Politicians interpret the science
The truth is that the threat we face is not an abstract concern for the future. Scientists project that the Arctic will be ice-free in the summer of 2013. Not in 2050, but four years from now.
This winter, delegates from 192 nations will gather in Copenhagen to create a new global climate treaty. Between now and then, the United States Congress is expected to act on climate legislation.
President Obama rewarded Kerry’s prescience by appointing him Secretary of State!
Applauded by the warmist establishment, British PM David Cameron suspects recent UK wet weather is due to “climate change”. And Obama’s climate witchdoctor, John Holdren, attributes the current US “extreme” cold weather to climate change triggered by “polar vortex“. This was the same explanation that was used to rationalise the then fashionable theory of global cooling in 1974 (yes, Holdren was also an exponent of that).
IPCC scientists are, however, downwardly revising the small print on warming forecasts, as Christopher Monckton shows. Even so, the IPCC computer-generated forecasts are for temperatures considerably higher than the actual climate record accurately measured since 1979 when satellite data became available.
New Jersey governor Chris Christie, until last week the Republican front-runner in the 2016 White House race, is the bellwether of US “moderate” Republican thinking. Having previously championed global warming action, he now calls it “an esoteric theory“.
Taxpayers the unwitting promoters of the warming theory
Unsurprisingly, it has been revealed that in the UK the BBC spent thousands of pounds in promoting climate change orthodoxy to its staff by eco-warriors such as Greenpeace.
Australia is accustomed to such spending by our own ABC, where fawning treatment of warmists like David Karoly contrasts with hectoring of skeptics like Ian Plimer. The ABC also financed the expletive-laden Hungry Beast rap video in which people claiming to be climate scientists denigrated skeptics.
Global warming in one country
Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN), like the BoM data, is based on ground level stations and has a similar temperature picture. But other data sets indicate the BoM may be hyping it up
The Remote Sensing Systems data compiled at the University of Alabama at Huntsville (UAH) uses satellites and finds that 2005, 1998 and 1980 were hotter years in Australia than 2013.
Moreover, if it was hotter in Australia in 2013 than other years, what are we to make of the fact that the BoM data indicates 2011 was apparently cooler than the average?
And, lest we forget, warming is supposed to be GLOBAL: Australian ups are balanced by downs elsewhere. The global picture according to the UAH’s series, which is based on amalgamated data from 14 different satellites, is as follows:
Average global temperatures in 2013 were around 0.2 degrees celsius above the long-term trend and close to the post 1995 average.
Awesome Mawson: Chris Turney’s incredible adventure
A goal of the Australian Antarctic expedition led by Chris Turney, Professor of Climate Change at the University of New South Wales, was to measure the rate at which the Antarctic ice is melting. This data on the extent of sea ice is readily available and shows ice accumulating rather than melting.
The expedition’s ship needed to call upon assistance from four ice-breakers to free itself and to rescue its passengers. Professor Turney is a carbon reduction entrepreneur and a major shareholder in a company, Carbonscape, commercialising carbon capture. He claims that the expedition was not a “jolly tourist jape” but represented serious science. Others, like in this piece, have derided the expedition as the “ship of fools”.
Feeding renewable energy
US wind power receives federal tax breaks that provide half their revenue. The estimated cost of the EU’s renewable subsidies is $530 billion but it is considering making any renewable targets that are set, optional. Spain, the poster child of excessive renewable spending, last year rescinded wind and solar subsidies that had been “guaranteed” for 25 years. It is now placing a charge on the electricity generated by these engines of waste. A 2009 Senate Committee report classed as “extreme” the IPA view that there was a link between these policies and Spain’s general economic travails.
Australian wind and solar facilities get a subsidy greater than the wholesale electricity price. This is “guaranteed” for 15 years. Now however, Australia’s cabinet is reported (perhaps inaccurately) to be split 18-2 against retaining the Renewable Energy Target.