It’s Time To Declare War On Global Warming Extremists

“So even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and our river systems…” Tim Flannery 2007

This planet is on course for a catastrophe.
The existence of Life itself is at stake
.”
– Dr Tim Flannery,
Climate Council

•••

Turnbull Warming Extremist

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull meets flood victims. Picture: ADAM TAYLOR

Column – How warming extremists rule our universities | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt :

A LINE has been crossed now Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull is telling massive porkies about the Tasmanian floods.

It’s time to declare war on global warming extremists.

I don’t mean war on Turnbull, himself. He’s just parroting popular untruths. No, I mean war on the extremists who feed him his falsehoods — the alarmists, Marxists and other Leftists who have seized control of our universities and punished the few academics who still dare challenge them.

Last week, Turnbull inspected the flood damage in Tasmania and, in just one widely reported comment, said three false or misleading things that hype the global-warming scare.

Tasmanians “have never seen as much water move as quickly as this,” he claimed.

“Certainly, larger and more frequent storms are one of the consequences that the climate models and climate scientists predict from global warming.”

Falsehood one: Tasmania actually suffered worse floods in 1929, when 22 people were killed after 500mm of rain was dumped in just three days over Burnie and Ulverstone.

Tasmania Floods 1929.jpg

Remembering the 1929 Launceston floods

(1929 Flood Insert via Climatism)

Falsehood two: Climate experts, in fact, used to claim we’d face droughts, not floods. Climate Council chief Professor Tim Flannery in 2007 famously warned: “Even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and our river systems.”

Falsehood three: Most climate scientists haven’t predicted more or larger storms at all.

In fact, in its latest report, the biggest group of climate scientists, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, admitted there was very little confidence in such claims.

In the report’s own words: there was “low confidence in observed trends in small-scale severe weather phenomena such as hail and thunderstorms” and “low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods”.

As for “heavy precipitation” of the kind just seen in Tasmania, the IPCC conceded that in areas “such as southern Australia and western Asia — there is evidence of decreases”.

That’s less heavy rain, not Turnbull’s more.

But as I say, what does Turnbull really know about global warming, other than that it’s fashionable to be an alarmist?

The real problem is this: name one university academic — a single climate scientist, physicist, meteorologist or historian — who publicly pointed out Turnbull was wrong. Most seem only too happy with such fearmongering.

True, there are a few brave sceptics left in academia. But they know the danger of speaking out, now the militant Left is so powerful in our universities and so hostile to debate.

The latest evidence: the threatened sacking of marine scientist Professor Peter Ridd, who has long warned that alarmist scientists were exaggerating the alleged damage done by global warming to the Great Barrier Reef, and getting big grants for it.

Ridd has been censured by James Cook University and threatened with the sack for “failing to act in a collegial way” by exposing this alarmism.

He’d wickedly pointed out that the Centre of Excellence for Coral Studies and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority had published misleading photographs
of coral reefs near Stone Island — one taken in the late 19th century and the other in 1994 — which they’d claimed showed healthy coral had vanished.

As Ridd noted, there was no way of knowing if the photographs were of the same place, and coral cover could vary wildly in the same area. Nor could anyone know why coral seen in the 1800s was gone a century later.

Ridd could also have added that a new survey from the Australian Institute of Marine Science of 12 reefs off Townsville has found coral cover on 11 had recovered since Cyclone Yasi, and seven of the reefs had more coral now than 30 years ago.

But how crazy is his punishment? Since when did querying the claims of a fellow academic amount to a crime against “collegiality”?

This smacks of enforcing group think with threats of dismissal. Don’t universities do debate any more?

Seems not.

(Prof. Peter Ridd links added by Climatism)

Tas floods 2016

Flood waters rage through Cataract Gorge in Launceston. Picture: SAM ROSEWARNE

In 2013, Professor Bob Carter, the retired head of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at this same James Cook University, was dumped as an adjunct (unpaid) professor for what he believed was his internationally recognised work in exposing global-warming scares.

But even more shocking was the scandalous campaign to ban world-renowned political scientist Bjorn Lomborg, author of The Skeptical Environmentalist.

The University of Western Australia and Flinders University had each told the Abbott government they were interested in a grant to host Lomborg’s Copenhagen Consensus think tank, to debate economic policies.

But staff and students at both universities mutinied, attacking Lomborg for having warned that much of the trillions of dollars spent to fight global warming made little difference.

The academics’ union — the National Tertiary Education Union — should have defended an academic’s right to question orthodox thinking.

Instead, it circulated a petition demanding Lomborg be banned for “downgrading the importance to the world of climate change mitigation”.

