Turnbull’s True Colours

download

I don’t often blog on party political issues these days. It could be boredom or disillusionment with the political process or the gradually growing realisation that we can’t fix the nation until we fix the people.

The re-elected left-wing “Labor-lite” Liberal Government is now starting to show the disastrous path we will be walking  for the next three years. Forget about Budget repair and even moderately conservative values, it’s all soft pedalled Labor/Greens socialism until at least the next three years.

This morning Greg Hunt was on AM on ABC Radio proudly announcing that they are reversing the CSIRO cuts to climate “science” research and establishing a new climate centre in Hobart. Best of all they are spending more tax payers’ dollars on this folly.

The head of the CSIRO, Dr Larry Marshall, is looking a bit lame right now, and he should be sending his resume out looking for a job where he can make a difference. Last year he announced that since the “science is settled” we don’t need those costly scientists investigating why the climate apocalypse is not happening yet. That caused much gnashing of teeth in the climate industry, but rejoicing in the scientific circles which could now look forward to extending their own projects.

So it looks like more of the rubbish of the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd years rearing its ugly head again.

I think we can expect that the plebiscite for same sex “marriage” will have to go now to pay for the increased funding for climate “science.” The “Safe Schools” anti-hetersoexuality program will become mandatory at all schools.

And forget about the Federal Budget ever coming into balance again.

 

 

Another “Climate Science” Fail”- The Grolar Bear

A couple of months ago the ABC was all over the claim that declining Arctic ice due to “climate change” was causing polar bears to have more encounters with their grizzly cousins and that more hybrids were being seen. It turns out that the alleged “grolars”  were just blond grizzlies. Let’s not let the facts get in the way of the climate doom narrative.

From WUWT:

The unbearable lightness of polar bear ‘climate science’

From the “Emily Litella” department (never mind) and Zoologist Dr. Susan Crockford, comes yet another hilarious take-down of attempts to link polar bears and climate change last month. Turns out it’s just a blonde. Paging Andrew Derocher! Cleanup on aisle 5!

Dr. Crockford writes:

All the hubris last month about polar bear x grizzly hybrids, based on an unusual-looking bear killed near Arviat, has turned out to bewishful thinkingby those who’d like to blame everything to do with polar bears on climate change. An awful lot of “experts” now have egg on their faces.That “hybrid” was just a blonde grizzly, as I warned it might.

grizzly-polar-bear-hybrid_arviat-2016-didji-ishalook

 

Full story here

The Earth is Dying/ Died 40 years ago/ or something

The usual predictable dire warning that surround Earth Day have been somewhat overshadowed by the celebrations of the Queen’s 90th Birthday. Stupid humans we are too busy living to notice we are supposed to be dead.

Here are some of the predictions made at the time of the first Earth Day in 1970- and this was even before they invented Global Warming.

More Climate Change Craziness

The Climate Change panic just keeps on producing weird dysfunctions in energy systems around the world. A couple of years ago it was Britain converting power stations from burning  local coal to running on wood imported from the US- all in the name of carbon credits.

Now it seems plausible that Germany’s obsession with “green” power such as solar has raised their power costs to such a level that China will be able to export cheap coal power there at half the price.

Jo Nova writes:

Get a load of this.  China has been adding a new idle coal fired plant nearly every week. It is building368 coal fired plants and planning a further 803.The Greens think the Chinese have over capitalized, made a bubble, and have built a bunch of white elephants (maybe they have). But Germany has crippled its electrical generators in order to make the weather cooler, and pays exorbitant prices per kilowatt hour that are driving businesses overseas.Merkel is still trying to get solar powerto work in a land where the only thing that will make the current panels economic is if the Earth changes its orbital tilt.

Well say hello to the savvy Chinese investors who may be able to solve both problems. It seems hard to believe but all that surplus energy might just find its way to Germany. With new ultra hot coal power there is talk they can produce electricity so incredibly cheap they can send it on ultra high voltage lines all the way to Berlin. Barking? They’ll probably earn carbon credits for doing it too.

Coal’s future burns bright— Graham Lloyd

Greenpeace likes to think that China’s future coal plant projections are the result of “dysfunctional planning systems and cheap credit’’.

But there is another possibility highlighted by Britain’sFinancial Times: that is, that China’s proposed investment in long-­distance, ultra-high voltage power transmission lines will pave the way for power exports from China to as far away as Germany.

Liu Zhenya, chairman of State Grid, told reporters that wind and thermal power produced in Xinjiang could reach Germany at half the present cost of electricity there.

… the World Coal Association maintains new high-­efficiency coal technology will deliver power at half the cost of gas and one-fifth the price of wind in Asian countries in the future.

China looks to export surplus energy to Germany— Financial Times

Talk of exporting power is a reversal for China, which as recently as 2004 suffered rolling blackouts across its manufacturing heartland. But huge investments in power in the decade since, and the construction of a number of dams, nuclear reactors and coal-fired plants due to begin operating in the next 10 years, mean the country faces a growing surplus.

