Climate News – March Edition

Donate to support the IPA’s new book,Climate Change: The Facts 2014,featuring Andrew Bolt, James Delingpole, Mark Steyn and many more

NEW-cover-the-facts

Australia’s carbon tax is to be repealed and costly measures like the renewable energy target are being reviewed. The IPA and its members were vital to this happening. To help maintain the momentum, we are to publish a new book of research, Climate Change: The Facts 2014 featuring Ian Plimer, Andrew Bolt, Bob Carter, James Delingpole, Donna Laframboise, Nigel Lawson, Richard Lindzen, Joanne Nova, Patrick Michaels, Mark Steyn and others. I will be editing it. Support this book by making a tax-deductible donation. Donate $400 or more for the opportunity to be prominently acknowledged as a supporter on the back cover of the book.

How go the climate models?

First they denied the “pause” in global temperature increases; then they said it was aerosols; then they said it was hiding in the oceans; then they said it was blowin’ in the wind; then they said it was cat fur (just joking). Now they say it is volcanoes. Problem is none of these were factored into the models that have projected the warming we are supposed to be seeing.

Ideologically committed promoters of climate models who have used the models’ forecasts to recommend actions, which have proven harmful are being pilloried. The UK Met Office’s Chief Scientist, Dame Julia Slingo is copping flack for her projections, contrary to this year’s experience, that climate change induced Arctic melting will cause cold, dry weather in the UK. The Met Office issued a press release “reaffirming” its contention that global warming will bring wetter weather.

And Australia’s Tim Flannery, having warned climate change would mean drought when this was being experienced, now that wet weather is prevalent claims – yes you got it – the cause is global warming.

Countering the chicanery of greenhouse claims

In this clip Charles Krauthammer totally demolishes the Obama line on global warming as “settled science” compounded by his claim that drought in California is an outcome of global warming which, if it is occurring, should bring increased precipitation. Unfortunately actions follow from climate change falsehoods and myriad types of equipment must abide by cost-enhancing, energy saving regulations based on greenhouse gas reductions being worth $36 per tonne. But even if there were a human generated warming effect, this $36 value is a fantasy conjured up without supporting evidence.

In American Thinker Fred Singer demonstrates how a cabal of true believers manipulate the content of learned scientific journals to prevent research being reported when it is contrary to the global warming scam. An earlier article in the same publication based on the leaked “Climategate” emails showed how the establishment sought to prevent publications of findings that showed actual temperatures were at variance with the increases projected by the climate models and unethically undermine those that were published.

John Kerry’s labeling of climate change sceptics as flat earthers brought this response from Richard McNider and John Christy in the WSJ. They point out the now generally acknowledged growing gap between the climate models’ projections of warming and the reality.

Michael Mann is suing both Mark Steyn and climatologist Tim Ball for labeling him as unethical, if not dishonest, in the light of Climategate revelations which some see as attempting to “hide the decline” in temperatures, following the medieval warm period, which did not fit Mann’s preferred forecasts. John Hinderaker calls Mann’s “hockey stick” depicting temperatures stability until the 19th century, “one of the most notorious errors, or frauds, in the history of science”. These cases are on-going. However, facing his own defamation threat, Mann has apologised, sort of, to Andrew Bolt for calling him a liar on climate change.

Another public opinion survey

Essential found twice as many Australians think the renewables target at 20 per cent of energy is too low compared to those that think it is too high. The survey did not ask them what they thought the cost was or how much, if anything, they’d be prepared to pay for the renewable energy!

Cost impositions: businesses vote with their feet

Australian readers will be familiar with the closures of Ford, GM, Toyota, Alcoa and others in part at least because of the costs of carbon taxes and renewable obligations. These have taken Australian electricity costs from among the world’s lowest to among its highest.

Similar departures are happening in Germany. BASF ($) is to focus investments outside Europe because, as CEO Kurt Bock says, “In Europe we have the most expensive energy and we are not prepared to exploit the energy resources we have, such as shale gas.” The major user industries have pointed out that excessive costs are killing them and politely call for regulatory and tax relief. But Benny Peiser reports that the penny has dropped among Germany’s economic advisers with Angela Merkel’s Expert Commission on Research and Innovation recommending complete abolition of Germany’s Renewable Energy Sources Act.

Australia’s ALP/Green appointed Climate Change Authority takes a contrary view. Last week this money wasting institution, in a recommendation that won’t be treated seriously, called for the government to up the 2020 planned 5 per cent reduction in emissions to 19 per cent. Such a muddle-headed bunch would fit well within the UK Cameron government which reaffirmed its green credentials and determination to harm the fragile British economy.

Email This Page
Comments are closed.