The UWA caved first to these new witch-hunters, and then the new Turnbull Government canned the planned funding for Lomborg’s centre.

But note this contrast: this same academics’ union that silences warming sceptics will fight to defend Marxists — ideologues who subscribe to a totalitarian creed that inspired the murder of tens of millions of people. Last week, NTEU members even formed a guard of honour for one of their union delegates, avowed Marxist academic Roz Ward, to welcome her back to work at La Trobe University.

The university had suspended Ward after she demanded that our “racist” flag have its Union Jack replaced with the red ensign of socialism, claiming this dragged into disrepute Ward’s taxpayer-funded Safe Schools program, which itself teaches children to think gender is “fluid” and to imagine themselves dating someone of their own sex.

But the university backed down after legal threats and protests from the NTEU, which then issued a press release crowing it had defeated “the Australian Right”, responsible for “screeching sloganeering and fearmongering around action on climate change”.

Now the NTEU is defending yet another Marxist academic and warming alarmist, journalism professor Martin Hirst, sacked by Deakin University after warning a commerce student who challenged his foully abusive tweets: “So are you happy to fail commerce?”

So it’s hardly Turnbull’s fault that he just goes with this warming flow, as set for him by professional alarmists and Marxists embedded in their university fortresses.

Why would he challenge this group think when he’d just get smashed anyway by the ABC — another powerful bastion of group think that refuses to let a single conservative or warming sceptic host any of its main current affairs shows?

You want Turnbull to think for himself on global warming? To take on the Leftist academic establishment and their media goons?

You ask too much. It takes a man or woman of guts and brains to stand up to them, and this country is critically short of such heroes.

Column – How warming extremists rule our universities | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt

•••

Climatism comment :

Some Monday mirthness with the “quote of the millennium” from professional climate change alarmist ‘Tim Flannery’ :

flannery_scr

Ship of Hypocrites: Burn Some Carbon With Tim Flannery | Climatism

•••

Professional Climate Alarmist “Tim Flannery” Related:


Adelaide December 1932 : Seven Consecutive Days Over 40 Degrees

australia-hottest-days.jpg

Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology, trumpeted by the global warming alarmist ABC, are claiming Adelaide’s projected 4 day heatwave, will break a record.

Bureau of Meteorology senior forecaster Matt Collopy said that “four days greater than a record of 40C in Adelaide has never happened in December since records began in 1887”.

However in 1932, Adelaide endured 7 consecutive days with the mercury rising beyond 100F (104F = 40C).

Screen Shot 2015-12-19 at , December 19, 6.31.49 AM

HEAT, WAVE.

ABNORMAL CONDITIONS IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA.

ADELAIDE, Dec. 31. — Today was the seventh consecutive day in which the temperature went over the century. The maximum today was 103.4 degrees (40 degrees C). Seven days with the thermometer over 100 degrees is easily a record for December but is two days short of the record for months other than December; for in January ,1858, and again in February and March, 1872, there were nine days in succession in which the glass recorded the century. The “weather man” said to-day that he expected the conditions to get worse before they got better.

1932 – HEAT WAVE. ABNORMAL CONDITIONS IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA.

Carbon Dioxide “Carbon Pollution” concentration at the time was 310 parts per million. CO2 levels today are around 400ppm.

•••

Related :

Australian Heatwave History :


THE TIMES : The sceptics are right. Don’t scapegoat them

Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to 
know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” – UN IPCC 
Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itohan award-winning PhD environmental physical
chemist.

“Global warming-at least the modern nightmare version – is a myth. I am sure of it and so are a growing number of scientists. But what is really worrying is that the world’s politicians and policy makers are not.” – David Bellamy, Daily Mail, July 9, 2004

“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” – Nobel Prize Winner for
Physics, Ivar Giaever.

•••

Matt Ridley’s excellent piece in the The Times …

Screen Shot 2014-02-20 at , February 20, 1.27.13 pm

The sceptics are right. Don’t scapegoat them

Matt Ridley

Times columnist Matt Ridley
Last updated at 12:01 AM, February 17 2014

There is no evidence, Mr Miliband, Lord Stern and others, that our floods and storms are related to climate change.

In the old days we would have drowned a witch to stop the floods. These days the Green Party, Greenpeace and Ed Miliband demand we purge the climate sceptics. No insult is too strong for sceptics these days: they are “wilfully ignorant” (Ed Davey), “headless chickens” (the Prince of Wales) or “flat-earthers” (Lord Krebs), with “diplomas in idiocy” (one of my fellow Times columnists).

