Global Warming / Climate Change scam

[Brocke]

Cool 2008 warms climate debate

John Stapleton | January 01, 2009
Article from:  The Australian

WHILE the official figures are not yet in, 2008 is widely tipped to be declared the coolest year of the century.

Whether this is a serious blow to global warming alarmists depends entirely on who you talk to.

Anyone looking for a knockout blow in the global warming debate in 2008 were sorely disappointed.

The weather refused to co-operate, offering mixed messages from record cold temperatures across North America to heatwaves across Europe and the Middle East earlier in the year.

Even in Australia yesterday there were flurries of snow on the highest peaks of a shivering Tasmania, while the north of the country sweltered in above-average temperatures.

A cool 2008 may not fit in with doomsday scenarios of some of the more extreme alarmists. But nor, meteorologists point out, does it prove the contrary, that global warming is a myth.

In Australia this year, on the most recent figures, the average temperature was 22.18C.

Last year it was 22.48C. In 2006 it was 22.28C, and in 2005 22.99C.

Senior meteorologist with the National Meteorological Centre Rod Dickson said that based on data from January to November, 2008 might be the coolest this century but it was still Australia's 15th warmest year in the past 100 years.

"Since 1990, the Australian annual mean temperature has been warmer than the 1961-1990 average for all but two years, 2008 being one of those years," he said.

In Australia overall, 2008 on the most recent date, was 0.37C higher than for the 30-year average to 1990 of 21.81C.

Worldwide, 2008 was expected to be about 0.31C higher than the 30-year average to 1990, of 14C.

One of Australia's best-known sceptics of man-made global warming, former head of the National Climate Centre William Kininmonth, said the cool year did not fit in with the greenhouse gas theory that suggests the globe should be continuing to warm.

"All the reports from the northern hemisphere of record snows and freezing temperatures would suggest that 2008 will follow the predictions and officially be declared the coolest of the century," he said. "But the only thing we can really deduce is that the warming trend from the mid-1970s to the late 1990s appears to have halted."

Another well-known sceptic, geologist Bob Carter, said critics were jumping on the cold northern hemisphere winter to dismiss global warming, but climate was a long-term phenomenon and there was nothing particularly unusual about present circumstances.

But Don White, of consultancy firm Weatherwatch, said while last year was likely to end up the coolest year this century, this needed to be put into perspective.

"If the same temperatures had occurred in the early 1990s it would have been the warmest ever," he said.

"The year 2008 may have been colder than the previous seven years, but it was still warmer than most years prior to 1993."

Mr White said Melbourne, Hobart and Adelaide had well below average rainfall for the calendar year 2008, with just 449mm in Melbourne, compared with an average annual rainfall of 652mm.

Hobart received 407mm in 2008 compared with an average of 618mm. Sydney was also slightly below average at 1083 mm, compared with an average of 1213mm.

Brisbane, Perth and Darwin were all wetter than normal.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24861265-601,00.html

[mr anderson]

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24861265-601,00.html

John Stapleton | January 01, 2009
The Australian

WHILE the official figures are not yet in, 2008 is widely tipped to be declared the coolest year of the century.

Whether this is a serious blow to global warming alarmists depends entirely on who you talk to.

Anyone looking for a knockout blow in the global warming debate in 2008 were sorely disappointed.

The weather refused to co-operate, offering mixed messages from record cold temperatures across North America to heatwaves across Europe and the Middle East earlier in the year.

Even in Australia yesterday there were flurries of snow on the highest peaks of a shivering Tasmania, while the north of the country sweltered in above-average temperatures.

A cool 2008 may not fit in with doomsday scenarios of some of the more extreme alarmists. But nor, meteorologists point out, does it prove the contrary, that global warming is a myth.

In Australia this year, on the most recent figures, the average temperature was 22.18C.

Last year it was 22.48C. In 2006 it was 22.28C, and in 2005 22.99C.

Senior meteorologist with the National Meteorological Centre Rod Dickson said that based on data from January to November, 2008 might be the coolest this century but it was still Australia's 15th warmest year in the past 100 years.

"Since 1990, the Australian annual mean temperature has been warmer than the 1961-1990 average for all but two years, 2008 being one of those years," he said.

In Australia overall, 2008 on the most recent date, was 0.37C higher than for the 30-year average to 1990 of 21.81C.

Worldwide, 2008 was expected to be about 0.31C higher than the 30-year average to 1990, of 14C.

One of Australia's best-known sceptics of man-made global warming, former head of the National Climate Centre William Kininmonth, said the cool year did not fit in with the greenhouse gas theory that suggests the globe should be continuing to warm.

"All the reports from the northern hemisphere of record snows and freezing temperatures would suggest that 2008 will follow the predictions and officially be declared the coolest of the century," he said. "But the only thing we can really deduce is that the warming trend from the mid-1970s to the late 1990s appears to have halted."

Another well-known sceptic, geologist Bob Carter, said critics were jumping on the cold northern hemisphere winter to dismiss global warming, but climate was a long-term phenomenon and there was nothing particularly unusual about present circumstances.

But Don White, of consultancy firm Weatherwatch, said while last year was likely to end up the coolest year this century, this needed to be put into perspective.

"If the same temperatures had occurred in the early 1990s it would have been the warmest ever," he said.

"The year 2008 may have been colder than the previous seven years, but it was still warmer than most years prior to 1993."

Mr White said Melbourne, Hobart and Adelaide had well below average rainfall for the calendar year 2008, with just 449mm in Melbourne, compared with an average annual rainfall of 652mm.

Hobart received 407mm in 2008 compared with an average of 618mm. Sydney was also slightly below average at 1083 mm, compared with an average of 1213mm.

Brisbane, Perth and Darwin were all wetter than normal.

[Brocke]

Cold showers atone for my green sins

By Sue Dunlevy
The Daily Telegraph
January 02, 2009 03:22am

ENVIRONMENTAL puritanism almost killed Christmas in my suburb this year when green crusaders objected to neighbours who wanted to put up a Christmas light display.

Adding a little joy to the Christmas season was declared immoral because those frivolous lights would contribute to global warming.

No longer is a crisp and shrivelled lawn a good enough badge of your family's environmental credentials.

To really prove your loyalty to the planet you've now got to stop having fun.

The same wowserism was behind complaints about this year's $5 million New Year's Eve fireworks display centred on Sydney Harbour.

You can't bring a little bit of joy to 1.5million people any more without being roundly criticised.

To prove they still cared for the planet, organisers of this year's display went to the trouble of using green power electricity. They'd even promised to audit the display and buy carbon credits to offset any damage the fireworks might do to the globe's rising temperature.

I think they're on to something here.

Environmental correctness has become so strong, like the strict morality of a tough religion, it's threatening our capacity to enjoy life.

But the climate police have a lot to learn from religion.

Even the church with its strict moral code makes allowances for the human proclivity towards sinful enjoyment of life. The Catholic Church turned this into an art form in the middle ages when it sold off indulgences - remittances for your sins. The church allowed the rich to pay off their sins while on earth, avoiding time in purgatory after death.