The distance from the edge of China to Berlin is apparently only 600km further than across China to Shanghai. And China hasnuclear power, many hydroelectric dams, and also other markets along the way — like Pakistan and India. They have 32 nuclear power plants in operation, 22 under construction, more about to start, and even more in the planning stage.

China is happy to pay lip-service to the Paris Climate Deal — it doesn’t have to do anything different for 15 years when population growth meant it was going to slow emissions then anyway. Meanwhile the Paris deal hobbles competition, and tosses money at China to shift from older, higher emissions power to newer cleaner styles.

 

Unintended Consequences of “Settled Science”

From Jo Nova: This is the natural result of determining science to be settled with a high degree of confidence. They’ve been telling us for years that the “debate is over” (even though the predictions consistently fail), and now they are squealing because CSIRO management is taking them seriously.

CSIRO wipes out climate division — 350 scientists to go — since it’s “beyond debate” who needs em?

BREAKING BUN FEST: Hysterical. The contradictions in the propaganda are biting back viciously. Isn’t karma a bitch?

If climate change is solved and beyond debate, who needs climate scientists?

CSIRO has announced it will axe 300  to 350 climate jobs, which will “wipe out” the climate division. The head of the CSIRO wants to focus on climate adaption and mitigation instead. Suddenly a lot of Profs who told us the debate was over are squealing that it needs more research. Climate science was “beyond debate” and in need of action, but now we “need to know more about the basic operation of the climate”. Oh the dilemma!

The head of the CSIRO is doing what the Greens say they want — moving beyond the debate and putting more money into adaption and mitigation. Where’s the Greens statement applauding him…?

With up to 350 scientist jobs under fire at maybe $250k per year (including super, admin, and other on-costs), that means there is around $90m at stake.

This is a CSIRO management decision:

“Climate will be all gone, basically,” one senior scientist said before the announcement.

In the email sent out to staff on Thursday morning, CSIRO’s chief executive Larry Marshall indicated that, since climate change had been established, further work in the area would be a reduced priority. — SMH

The CSIRO are just doing the obvious thing after Paris. There is no science debate, they are moving on to “adaption”, and “mitigation”:

CSIRO chief executive Larry Marshall said the changes would see the organisation move away from measuring and monitoring climate change, to instead focus on how to adapt to it.

“It’s inevitable that people who are gifted at measuring and modelling climate may not be the same people who are gifted at figuring out what to do about it how to mitigate it,” he said.

“Some of the climate scientists will be able to make that transition and some won’t.” — ABC

Scientists are tying themselves in knots to explain why it’s appalling that there is a loss of safe, low turnover jobs to study something that is “proven”. Gee, just as well they aren’t coal miners.

Professor Penny Sackett –a  former Australian Chief Scientist who now works for the Climate Change Institute at ANU.

“I am stunned by reports that CSIRO management no longer thinks measuring and understanding climate change is important, innovative or impactful. Paris did not determine whether or not climate change is happening, scientists who generate and study big data did. The big question now, which underlies all climate adaptation work, is ‘How is the climate changing?’”

So we don’t know how the climate is changing? So Penny, when did you mention that all the predictions of floods and droughts and terrible storms were uncertain?

Prof Will Steffen suddenly admits “we” don’t know the basic operation of the climate system:

Professor Will Steffen is an Emeritus Professor at ANU and a Climate Councillor at the Climate Council of Australia.

“This is deeply disturbing news. The impacts of climate change are already being felt around Australia at an increasing rate, and there is more to come. We absolutely need to know more about the basic operation of the climate system — how it is changing and how best can we respond to the climate change challenge.”

Suddenly Prof Steven Sherwood (UNSW) is not so sure we understand the climate:

“Larry Marshall surely has a point about rejuvenating organisations and solving new challenges, but I worry about his statement that there is no further need post-COP21 to understand climate change since we now know it is real.”

Dr Sarah Perkins-Kirkpatrick, Research Fellow at the Climate Change Research Centre UNSW:

“The latest round of job cuts from CSIRO is nothing short of appalling… While we know that the climate is changing because of human activity, we have not simply ‘answered’ that question after the Paris agreement — many more questions remain.”

“… Research in any field does not, and cannot stop after an apparent question has been answered.”

The Climate Pause Continues

Far from the climate apocalypse the climate “scientists” keep on proposing, the global temperature has not changed in 18 years and 9 months.

Back in 2008, scientists said that a pause of 15 years would throw the global warming theory into doubt, but the gravy train keeps rolling on, this month all the way to Paris.

 

 

Sunscreen- Not Climate Change- Killing Reefs

42-34720580

The equivalent of one drop of the active ingredient in sunscreen into 3 1/2 Olympic swimming pools of water is enough to kill corals. Scientists discovered that it is this, not “ocean acidification” or warming allegedly caused by CO2 that is damaging the world’s coral reefs.