What can these sceptics have been doing that so annoys the great and the good? They sound worse than terrorists. Actually, sceptics have pretty well all been purged already: look what happened to Johnny Ball and David Bellamy at the BBC. Spot the sceptic on the Climate Change Committee. Find me a sceptic within the Department of (energy and) Climate Change. Frankly, the sceptics are a ragtag bunch of mostly self-funded guerrillas, who have made little difference to policy — let alone caused the floods.

What’s more, in the row over whether climate change is causing the current floods and storms, the sceptics are the ones who are sticking to the consensus, as set out by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) — you know, the body that the alarm-mongers are always telling us to obey. And it is the sceptics who have been arguing for years for resilience and adaptation, rather than decarbonisation.

Mr Miliband says: “This winter is a one-in-250-year event” (yet it’s nothing like as wet as 1929-30 if you count the whole of England and Wales, let alone Britain) and that “the science is clear”. The chief scientist of the Met Office, Dame Julia Slingo, tells us “all the evidence” suggests that climate change is contributing to this winter’s wetness. (Why, then, did she allow the Met Office to forecast in November that a dry winter was almost twice as likely as a wet winter?) Lord Stern, an economist, claimed that the recent weather is evidence “we are already experiencing the impact of climate change”. [For a thorough debunk of Lord Stern’s comments on the global position, see below.]

All three are choosing to disagree with the IPCC consensus. Here’s what the IPCC’s latest report actually says:

“There continues to be a lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale.”

Here’s what a paper published by 17 senior IPCC scientists from five different countries said last month:

“It has not been possible to attribute rain-generated peak streamflow trends to anthropogenic climate change over the past several decades.”

They go on to say that blaming climate change is a politician’s cheap excuse for far more relevant factors such as “what we do on or to the landscape” — building on flood plains, farm drainage etc.

As for recent gales caused by a stuck jetstream, Dr Mat Collins, of Exeter University, an IPCC co-ordinating lead author, has revealed that the IPCC discussed whether changes to the jetstream could be linked to greenhouse gases and decided they could not. “There is no evidence that global warming can cause the jetstream to get stuck in the way it has this winter,” he says, in a statement that raises questions about Dame Julia’s credibility.

In 2012, the Met Office agreed:

“There continues to be little evidence that the recent increase in storminess over the UK is related to man-made climate change.”

So please will Lord Stern, Dame Julia and Mr Miliband explain why they are misleading the public about the science?

That consensus, by the way, has never said that climate change will necessarily be dangerous. The oft-quoted 97 per cent agreement among scientists refers to the statement that man-made climate change happens, not to future projections [and anyway it has been comprehensively discredited and described as infamous by a prominent climate scientist]. No climate change sceptic that I know “denies” climate change, or even human contributions to it. It’s a lazy and unpleasant slur to say that they do.

Sceptics say it is not happening fast enough to threaten more harm than the wasteful and regressive measures intended to combat it. So far they have been right. Over 30 years, global temperature has changed far more slowly than predicted in 95 per cent of the models, and has decelerated, not accelerated. When the sceptic David Whitehouse first pointed out the current 15 to 17-year standstill in global warming (after only 18 to 20 years of warming), he was ridiculed; now the science establishment admits the “pause” but claims to have some post-hoc explanations.

While the green lobby has prioritised decarbonisation, sceptics have persistently advocated government spending on adaptation, so as to grab the benefits of climate change but avoid the harm, and be ready for cooling as well if the sun goes into a funk. Yesterday Mr Miliband yet again prioritised carbon limits — cold comfort to those flooded from their homes. Huge sums have been spent on wind farms and bio-energy, with trivial impact on emissions. The money has come disproportionately from the fuel bills of poor people and gone disproportionately to rich people.

Given that there are about 25,000 excess winter deaths each year, adding 5 per cent to fuel bills kills far more people now than (possibly) adding 5 per cent to future rainfall totals ever would. If just a fraction of renewable energy subsidies sluiced towards wind farms by the climate secretaries Ed Miliband and Ed Davey had instead been put into flood defences, they would have done far more good.

Meanwhile, please notice that those lambasting the sceptics work for you, drawing wages from public bodies supported by the taxpayer: Lord Stern, Lord Deben, Dame Julia Slingo, Sir Mark Walport, Professor Kevin Anderson, even a spin doctor called Bob Ward, and more. Most of the sceptics operate on self-employed shoestrings and cost you nothing: Andrew Montford, David Holland, Nic Lewis, Doug Keenan, Paul Homewood, Fay Kelly-Tuncay. There is only one professional sceptic in the entire country — Benny Peiser — and he is not paid by the taxpayer.