Instead of trying to ban Christmas lights and fireworks in case they warm the planet, why don't environmental crusaders let us indulge in our sins but pay for them in cold showers.

It should be possible to have fun and spread joy as long as you pay for the damage you do to the planet.

There's great market potential out there that has not yet been properly exploited by those who want to protect the planet.

If you want to commit a sin like watching your big screen television, turning your lights on after dark or running your air conditioner on a hot day, why can't you buy an indulgence that allows you to be a little bit naughty.

Saying the rosary for half an hour, paying to have a church built or doing a few good deeds obviously won't rate in the environmental sphere.

But what about a ready reckoner that showed you how many cold showers you'd need to take to make up for each hour of watching your big screen TV.

Perhaps if we used candles instead of lights for a month we could make up for running the airconditioner on a hot day.

Eating vegetables and shunning dairy foods and red meat for a couple of months might compensate for turning on the electric blanket to warm up the beds in winter.

The Catholic Church got very entrepreneurial about its indulgence system and, instead of requiring the sinner to perform the acts of penance themselves, accepted money.

Committed environmentalists could accept money to take your cold showers for you, or to plant forests to compensate for your big screen TV use.

Kevin Rudd wants to put a price on carbon and introduce some highly complicated emissions trading scheme with a compensation system that's just going to cause him political headaches.

He'd do much better if he took his cue from the church and tried to keep it simple - declare energy use a sin and give us a list of environmental good works we can adopt to atone for our wilful ways.

My family defied the environmentalists this year and we put up our modest display of three strings of lights and a couple of light-up reindeers.

I've calculated the environmental cost of our sins as equivalent to running 20 light bulbs for 42 hours.

That's minor in the Christmas lights sin stakes.

One Sydney family calculated their impressively joyous light display added $150 to their electricity bill, that's 1 1/2 times the annual lighting bill of your average house.

But to those who object to our sinful ways I say stop your tut-tutting and tell me instead how you want me to atone for my transgressions.

I'm going camping next week and I want to know if a week's worth of meals cooked on a campfire eaten by torchlight and cold showers shared with spiders and frogs will help pay off my debt to the planet. The big screen TV, the airconditioner and the computer will be shut down for a week while I go native.

Will I still be facing an eternity in environmental purgatory when I return or will I have paid off my sins?

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,24863331-5007146,00.html

[Brocke]

2008 was 14th warmest year on record, says climate statement

By Sarah Wotherspoon

Herald Sun
January 05, 2009 05:06pm

    * 2008 warmer across most of country
    * Capital cities missed out on rain
    * In-depth: The environment

AUSTRALIA recorded its 14th warmest year on record in 2008, with low rainfall across the southeast failing to break a 12-year drought.

The average temperature across Australia was 0.41C above the long-term average, with a warm year recorded across most of the country except for Queensland, northeast New South Wales and the Kimberley region in Western Australia, the Herald Sun reports.

The hot weather also saw a record-breaking heatwave across western Victoria and South Australia during the first two weeks of March.

The annual climate statement, produced by the weather bureau's National Climate Centre (NCC), shows the average temperature for 2008 was slightly lower than the past six years, but failed to stop Australia from recording its seventh consecutive warmer than average year.

The slightly cooler temperatures were the result of a La Nina system that also brought above average rainfall to the Top End, eastern Queensland, northeast NSW and parts of Western Australia.

But the report said most of the southeast missed out stating: "low rainfall over the southern Murray Darling Basin during 2008 further exacerbated the long dry spell in this region".

NCC head of climate analysis David Jones said most of Australia's capital cities had recorded below average rainfall.

He said the results were clear evidence of climate change.

"It's a trend that's really dominated for a good decade now or longer and it's hard to see that changing," he said.

"We are looking at 12 years of continuously below average rainfall (in the southeast), something has clearly happened."

Dr Jones said despite a cool and wet end to the year, Victoria was mostly hot and dry in 2008.

The hottest day in 2008 in Victoria was 44.1C at Longerenong on January 1, with Mildura recording the warmest days on average of 24.2C.

The state's coldest day was August 10 when the mercury dropped to -5C at Mt Hotham. On average the coolest days were at Mt Baw Baw and Mt Buller at 9C.

Dr Jones said perceptions about the weather had changed in the past years, which led people to think 2008 was not as hot and dry as previous years and that winter in 2008 was a cold one.

"June was exceptionally warm in Victoria in 2008, July was right on the average and August was a little bit cooler," he said.

"People very quickly forget how cold and wet Victoria used to be in winter."

Victoria's alpine area was the wettest part of the state this year, with Falls Creek recording the highest rainfall of 1766.2mm.

But despite that most of the state remained parched and failed to record even average rainfall with Dr Jones predicting Victoria could expect much of the same in 2009.

He said Melbourne had not experienced above average rainfall since 1996.

"Victoria has had a drop of 20 per cent in rainfall in the past decade," he said.

"It would be a brave person to say that's all going to change in 2009 given the current conditions."

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,24875273-421,00.html

[Brocke]

Millions to get weather pay-outs

Millions of pensioners and vulnerable people around the UK have become eligible for cold weather payments. The £25-a-week assistance is triggered when an area's average temperature falls or is forecast to fall to 0C or below for seven consecutive days.

Forecasts for the London area mean 600,000 people are eligible for fuel help for the first time in a decade. As the Arctic snap continues to bite, the freeze has restricted water supplies in Rhondda Fach, South Wales.

Welsh Water apologised, saying the freezing conditions had "severely restricted" supplies feeding a local treatment works. There would be occasional loss of supply or discoloured water, but it was safe to drink, they said. Tankers were bringing water in to the area, bowsers would be put in "key locations" and bottled water distributed to customers with special needs and mothers with young babies, added the firm.

Pensioner warning

Forecasters say temperatures will stay below zero in many parts of the UK. Lows of -8C (17.6F) have been forecast for much of southern England and Wales, with temperatures dropping to -10C in rural Hampshire and Surrey overnight. The mercury dropped to -11C in Aboyne, Aberdeenshire, and in Shap, Cumbria, on Monday night.

The £15m for Londoners means weather payments have topped £100m this winter. Charities have warned that the elderly and sick urgently need financial help with heating bills to prevent avoidable deaths. Britain's biggest pensioner group - the National Pensioners Convention - said 12 pensioners could die every hour during the cold snap.

'Extra help'

On Tuesday, the Department for Work and Pensions said cold weather payments had now been triggered at 52 weather stations around the UK since the start of this winter. With freezing conditions sweeping across the UK, payments are being made from Aviemore in Scotland to Bedford in southern England.

The payment, which goes to people in receipt of certain benefits - mainly pensioners, severely disabled people and families with a young or severely disabled child - rose this year from £8.50 to £25-a-week for each spell of cold weather. It is paid automatically to those who qualify, including the estimated 2.7m households in receipt of pension credit.

Work and Pensions Secretary James Purnell said: "We don't want people to worry about turning up their heating when it's cold. "That is why we've trebled the cold weather payment to £25, to put money in the pockets of the people who need it most. "Millions of vulnerable people and pensioners are now in line for this extra help after the recent cold snap."

