ on sea-level rise, say scientists

2013: New study using GRACE data shows global sea levels rising less than 7 inches per century

Nature Study 2013: Future sea-level rise from Greenland’s main outlet glaciers in a warming climate “we project a contribution of 19 to 30 millimetres to SLR from these glaciers by 2200.”


Rodney Hide: NZ PM’s Scientific Adviser Talks Non-Science

  • “Consensus is the cachet of politics, not science.”
  • “It’s not what people think or say that matters in science but what objective reality does.”
  • “Consensus doesn’t decide science. The facts do.”
  • “The theory of man-induced catastrophic global warming rules out next-to-nothing and tells us next-to-nothing.”
  • “The global warming scare is more akin to a modern-day religion than science. “
  • “Science doesn’t argue from authority, elected position, or status. It’s the objective world that decides science; not governments.”

Tallbloke's Talkshop

science-v-politics-cartoonFrom New Zealand’s National Business Review:

The Prime Minister’s Chief Science Adviser, Sir Peter Gluckman, has done us all a favour and provided a textbook illustration of the difference between science and non-science.

His recent report, New Zealand’s Changing Climate and Oceans, boldly predicts an average temperature increase of 2.1 degrees Celsius by 2090. That prediction is the key give-away. It’s not science; it’s prophecy.

Science makes bold and surprising predictions but about the here and now, not a hundred years hence. The difference is that scientific predictions are testable whereas prophecies aren’t.
We won’t know for a hundred years whether Sir Peter’s prediction stacks up and the historical experience with prophecies is that there are always excuses when their time is up.

But that’s not all. The Gluckman Report tiresomely declares there’s scientific consensus for the theory of human-induced catastrophic global warming. But so what? Consensus is the…

View original post 437 more words

Some thoughts about policy for the aftermath of the climate wars.

Brilliant essay on environmentalism – its contradictions , the hijacking of science, contempt for the grinding poor, policy failings and its boy-who-cried-wolf demise.


Charles Mackay wrote in his book, Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds – “Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.” The book may have been written in the mid-nineteenth century, but here we are at the kick off to the twenty-first, and that mass psychology is only too familiar. Maybe Hari Seldon was on to something after all.

The global warming craze is dying down. People, as Mackay noted, are coming out of it one by one and that process is accelerating with every passing day. Governments are cutting subsidies for green technologies not only because they don’t work, but because government coffers are empty. They’re broke. The politicians no longer mention it because it no longer gets votes and indeed just attracts a baleful hostility from a…

View original post 2,388 more words