Despite the fuss, sceptics have had little effect. Renewable subsidies for the rich grow larger every year. Jobs are still being destroyed by carbon floor prices and high energy costs. Emissions targets have not been lowered. At the very most, George Osborne and his allies may have slightly pinched the flow of funds to consultants and academics to talk about the subject. Maybe that’s what makes the great and the good so cross.

Continue Reading »

The sceptics are right. Don’t scapegoat them. – Matt Ridley

•••

More Matt Ridley :

See also :

IPCC Failed Climate Models :

Related :


Storminess Of The Little Ice Age

NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

With the recent run of stormy weather in the UK, it is worth reflecting on just how stormy it was during the Little Ice Age, and even before.

Brian Fagan, in his book “The Little Ice Age”, states that,”throughout Europe, the years 1560-1600 were cooler and stormier, with late wine harvests and considerably stronger winds than those of the 20th Century. Storm activity increased by 85% in the second half of the 16th Century and the incidence of severe storms rose by 400%.”.

HH Lamb comes to similar conclusions, “there was a greater intensity, and a greater frequency, of intense storm development during the Little Ice Age”, in his book “Historic Storms of the North Sea, British Isles and Northwest Europe”.

Edward Bryant, in the book, “Natural Hazards”, gives us a rundown of some of the biggest storms:-

  • Four storms…

View original post 1,004 more words


Climate Change : Robbing Winter Of Its Terrors

Screen Shot 2014-02-18 at , February 18, 2.03.19 am

A fascinating historical account of a journalist’s study into a changing climate.

The author grapples with the notion that varying weather patterns, almost instinctively, solicit a pessimistic influence on a person, as “the writer has never yet met one who was an optimist”. Aware of superstitions hardwired into the human psyche, the author reassures that any record-defying weather prophecy can almost certainly be corrected through historical comparison.

However, armed with “figures to prove it”, the author discovers a distinct climate change occurring in temperature and rainfall that defies his ‘stable climate’ assumptions.

Does the author fall victim to his own climate superstitions? Or is there really man-made climate change at play, brought about by human settlement and the development of land for agriculture?

The author does however remain his own ‘optimist’, noting that whilst the summer months are getting warmer, “our winters are gradually being robbed of their terrors”. As well, the prospect of increased rains could mean, “millions in hard solid cash”, and with less burden on Government, “reduced taxation will follow.” !

•••

IS OUR CLIMATE CHANGING?

_______

Temperature Increasing; So is Rainfall

_______

ROBBING WINTER OF ITS TERRORS

12 May 1923

CONCERNING weather, it may be accepted as an axiom that there are conservatives and ultra-conservatives, and meteorologists, too. During an acquaintance extending over many years with the last-named gentry the writer has never yet met one who was an optimist. Enthuse as you will over popular literature dealing with the various cycles and other schemes under which it can be shown conclusively that there is no such thing as a problem where weather is concerned, the meteorologist will turn you down cold.

Even Mr. Bromley, amiable prophet though he be, is no exception to the rule. Go to him filled with hope after it has been raining hard for endless days and ask for sympathy and the verification of a new record established. You will not get it. He will refer to some bygone day when it rained .000934 points of an inch or more, or when the mercury was all out over the last fractional point of the scale.

A distinct change, however, in the Australian climate which even Mr. Bromley cannot refute has been discovered. There are figures to prove it, and those figures are supplied by Mr. Bromley’s department.

Interviewed this week one prominent Adelaide man said the public did not understand what rain meant to the State. It was not only a case of providing water — it was a case of millions in hard solid cash. If that be so, then one of the problems of the Federal Government has gone, and reduced taxation will follow as a natural course.

Two things have happened to the Australian climate — it is getting warmer and the average rainfall is increasing.

Influences at Work.

Just what has brought the change about it is hard to say, but no doubt there is a reason. Knibbs, in one of his early year books, places it on record that settlement and the treatment of land have a distinct effect on local conditions. Sydney, for example, showed a rise of two-tenths of a degree during the past twenty years, a change which he attributed to the great growth of residential and manufacturing buildings within the city and in the surrounding suburbs during that period. Again, the low-lying lands of the north coast of New South Wales, formerly free from frost, now have annual visitations. The theory is that with the cutting away of the trees the cold air, has an unimpeded flow to the low lands.

Irrigation also has its influence on climate. In “Seas and Skies” the Hon. Ralph Abercromby says, “Before the Suez Canal was made the desert through which it was cut was said to be rainless. Now, since the Bitter Lakes have been filled with water, rain falls on an average eight days in the year at Ismailia.”