Winter deaths

The increased cold weather payments are one part of a package of measures announced by the government this winter. This year's Christmas bonus for pensioners and disabled people, which will be paid between January and March, has increased from £10 to £70. And an extra £575m has been spent on winter fuel payments, with £250 for those in households with someone aged 60 or over, and £400 for those with someone aged 80 plus.

Meanwhile, Help the Aged has warned that the death rate rises by 1% to 2% for every temperature drop of 1C. Older people and those weakened by illness are particularly susceptible to cold-related illness and death. The Office for National Statistics said that from December 2007 to March 2008 there were an extra 25,300 deaths in England and Wales compared with the average for non-winter months - a 7% increase on the previous year's figure. However, the figure was still some way short of the increase in deaths seen in the winters of the late 1990s when totals hit nearly 50,000 as flu swept Britain.

'Suffer needlessly'

The National Pensioners Convention has called on the government to double the winter fuel allowance. NPC general secretary Joe Harris said: "Up to three million pensioner households are currently spending more than 10% of their income on fuel bills and are living in fuel poverty. "Energy efficiency schemes won't help them pay their bills this month and neither will they prevent tens of thousands of pensioners dying from the cold this winter." Macmillan Cancer Support is also calling on the government to extend the payments to those with cancer. Chief executive Ciaran Devane said: "Cancer patients of all ages continue to suffer needlessly because of this dreadfully cold weather. "They tell us they feel the cold more because of treatment and have to spend more time at home. And throughout this, their fuel bills soar whilst their household income has dropped."

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/uk_news/7813987.stm

Published: 2009/01/06 20:47:32 GMT

[Brocke]

Google searches costly for the planet

January 11, 2009
Article from:  Times Online

PERFORMING two Google searches from a desktop computer can generate about the same amount of carbon dioxide as boiling a kettle for a cup of tea, according to new research.

While millions of people tap into Google without a thought for the environment, a typical search generates about 7g of CO2. Boiling a kettle generates about 15g. "Google operates huge data centres around the world that consume a great deal of power," said Alex Wissner-Gross, a Harvard University physicist whose research on the environmental impact of computing is due out soon.

 "A Google search has a definite environmental impact." Google is secretive about its energy consumption and carbon footprint. It also refuses to divulge the locations of its dozens of data centres.

 However, with more than 200m internet searches estimated globally every day, the level of electricity consumption and greenhouse gas emissions caused by computers and the internet is provoking concern. A recent report by Gartner, the industry analysts, said the global IT industry generated as much greenhouse gas as the world's airlines - about 2 per cent of global CO2 emissions. "Data centres are among the most energy-intensive facilities imaginable," said Evan Mills, a scientist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California.

Banks of servers storing billions of web pages require power both to run and cool them.

Though Google says it is in the forefront of green computing, its search engine generates high levels of CO2 because of the way it operates.

When you type in a Google search for, say, "energy saving tips", your request doesn't go to just one server. It goes to several competing against each other. It may even be sent to servers thousands of miles apart.

Google's infrastructure sends you data from whichever produces the answer fastest. The system minimises delays but raises energy consumption.

 Google has servers in the US, Europe, Japan and China. Wissner-Gross has submitted his research for publication by the US Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers and has also set up a website www.CO2stats.com.

"Google are very efficient but their primary concern is to make searches fast and that means they have a lot of extra capacity that burns energy," he said. Google said: "We are among the most efficient of all internet search providers."

Wissner-Gross has also calculated the CO2 emissions caused by individual use of the internet. His research indicates that viewing a simple website page generates about 0.02g of CO2 per second. This rises about tenfold to about 0.2g of CO2 a second when viewing a website with complex images, animations or videos.

A separate estimate from John Buckley, managing director of carbonfootprint.com, a British environmental consultancy, puts the CO2 emissions of a Google search at between 1g and 10g, depending on whether you have to start your PC or not. Simply running a PC generates between 40g and 80g of CO2 per hour, he says.

 Chris Goodall, author of Ten Technologies to Save the Planet, estimates the carbon emissions of a Google search at 7g to 10g (assuming 15 minutes' computer use). Nicholas Carr, author of The Big Switch, Rewiring the World, has calculated that maintaining a character (known as an avatar) in the Second Life virtual reality game, requires 1,752 kilowatt hours of electricity per year.

That is almost as much used by the average Brazilian. "It's not an unreasonable comparison," said Liam Newcombe, an expert on data centres at the British Computer Society. "It tells us how much energy we in the West are using on entertainment versus the energy poverty in some countries."

 Though energy consumption by computers is growing - and the rate of growth is increasing - Newcombe argues that what matters most is the type of usage. If your internet use is in place of more energy-intensive activities, such as driving your car to the shops, that's good. But if it is adding activities and energy consumption that would not otherwise happen, that may pose problems.

Newcombe cites the examples of Second Life and Twitter, a rapidly growing website that has more than 3m users posting tens of millions of messages either by computer or mobile phone.

 Last week Stephen Fry, the television presenter, was posting frequent "tweets" from New Zealand, imparting such vital information as "Arrived in Queenstown. Hurrah. Full of bungy jumping and 'activewear' shops", and "Honestly. NZ weather makes UK look stable and clement".

Jonathan Ross was Twittering even more, with posts such as "Am going to muck out the pigs. It will be cold, but I'm not the type to go on about it" and "Am now back indoors and have put on fleecy tracksuit and two pairs of socks". Ross also made various "tweets" trying to ascertain whether Jeremy Clarkson was a Twitter user or not.

Yesterday the Top Gear presenter cleared up the matter, saying: "I am not a twit. And Jonathan Ross is." Such internet phenomena are not simply fun and hot air, Newcombe warns: the boom in such services has a carbon cost.

Google Australia told The Australian the company had been carbon-neutral for the past two years.

"We've committed to being carbon-neutral worldwide - that is, zero net emissions - from 2007 and beyond, by creating what we believe to be the most energy efficient data centres in the world, using renewable energy sources and investing in high quality carbon offset projects, " the statement said.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,24898157-2703,00.html

[wvoutlaw2002]

I knew it would be a matter of time before the Green Nazis claimed the internet causes global warming. Get ready for [probably per-hour] carbon taxes on internet access, carbon taxes on conventional desktop and laptop PCs, and carbon taxes on conventional software. They're trying to get their cloud computing agenda to go forward, so one of the next targets of the global warming scam will most likely be traditional software including software libre.

[Brocke]

Climate change may raise blood risk

AAP
August 19, 2008 12:52pm

CLIMATE change could threaten the safety of blood used for life-saving transfusions, Australian experts have warned.

A report by West Australian researchers has raised concern that rising temperatures will increase the prevalence of viruses, like dengue and Ross River, already circulating in the northern regions of the country.

The heat could potentially increase the range of organisms that can transmit the viruses and make them more infectious more quickly by accelerating life cycles, said Professor Robert Dunstan, a specialist in emerging infectious diseases at Curtin University in Perth.

"These condition are expected to lead to higher levels of virus activity and greater exposure of humans to the viruses,'' Prof Dunstan said.