From WUWT:

Oops! It may not be ‘ocean acidification’ killing coral after all – common chemical found in sunscreen is poisonous to coral reefs

From the AMERICAN FRIENDS OF TEL AVIV UNIVERSITY and the “settled science” department:

Sunscreen is proven toxic to coral reefs
Tel Aviv University researchers discover chemical found in most sunscreen lotions poses an existential threat to young corals

 

The daily use of sunscreen bearing an SPF of 15 or higher is widely acknowledged as essential to skin cancer prevention, not to mention skin damage associated with aging. Though this sunscreen may be very good for us, it may be very bad for the environment, a new Tel Aviv University study finds.

New research published inArchives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicologyfinds that a common chemical in sunscreen lotions and other cosmetic products poses an existential threat — even in miniscule concentrations — to the planet’s corals and coral reefs. “The chemical, oxybenzone (benzophenone-3), is found in more than 3,500 sunscreen products worldwide. It pollutes coral reefs via swimmers who wear sunscreen or wastewater discharges from municipal sewage outfalls and coastal septic systems,” said Dr. Omri Bronstein of TAU’s Department of Zoology, one of the principal researchers.

The study was conducted by a team of marine scientists from TAU, including Prof. Yossi Loya, also of the Department of Zoology, the Haereticus Environmental Laboratory in Virginia, the National Aquarium (US), the US. National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration, Ben Gurion University of the Negev, and other labs in the US.

Read the full article here

Action on Climate: Stealing From the Poor to Give to the Rich

You never hear from the Greens about how their policies hit the poor and favour the rich.One example of course is that subsidies for roof top solar force up electricity prices for those who cannot use solar power- renters and the poor. But it gets a lot worse as these examples from the US show.

From WUWT:

The Hood Robin Syndrome

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

There’s a new study out, under the imprimatur of the Energy Institute of the Haas School of Business in Berkeley, California, entitledThe Distributional Effects of U.S. Clean Energy Tax Credits.  As the title implies, it looks at who actually profited from the various “green energy” tax credits across the United States. SPOILER ALERT! It wasn’t the poor folks.

How much money are we talking about? Well, the paper says that from 2006 to 2012, the taxpayers have been on the hook for $18 BILLION DOLLARS to fund these subsidies, money that would have otherwise gone into the General Fund.

And just how much money is eighteen billion dollars? Here’s one way to think about eighteen gigabucks, regarding safe, clean drinking water.

Water Wells for Africa reports from their ongoing projects that on average it has cost them about $3.50 per person ($7,000 per well serving 2,000 people) to provide people with clean safe well water. Soeighteen billion dollars is enough money to drill drinking water wells for three-quarters of the world’s 7 billion inhabitants.(Yes, I know that’s a gross simplification, some folks don’t live over a subterranean water table, and so on, but it isstill enough money to drill the two and a half million wells that would be needed.)

So what did we do with this huge amount of money, enough wealth to truly change the lives of the world’s poor?

Well, following the brilliant policies pushed by the Obama Administration and the climate alarmists, we took enough taxpayer money to truly change the lives of the world’s poor folks … and instead, we gave it to the American rich folks.

No kidding! This is not a joke. This is what passes for moral activism in the liberal American universe. Throwing money at the rich is seen as striking a noble blow for POSSIBLY saving the poor from a tenth of a degree of warming by 2100.

Sadly, it’s no joke at all—the whole war on carbon has been a tragedy for the poor. In this case, the result of these misguided tax subsidies, of the type which have been pushed by climate alarmists for years, has been to create a real climate “hockeystick”.

Read the rest here

No Warming For 18 Years and 7 Months

The Pause draws blood – A new record Pause length: no warming for 18 years 7 months

For 223 months, since January 1997, there has been no global warming at all (Fig. 1). This month’s RSS temperature shows the Pause setting a new record at 18 years 7 months.

It is becoming ever more likely that the temperature increase that usually accompanies an El Niño will begin to shorten the Pause somewhat, just in time for the Paris climate summit, though a subsequent La Niña would be likely to bring about a resumption and perhaps even a lengthening of the Pause.

clip_image002

 
 

Figure 1. The least-squares linear-regression trend on the RSS satellite monthly global mean surface temperature anomaly dataset shows no global warming for 18 years 7 months since January 1997.

The hiatus period of 18 years 7 months is the farthest back one can go in the RSS satellite temperature record and still show a sub-zero trend. The start date is not cherry-picked: it is calculated. And the graph does not mean there is no such thing as global warming. Going back further shows a small warming rate.

Full story here

Why Obama is Wrong

In any sane society the climate change myth would have died long ago, giving rise to real science on climate. In the latest episode of arrogance, President Obama has dedicated his nation to higher electricity prices and reduced economic wealth to solve a non-problem and reduce the earthg’s temperature by at most 0.1 degrees.

If Obama was shown this graph, and had it interpreted proprly for him, he would have found there is zero correlation between CO2 concentration and temperature.

And if has shown this graph, he would have  seen how CO2 emissions and energy usage actually do correlate with human health, wealth and well-being.

 

The climate myth continues despite 18 years of no measurable change in temperature and steady release of CO2 into the atmosphere.

King Canute understood he had no power to control the sea, but our modern day emperors have the pride to believe they can control the weather.