Again, in “American Weather,” Gen. A. W. Grerly remarks on the subject of heat waves, “It seems possible that the frequency and intensity of such visitations have diminished on the Pacific Coast, since Tennant’s record of hot days (classing as such those on which the temperature rose to 80 degrees, or above, at San Francisco) indicates that their actual number has very materially diminished since 1839. For seven years prior to 1839 such days averaged thirteen yearly, and since that time up to 1871 the average number is but four. The immense quantity of land placed under irrigation and the vast increase in vegetation are obvious reasons why there should be some diminution in this respect.

Capital Cities Compared.

Whatever may have brought the change, the fact remains that the figures show it. A comparison of the mean summer temperatures of the capital cities reveals that it is now higher in each of them, the statistics being: —

Screen Shot 2014-02-17 at , February 17, 8.02.11 pm

Not only is it getting warmer during the summer months, but with the exception of Hobart, where it is a shade cooler, our winters are gradually being robbed of their terrors. Here are the figures showing the mean winter temperatures of the capital cities: —

Screen Shot 2014-02-17 at , February 17, 8.03.48 pm

An Increasing Rainfall.

The man on the street will, after reading this, jump to the conclusion that more heat means lees rain. But once again they show that this is not so. As a matter of fact, we are now getting more rain than we were previously. Again taking the capital cities, this is seen to be a fact in the case of all except Sydney, which shows a slight falling off. The figures are: —

Screen Shot 2014-02-17 at , February 17, 8.07.21 pm

Continue »

12 May 1923 – IS OUR CLIMATE CHANGING? Temperature Increasing;…

AT the time of this ‘abrupt’, ‘unprecedented’ Climate Change, Carbon dioxide pollution was at 320 parts per million.

•••

See also :

Australian Extreme Climate History :


Terrible Week-Long Heat Wave : 41°C in the Shade and 71°C in the Sun

Screen Shot 2014-02-17 at , February 17, 6.04.27 pm

VICTORIA.

______

THE HEAT WAVE.

______

A TERRIBLE WEEK.

______

MELBOURNE, January 13, 1905

The heat wave in which Melbourne has sweltered for a week is not yet broken. On Monday the Observatory registered a maximum of l04.5deg. in the shade; on Tuesday 80.9; Wednesday 108.5; Thursday 105.6; and to-day 108.5 [42°C]. The city has been, so thoroughly baked that the very earth and buildings seemed to exude heat to-day, and people, especially those of advanced years and young children, felt the severe strain placed upon their powers of physical endurance. The glare of the sun about midday was almost painful, and tho gripmen employed on the tramways found the lever so hot that it was necessary to protect their hands.

During the afternoon the sky became clouded, and the heat of the sun became less intense, but there was no relief in the shade, and even after sundown, the heat was most oppressive. The thermometer at the Observatory showed at 9 o’clock this morning 98.7 [37°C] in the shade, and 141 [60°C] the sun. An hour later 101 in the shade, and 153 in the sun were recorded, and by 12 o’clock the readings had advanced to 106 in the Shade and 161 [71°C] in the sun. The shade readings at half-past 1 stood at 108.2 [42°C], and at 3 o’clock at 103.5, which was the highest for the day.

The temperature fell very, slowly. The shade reading at 6 o’clock was 101.5, and at 7 o’clock 90.8.

The Government Astronomer issued a forecast to-night that a cool change is approaching, which will give relief in the southern districts, but that there is no present indication of relief for the exhausted settlers inland, where the temperatures during the week ranged to 118 deg [48°C] in the shade.

14 Jan 1905 – VICTORIA. THE HEAT WAVE. A TERRIBLE WEEK. MELBOU…

Carbon dioxide pollution at the time was 290 parts per million.

•••

Australian Extreme Climate History Links :

See also :


February 1889 : Another Exceptionally Severe Heat Wave

Screen Shot 2014-02-10 at , February 10, 6.18.46 pm

Melbourne, February 13. 1889

The heat inland on Saturday and Sunday was very trying, the followed high temperatures were recorded :—Charlton, 110 in the shade; Pyramid Bill, 116; Casterton. 109; Merino, 106 ; Hamilton,110; Macarthur, 101; and Boort, 111. In coastal places the heat was tempered by a cooling breeze. The great heat inland caused bosh fires to break oat in a number of places, and a good deal of damage was done.

15 Feb 1899 – Another Heat Wave. VICTORIA AND SOUTH AUSTRALIA …

CO2 at the time was 280 parts per million.

•••

Related :