He warned there was potential for blood transfusion to act as an "efficient vehicle'' for transmitting these viruses.

The review published in the latest Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health confirms Australia's blood supply is among the safest in the world for currently screened viral pathogens like HIV and hepatitis.

"However, Australia has a number of other viral pathogens with the potential to threaten the safety of the blood supply such as the Ross River, Barmah Forrest, Kunjin, Japanese Encephalitis, Murray Valley Encephalitis and dengue viruses,'' Prof Dunstan said.

He said dengue was currently of most concern to blood safety because it can cause fatalities and there were regular seasonal outbreaks in northern Australia.

Also, in contrast to other viruses, an overseas case of transfusion transmission has already been documented.

"The risk of emergence of transfusion-transmissible infectious diseases emphasises the need for countries to work together to help each other maintain their blood supplies during epidemics and pandemics,'' the researchers wrote in their report.

"This is particularly important should a major infectious disease pandemic occur in different countries at different times.''

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,,24206125-1702,00.html


Cold weather may raise blood pressure in elderly

Reuters
January 13, 2009 04:54am

COLD weather may raise old people's blood pressure and increase the risk that they will suffer stroke, heart attack or kidney failure, French researchers said.
Previous research has shown that blood pressure changes with the seasons, but few studies have looked specifically at old people, Annick Alperovitch of the National Institute of Health and Medical Research in Paris and colleagues said.

"Although our study does not demonstrate a causal link between blood pressure and external temperature, the observed relationship nevertheless has potentially important consequences for blood pressure management in the elderly," they wrote in the Archives of Internal Medicine.

High blood pressure, or hypertension, can lead to stroke, heart failure, heart attack and kidney failure. It affects more than a billion adults worldwide.

The French team looked at the relationship between blood pressure and temperature in more than 8800 men and women aged 65 or older. The volunteers were from three cities and had their blood pressure measured at regular intervals in 1999 and again two years later.

Both systolic and diastolic blood pressures differed across the four seasons and during varying outdoor temperatures. High blood pressure - defined as a systolic reading of 160 or higher or a diastolic reading above 95 - was detected in about a third of the volunteers during winter and a quarter in summer.

On average, each person's blood pressure fell between the initial and follow-up measurements, with the decrease strongly correlated with outdoor temperature, the researchers said.

Average systolic blood pressure was 5 millimeters of mercury higher in winter than in summer, they added.

"The higher the temperature at follow-up compared with baseline, the greater the decrease in blood pressure," the researchers wrote.

The researchers said they did not know the reason for this, but thought a hormone linked to stress that is released in cold weather might raise blood pressure by speeding the heart.

The findings suggest that doctors should consider closer monitoring of elderly patients on high blood pressure medicine when the temperature falls, they added.

"(The study) may explain well-established seasonal variations in illness and death from stroke, aneurysm ruptures and other vascular diseases," they wrote.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,24905217-23109,00.html

[mr anderson]

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24912490-12377,00.html

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=8xTxnKrXTO0 - ABC News

NATIONALS Senator Barnaby Joyce should take back comments on emissions trading comparing environmentalists with Nazis, says the Federal Government. But the Nationals say the Government is trying to beat up Senator Joyce's words that help shed light on the real economic costs of Labor's scheme.

Senator Joyce said today the scheme, due to begin in 2010, will drive up unemployment, homelessness and do nothing to counter climate change. The outspoken senator warned of the rise of "eco-totalitarianism'' and said he would not be "goosestepping'' along with environmentalists.

"Climate change denier, like Holocaust denier, this is the sort of emotive language that has become stitched up in this (emissions trading) issue,'' he told ABC Radio.

The Federal Government says Senator Joyce has crossed the line and want the comments to be retracted.

"I would hope that even (Opposition Leader) Malcolm Turnbull would say that comparisons with Nazi Germany ... are out of line and should be publicly refuted,'' Agriculture Minister Tony Burke said.

Nationals Leader Warren Truss hit back, accusing the Government of ramping up the comments by inserting the word Nazi.

Mr Burke is bringing an unwarranted level of "emotion and extremism'' into the debate, Mr Truss said.

"Mr Burke should be trying to fix the emissions trading scheme rather than be critical of those who ask legitimate questions about the way in which the scheme will operate,'' he said.

"It is unfortunate that those who question the majority view should be treated as though they were somehow related to people who were deniers of the Holocaust.''

Queensland's Opposition Leader Lawrence Springborg said the comments helped highlight the faults in Labor's scheme.

"Nobody should be surprised with Barnaby's colourful language and original language, you always get that from Barnaby and that's fine,'' he said.

"One thing he's actually addressed...is the cost of this to Australian families, who are already struggling in very uncertain economic times.''

Senator Joyce's comments have also fuelled speculation of a coalition split on emissions trading.

Malcolm Turnbull, who is yet to announce a position on emissions trading, played down the differences between the Coalition.

He said the Coalition would speak with "one voice'' on emissions trading.

"We're very committed to action on climate change that is economically responsible and environmentally effective,'' he said.

"We work as a very close coalition and I've no doubt that we will be responding to this legislation with one voice.''

The Government needs the support of the Coalition to pass its scheme through the Senate or it will have to rely on the Greens and independents.

[mr anderson]

Nationals stick by green Nazi jibe

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/national/nats-stick-by-green-nazi-jibe/2009/01/14/1231608777504.html

Queensland's opposition leader says he doesn't object to the views of Nationals Senator Barnaby Joyce, who drew parallels between environmentalists and Nazis.

Lawrence Springborg said Senator Joyce was only shedding light on the possible economic impacts of an emissions trading scheme, which the government plans to start in 2010 to reduce carbon pollution.

Senator Joyce said on Wednesday emissions trading would put Australians out of their homes, out of their jobs and would do nothing to counter climate change.

He warned of the rise of "eco-totalitarianism" and said he would not be "goosestepping" along with environmentalists.

"Climate change denier, like Holocaust denier, this is the sort of emotive language that has become stitched up in this (emissions trading) issue," Senator Joyce told ABC Radio.

Federal Agriculture Minister Tony Burke has called for Senator Joyce to retract the comparison.

But Mr Springborg told reporters he didn't take issue with Senator Joyce's language or view.

"Nobody should be surprised with Barnaby's colourful language and original language, you always get that from Barnaby and that's fine," he said.

"One thing he's actually addressed and which I think is right, is the cost of this to Australian families, who are already struggling in very uncertain economic times with a government that's frittered away the positive legacy of the greatest resources boom we've ever had."

Mr Springborg said the opposition last year asked the government for all of the documents relating to the cost of the scheme on Queensland.

Of the 218 documents identified, all but five letters written to Professor Ross Garnaut were withheld, he said.

"The Bligh government in Queensland know that pensioners and mum and dad Queenslanders are going to be absolutely impacted badly by the emissions trading scheme and they won't tell people," Mr Springborg said.

"All Barnaby's doing is asking for the truth to get out there."

AAP

[Brocke]

Move north to escape climate change

January 19, 2009
Article from:  Australian Associated Press

WORRIED about climate change? Move to Darwin.

New research shows the top half of Australia will be little affected by climate change, while from Brisbane south the effects will get stronger and stronger.

Dr Tim Barrows, from the Australian National University, has prepared a hit-list of the cities which will be most affected as the climate warms up.

Canberra tops the list because it doesn't have the ocean to moderate temperatures.

Next come Melbourne, Hobart, Adelaide and Perth.

Sydney and Brisbane will fare a little better, although their climates will still change significantly.

And the north will escape the worst of climate change, although it will get wetter.

Dr Burrows predicted people - and farmers - would move northwards as the climate changed in the south. But he cautioned against an immediate move to Darwin.

"It'll still be hot," he said.

Dr Burrows' findings are presented in an article in the journal Nature Geoscience, issued today.

As a palaeoclimatologist he studies how the climate has changed over tens of thousands of years. He bases his conclusions on how Australia's climate changed during the last ice age, which he measured by studying plankton fossils and sediment from the sea floor.

He found tropical areas like Australia's north were less affected by climate change because they had plenty of clouds, which acted as a buffer by keeping out the sun.

"The tropical areas tend to be remarkably insensitive to climate change."

Dr Burrows draws a distinction between naturally-occurring climate change and human-induced change.

Climates do change over time - there were glaciers and icebergs around Australia during the last ice age 10,000 years ago.

Temperatures rose by as much as ten degrees when the ice age ended, Dr Burrows said, and that was not caused by humans.

Recent debate has focussed on whether humans are now causing the world to warm by releasing lots of carbon dioxide.

Dr Burrows said this was not his area of expertise, but there was more research to be done on how much of the recent warming was caused by humans.

"I'm not a climate change denier but we need to be cautious about what does change our climate," he said.

Dr Burrows said the climate should be cooling as the world headed for another ice age in 20,000 years time. So if temperatures were rising, that was alarming.

"If we put enough CO2 in the atmosphere we'll prevent an ice age happening."

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24930470-12377,00.html

[Brocke]

Oh boy... 


Climate horror scenario for ACT

BY ROSSLYN BEEBYSCIENCE AND ENVIRONMENT REPORTER
19/01/2009 9:14:00 AM
Canberra will be one of the cities hardest hit by future climate change across Australia, becoming much hotter and drier than previously thought, new research says.

This scenario is based on a new study mapping global warming trends that occurred across the Earth at the end of the last ice age some 20,000 years ago.

Australian National University palaeoclimatologist Timothy Barrows said,

''The evidence suggests we can expect the changes here in Canberra to be greater than average as a result of global warming.

''We don't know exactly how much warmer it will get, but judging from past warming trends, Canberra will become significantly warmer and drier than previous projections have estimated.''

These ''greater than average'' temperature and rainfall changes would also affect the Snowy Mountains, the Murray-Darling Basin food bowl and four of Australia's biggest cities Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide and Perth. The trends also suggested Tasmania would become warmer.

The study's findings, published online today in the journal Nature Geoscience, are the result of several years of research involving scientists from 11 countries.

Using more than a million counts of fossil plankton from about 700 deep-sea sediment cores, the research team has reconstructed detailed climate maps of the Earth's surface during the height of the last ice age.

During the warming period that occurred at the end of the last ice age, temperatures rose by as much as 6 to 10 degrees across Australia.

''We expect the same pattern of change will be repeated for future global warming, with temperate latitudes changing the most and the tropics changing the least. It should be wetter in the tropics and drier in the south as climate belts shift,'' Dr Barrows said.

He contributed Australian climate data and maps to the project, spending the past 12 years working in his free time and largely at his own expense collating and interpreting data from the sediment core and fossils.

Dr Barrows' research showed the mid-latitudes of the southern hemisphere extending from south of Brisbane to ''just beyond Tasmania'' and across to Perth would bear the brunt of global warming while the tropical latitudes were likely to be less affected.

He said climate data showed Australia's tropical areas, north of Brisbane, changed very little, ''mostly less than 2 degrees'' during post-ice age warming.

''Recently, we've found that right at the end of the last ice age, temperatures were actually warmer than they are now in the south-west Pacific Ocean. We still don't know the reason for this. We can see where it changed plant and animal communities, but we can't explain all the changes that occurred as being caused by rising carbon dioxide levels,'' he said.

Dr Barrows said the study emphasised the importance of researching past climate change to understand how future patterns of global warming would play out.

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local/news/general/climate-horror-scenario-for-act/1410182.aspx?storypage=0

[mr anderson]

http://aca.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=720597

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=kVaaibQUHww - A current affair

January 19, 2009

We're constantly being told that compact fluorescent light blubs (CFL) are better for the environment than older incandescent globes, but what you may not know is that the bulbs may actually be a lot more dangerous for your health. Incandescent globes will be phased out in November 2009 because they burn on average 80 per cent more energy than the newer bulbs.

Critics claim the CFL light bulbs give off dangerous amounts of radiation and can cause skin disorders and medical conditions – a claim that is strongly denied by both industry and medical officials. "You would have to suffer from a skin condition such as Lupus and sit under a light bulb for an hour to develop any kind of adverse affect," Dr Stephen Schmack from the College of Dermatology said.

Another health concern that has some people worried is the concentration of mercury contained in the CFL light bulbs.

CFL's contain small amounts of mercury as vapour inside the glass tubing and average about 4.0 mg per bulb.

When the bulbs are broken or smashed open, a white vapour mist can come out and potentially cause dangerous levels of mercury in the surrounding environment. Crime writer Clinton Smith is convinced the UV radiation from the new 'green' globes helped contribute to his head cancer.

"The dangers are not only great, they're going to be unavoidable," Clinton told A Current Affair.

"I'm going to put an incandescent globe on my desk - I don't want to be irradiated all my working life."

Clinton is even going as far as not purchasing the CFL light bulbs and stockpiling the older incandescent bulbs.

"I'm going to have a lot of them and my shed will be filled," Clinton said.

"I'm very concerned about skin cancer with the CFL bulbs and I know that the incandescent globe won't give me it."

Although serious health problems resulting from one broken light bulb is rare, the federal government recommends that you wear gloves, protective clothing and sweep up the broken globes to prevent toxic dust from spreading through the home.

For more information please visit the Department of the Environment website

If you are worried about mercury poisoning, here's what to look for.

There can be a number of problems associated with mercury poisoning including cramping, weak breathing, headaches, swelling and redness of the skin. Common neurological symptoms in children include decreased eye contact, poor concentration and loss of speech.

If you start to experience any of these symptoms, visit your doctor or call the Poison Hotline at 13 11 26

[NinjaGaijin]

"sweep up the broken globe"

actually the process is a lot more complex. You can't sweep or vacuum as it will spread the mercury around in the air. Apparently there is some convoluted way, you use special absorbent stuff to suck up as much as possible, then a type of powder to try and pull more up, then leave all windows open and no one in the house (no pets either) while vacuuming, leaving open for 15 minutes, then the same process applies for each subsequent cleaning for years. Insurance won't cover if you break them on your carpet either, so if you want to have clean carpets you need to replace the whole thing essentially.

I too am stockpiling globes. In Victoria, Coles supermarkets seem to still stock a fair amount, while most of the Safeway's I have been to have switched entirely to the energy savers. The staff don't even know if there is a special hazardous material worksheet for them - I still have to speak to a manager.

I just get tired of trying to be righteous every time I go shopping. From aspartamine to GMOs to artificial flavours to mercury/radiation light globes to hormone filled meat to self service automated check out machines... it never ends.

I hear there are proposals to include fluoride in bottled water soon.

I think fluoride in water, mercury fillings, aspartamine and other dangerous substances in foods, GMO food and 'energy efficient' (ie eugenics bulbs) light globes are the main subjects you can most easily try to convince people that we are being totally lied to about.

Everywhere you go please state the importance of KEEPING THE EDISON LIGHT GLOBE LEGAL AND AVAILABLE.

Otherwise, back to candlelight??

Also please help me by flooding (pun intended) your local water supplier and ombudsmen with complaints about fluoride in our drinking water, along with as much referencing as you can handle.

I haven't received any replies from my inquiries - I will try once more by email, then by phone, then the ombudsmen. It will do nothing but I may as well try. I can then say to my member for parliament and everyone else that I at least tried and was scoffed at. Since receiving a mercury filling last year (without being informed that is what it was), I've had a serious wake up call.

Also, another crucial factor to inform everyone about is microwave, RF and LF radiation - with next generation wireless we are going to see a huge increase in medical problems associated with it.. and there will be no way other than silver coated shielding to protect yourself. Not economically viable.

"Question 4. What should I do if I break a CFL?

Although the mercury content of CFLs is small, and scientific investigations into the potential risks of mercury exposure from an accidentally broken CFL report that for the average person poisoning is very unlikely, lighting companies typically recommend that if a CFL breaks, people should:

   1. Open nearby windows and doors to ventilate the room.
   2. Use a brush to carefully sweep up the pieces and then use a paper towel, preferably moist, to wipe up any remaining glass fragments and phosphor powders.
   3. Use disposable rubber gloves.
   4. DO NOT use a vacuum cleaner because this can spread the contents of the bulb and contaminate the cleaner.
   5. Place all of the pieces of the light bulb and clean-up materials into a sealed plastic bag for disposal in your waste bin or in accordance with the advice of your local waste disposal authority."

I think the Americans have suggestions on a powder to use on the carpet also.

[Brocke]

Warming in Antarctica looks certain

By Kenneth Chang
Wednesday, January 21, 2009

Antarctica is warming.

That is the conclusion of scientists analyzing half a century of temperatures on the continent, and the findings may help resolve a climate enigma at the bottom of the planet.

While some regions of Antarctica, particularly the peninsula the stretches toward South America, have warmed rapidly in recent decades, weather stations including the one at the South Pole have recorded a cooling trend. That ran counter to the forecasts of computer climate models, and global warming skeptics have pointed to Antarctica in questioning the reliability of the models.

In the new study, scientists took into account satellite measurements to interpolate temperatures in the vast areas between the sparse weather stations.

"We now see warming is taking place on all seven of the earth's continents in accord with what models predict as a response to greenhouse gases," said Eric Steig, a professor of space sciences at the University of Washington in Seattle and the lead author of a paper appearing Thursday in the journal Nature.

"We're highly confident our calculation is very good," Steig said.

Because of the climate record is still short, more work needs to be done to determine how much of the warming results from natural climate swings and how much from the warming effects of carbon dioxide released by the burning of fossil fuels, Steig said.

He and another author, Drew Shindell of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, presented the findings at a news conference on Wednesday.

From 1957 through 2006, temperatures across Antarctica rose an average of 0.18 degrees Fahrenheit per decade, comparable to the warming that has been measured globally.

In West Antarctica, where the base of some large ice sheets lies below sea level, the warming was even more pronounced, at 0.3 degrees per Fahrenheit. In East Antarctica, where temperatures had been believed to be falling, the researchers found a slight warming over the 50-year period.

With the uncertainties, East Antarctica may have indeed been cooling, but the rise in temperatures in the west more than offset any cooling.

The average temperature for Antarctica is about minus 58 degrees.

"There is very convincing evidence in this work of warming over West Antarctica," said Andrew Monaghan, a scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, who was not involved with the research reported in Nature.

As with earlier studies, the scientists found that temperatures had cooled in East Antarctica since the late 1970s, a phenomenon that many atmospheric scientists attribute to emissions of chloroflurocarbons, a family of chemicals used as coolants that destroyed high-altitude ozone. Those chemicals have since been phased out, the ozone hole is expected to heal, and the cooling trend may reverse.

The region of East Antarctica, which includes the South Pole, is at much higher elevation and extends farther north than West Antarctica. The Transantarctic Mountains separate the two.

While the scientists said the ozone hole most likely had a significant influence on Antarctic temperatures, other factors, including sea ice and greenhouse gases, may play a larger role.

"Obviously the situation is complex, resulting from a combination of man-made factors and natural variability," said Michael Oppenheimer, a professor of geosciences at Princeton, who was not involved in the research. "But the idea of a long-term cooling is pretty clearly debunked."

Monaghan, who had not detected the rapid warming of West Antarctica in an earlier study, said the new study had "spurred me to take another look at ours — I've since gone back and included additional records."

That reanalysis, which used somewhat different techniques and assumptions, has not yet been published, but he presented his revised findings last month at a meeting of the American Geophysical Union.

"The results I get are very similar to his," Monaghan said.

Andrew C. Revkin contributed reporting

http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/01/21/healthscience/21climate.php

[mr anderson]

Climate Smart Home Service Advertisements

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1Jryx_64aY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_upmqm_ors

[TR4D3R]

Find Dvd's on Global Warming at www.dvd-truth.com Fight the NWO, and shut down the Federal Reserve.

Global Warming or Global Governance available for only .99 cents.

The Best Documentary about the global warming hoax... Dr. Michael Coffman is absolutely brilliant and the dvd as massive amount of information that is undeniable...

The part that shows the plants growing with 15.000 parts of CO2 per million in the atmosphere of a stove, is a slap in the face for those who defended the global warming. The stove produces far more than the double of the food production now than before they use high quantaties of CO2. The atmosphere in the world as 345 parts per million (+ or -), the plants love CO2 and in the regions that have scarcity of water, the CO2 can have a major impact because if we add more CO2 in the plants they will need less water or virtual no water at all and still will grow better, faster, stronger, giving us more juicer and tasty fruits or anything else.
The cork oak which is in almost every bottle of wine in this world as extraordinary characteristics (expansion, malleable etc..) and where the cork oak grows there is virtual no water except from the rain which is very little also (south Of Portugal) and the concentration of CO2 in the cork oak is imensive, by the way almost every good solid tree have a lot of CO2, if we stop this process the consequences are going to be massive, less oxigen for example:o
Just to finish every time we bread 0.4 is CO2....
     

[a ReVoLuTIONarY ideA]

http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/al_gore_global_warming/2008/05/19/97307.html

http://www.dailycommonsense.com/30000-scientists-against-al-gore-global-warming-a-scam/

[mr anderson]

Australian MP calls for a Carbon Tax

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlyLebmjmu8

http://digg.com/politics/Australian_MP_calls_for_a_Carbon_Tax

AM - Thursday, 19 February , 2009
Reporter: Alexandra Kirk



http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2008/s2495497.htm

TONY EASTLEY: Momentum is building for the Federal Government to rethink its emissions trading scheme.

The Greens leader Senator Bob Brown says the present plan is flawed, arguing it rewards big polluters.

A group of Australian economists agree but they want the Government to consider scrapping the scheme altogether. They say a carbon tax would be a better way of lowering emissions.

The Opposition isn't ruling out the idea. Its emissions trading spokesman Andrew Robb says a carbon tax would be simpler. He's speaking here with Alexandra Kirk.

ANDREW ROBB: What we do know is that the scheme designed by the Rudd Government after 18 months of endless inquiries and millions of dollars is a deeply flawed scheme. It will cost jobs it will kill investment and it won't do anything about CO2 reductions. So we need now, and I think the Government is already starting itself, to look at alternatives.

ALEXANDRA KIRK: Do you sense a significant shift in opinion towards a carbon tax?

ANDREW ROBB: I think it's being very much looked at. In the United States it's being considered as they start to look at the practicality or impracticality of an emissions trading scheme. Even the new Secretary of Energy is floating consideration of a carbon tax. It's being considered in Canada. It's being considered in many other places.

But the bottom line is that you know the Government has got too far ahead of the world with their scheme. It is deeply flawed. They have not been able to, you know, reach the expectations to match what they said would be achieved with CO2 reductions. Their scheme, if implemented, will really be an enormous impost on Australian business and it won't produce any reductions in CO2 of any consequence.

ALEXANDRA KIRK: But on face value the Coalition hasn't ever seriously canvassed a carbon tax. You always talked about a cap and trade system. Wouldn't you be philosophically opposed to such a tax as a blunt instrument?

ANDREW ROBB: What we have done with our review, we have asked a committee of inquiry to look at all options including a tax. And I think we need to be open minded.

TONY EASTLEY: The Opposition's emissions trading spokesman, Andrew Robb.

[PrisonPlanetForWho]

This is where you all lose credibility. Whether or not global warming is man made, humans are still destroying and polluting the planet. First of all, air pollution is a health hazard especially in cities, so I don’t see why you would be against less air pollution. Second, instead of being SO negative in your approach to combating the Globalists and their Evil Minions, why don’t you accept that whatever the cause of global warming, human beings are doing damage to the earth so you should be doing whatever you can to give something back to nature.

Now, I’m not saying that it means that paying some carbon tax is a good idea or a solution to any problems, but is that such a crippling thing that you should forget that the environment ACTUALLY IS a real issue you should be concerned about?

[mr anderson]

This is where you all lose credibility. Whether or not global warming is man made, humans are still destroying and polluting the planet. First of all, air pollution is a health hazard especially in cities, so I don’t see why you would be against less air pollution. Second, instead of being SO negative in your approach to combating the Globalists and their Evil Minions, why don’t you accept that whatever the cause of global warming, human beings are doing damage to the earth so you should be doing whatever you can to give something back to nature.

Now, I’m not saying that it means that paying some carbon tax is a good idea or a solution to any problems, but is that such a crippling thing that you should forget that the environment ACTUALLY IS a real issue you should be concerned about?

Assumptions, assumptions...

a) Air pollution is a concern
b) Human beings that are apart of Corporations are largely to blame for polluting the environment
c) There are real environmental issues we here at the forum are concerned about: Cross-species chimeras, weather modification, toxic waste, biological weapons.
d) "You should be doing whatever you can to give something back to nature." I'm sorry I don't recognise the Georgia Guidestones - "10. Be not a cancer on the earth - Leave room for nature - Leave room for nature." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Guidestones)

e) Human beings account for less than 4% of Co2 emissions even if Co2 is a pollutant, which it's not.
Volcanoes emit more Co2 and yet, 4 Billion years on the Earth is still standing.

f) Earth = 4 Billion year old climate
Humans = 200,000 or so years old / 150 years of industry.
Human beings affecting a 4 billion year old climate = Priceless.

g) There's a difference between Air Pollution and pollution in general to the Globalists exploiting the fears of death upon the populace unless we tax, regulate and control every facet of our lives.

Watch Global Warming or Global Governance - http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8147337841241405073

Torrent:
http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/3807470
http://www.mininova.org/tor/975893

Infowars Shop:
http://infowars-shop.stores.yahoo.net/glwaorglgo.html

[PrisonPlanetForWho]

The CO2 argument is bogus because humans (yes, that does include corporations) ARE polluting the atmosphere.

Global warming or not, you fail to see the bigger picture that there is a delicate balance to the environment we live in on this planet. You might not agree with the georgia guidestones (i suppose that you mean we SHOULD be a cancer on earth), but with the way humans are multiplying and extracting resources from the planet without regard for what they give back (that means not living in BALANCE with nature) then people will die on their own.

Also, don't think so negatively about giving back to nature because you read it on the georgia guidestones, whoever wrote them had a good point. That doesnt mean that there has to be such a tiny population on the planet but unless people start living in balance in nature then we're in trouble. If everyone installed solar panels and maybe a windmill or 2 on their house, and maybe planted a tree or 2, then they wouldnt be dependent on the government (on corporations, actually. but they have become the same thing) to provide them with energy, and we might be able to stop mining and and drilling and plant some trees instead. On top of that you wouldnt have to deal with a  carbon tax either.

[mr anderson]

The CO2 argument is bogus because humans (yes, that does include corporations) ARE polluting the atmosphere.

Global warming or not, you fail to see the bigger picture that there is a delicate balance to the environment we live in on this planet. You might not agree with the georgia guidestones (i suppose that you mean we SHOULD be a cancer on earth), but with the way humans are multiplying and extracting resources from the planet without regard for what they give back (that means not living in BALANCE with nature) then people will die on their own.

Also, don't think so negatively about giving back to nature because you read it on the georgia guidestones, whoever wrote them had a good point. That doesnt mean that there has to be such a tiny population on the planet but unless people start living in balance in nature then we're in trouble. If everyone installed solar panels and maybe a windmill or 2 on their house, and maybe planted a tree or 2, then they wouldnt be dependent on the government (on corporations, actually. but they have become the same thing) to provide them with energy, and we might be able to stop mining and and drilling and plant some trees instead. On top of that you wouldnt have to deal with a  carbon tax either.

Ugggh.

Stop putting words into my mouth, where did I say we should be a cancer?

Whoever wrote them wants the population to be culled to 500 Million if you bothered to research the Georgia Guidestones.

This planet can support so much more. And if the 3rd world countries were allowed to modernise birthrates would level out.

Time to stop Gaia worshipping and come to the conclusion that human beings are on this planet, not statistics.

Nature will always correct itself, it's been around for 4 Billion years so the whole idea that humans can dictate the environment of the Planet is ridiculous. We aren't perfect and there are some pitfalls in pollution but I'm not changing my ways..I believe recyclying and keeping my home clean is good enough.

If people want to be slaves and pay Carbon taxes, have Government dictate stricter building regulations and steal land in the name of the environment-Good for them.

[PrisonPlanetForWho]

Ugggh.

Stop putting words into my mouth, where did I say we should be a cancer?

Whoever wrote them wants the population to be culled to 500 Million if you bothered to research the Georgia Guidestones.

This planet can support so much more. And if the 3rd world countries were allowed to modernise birthrates would level out.

Time to stop Gaia worshipping and come to the conclusion that human beings are on this planet, not statistics.

Nature will always correct itself, it's been around for 4 Billion years so the whole idea that humans can dictate the environment of the Planet is ridiculous. We aren't perfect and there are some pitfalls in pollution but I'm not changing my ways..I believe recyclying and keeping my home clean is good enough.

If people want to be slaves and pay Carbon taxes, have Government dictate stricter building regulations and steal land in the name of the environment-Good for them.

No one's putting words in your mouth. You're the one who quoted the guidestones for some reason. If you bothered to read what I wrote you would have noticed I said that the population doesn't have to be so tiny.

If third world countries modernized, their birth rate would increase. The American population is skyrocketing right now. Maybe the earth can support a larger population but not without some changes in the way people take care of it.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by statistics, and it's pretty outrageous for you to say that I'm "Gaia worshiping." Once again, you lose a lot of credibility if you attack people who defend the biosphere everyone lives in. The point I was trying to make is that at the astounding rate that humans are multiplying and stripping the Earth of its resources the planet will no longer be able to support the human race, global warming or not. That's not ridiculous it's a simple fact.

Nature will certainly correct itself, but the question is how. No one's really telling you to change your ways very drastically, either. If you could do it wouldn't you want to become energy independent yourself by putting some solar panels or some other form of energy on your house? Not only would that mean that you're dependent on the government for one less thing, that would prevent someone else from mining coal for you, or drilling for oil for you.

Carbon taxes don't make you a slave. If the Government wants to raise taxes, they'll raise taxes, carbon or no carbon. First of all, this nation was built on stolen land. Second of all, ironically, the people who lived here before westerners lived in balance with nature, had a steady population, and rarely had to deal with famine and disease. There's a surplus of houses for the moment, so we'll see if the government "steals people's land" but i doubt it.

[Biggs]

IS THIS A PREDICTION OR MORE OF A THREAT TO THE PROFANE?


Breaking News

4:53pm UK, Thursday March 12, 2009
Prince Charles has warned that the current global financial crisis is "nothing" compared to the impact of climate change.

 CLICK HERE FOR LINL TO SKY NEWS

Prince Charles made the comments at a conference in Brazil


"We are, I fear, at a defining moment in the world's history," the Royal told a meeting of Brazilian business leaders ahead of a planned visit to the Amazon rainforest.

"The global recession is far worse than any seen for generations," he said.

But, worse, he continued, was that "the threat of catastrophic climate change calls into question humanity's continued survival on the planet."

He stressed: "Any difficulties which the world faces today will be as nothing compared to the full effects which global warming will have on the world-wide economy."

The speech was billed as a key presentation in the prince's commitment to environmental conservation.

It comes a day before Prince Charles and his wife Camilla are to head to Brazil's Amazon to see the human impact on the world's biggest rainforest.

[Size10]

[Biggs]

moved thread back to International News section as it will have a higher profile there

[Brocke]

Ah ha! IPCC bastards and their b*tches, the American GOES, are busted!


Sun watchmen detect ‘overlooked’ flare

10 April, 2009, 12:53

A joint Russian-Japanese sun mission has observed a flare, which may indicate the beginning of the long due activity cycle.

The flare was being monitored for over a day starting April 6, a report on the mission’s website says.

The event happened right at the border of the solar disc, in an ideal position for Russian Tetis and Japan’s Hinode satellites to monitor it.

Both observatories took numerous pictures of the flare detailing its development.

The resulting plasma outburst from the Sun reached Earth on April 7.

Strangely enough, the event was not registered by the American GOES system, which monitors solar activity, and is the main source of current information on it, the report points out.

Tetis-Hinode is a six-day mission that uses two observation satellites to simultaneously take pictures of the Sun, which will allow detailed imaging of corona areas, and analyse its special structure.

Over 50,000 photos are to be taken, giving scientists insight into the forming of the new solar activity cycle, which is now two years behind schedule.

http://www.russiatoday.com/Sci_Tech/2009-04-10/Sun_watchmen_detect__overlooked__flare.html

[Voskhod3]

I knew it would be a matter of time before the Green Nazis claimed the internet causes global warming.

You know it just occurred to me... maybe.. so as not to look like they are limiting free speech... they make the internet expensive to use by adding some kind of tax.

That could be what is going on here, the global warming attack on the internet usage is very strange.

[Farn]

The Fear was put on the left in childhood. Population going out of control, and all.  "By 2000, the sky could rain chickens.  And, by 2020, blah, blah."
Many of them have been made to feel that they are responsible for it.  While those that have made them feel this are the main despoilers. They that think "correct" science can be bought are learning otherwise.  People that do the serious science don't want to be ordered to accept bias.  They're not in it for the money; they really want to know.  Such as these are the cracks and fissures in the new world order (Kissinger?) plan for us.  Of course, there are always going to be plenty of unprincipled scientists willing, even igor, to do what ever makes the most money, and is the most "prohibited."

[Brocke]

Rich must keep promise to help poor adapt to climate change - commission

14 May 2009 18:13:00 GMT
Written by: Megan Rowling

The world will fail to reach a new deal to tackle global warming unless rich countries stick to a promise to help poorer nations adapt to the harmful effects of climate change, says the final report of an international commission backed by the United Nations.

"There can be no global agreement without adaptation assistance, and because of the nature of climate impacts, there will be much less global security without it," warns the Commission on Climate Change and Development, a body launched by the Swedish government in December 2007. The commission's 13 members include Nobel laureate Wangari Maathai and Gunilla Carlsson, Sweden's minister for international development.

The report notes that the commitment to assist the poor is enshrined in the main U.N. convention on climate change. "The world will be a worse place for all if we do not meet this treaty obligation," it says.

Around 190 nations will gather in Copenhagen in December to try to agree a broader global pact to fight climate change, building on the existing Kyoto Protocol. Slow progress in curbing carbon emissions and financing responses to global warming has contributed to a "trust gap" between industrialised and developing countries that has stalled common action, the report says.

The commission calls on donors to mobilise new money now for adaptation, in addition to development aid. But it says they should not set up more funds, because a proliferation of mechanisms is already causing management problems for developing countries.

The head of the U.N. climate change secretariat is pushing for a fairer international framework for controlling climate finance, and Mexico has proposed a world fund into which countries would pay according to their emissions and receive money in line with their needs.

But the commission says agreeing and implementing new mechanisms might delay essential action, and recommends a two-stage approach to raising money to help poor countries deal with more extreme weather and rising seas.

The report does not produce a new estimate of the costs of adapting to climate change, which the U.N. says will run into tens of billions of dollars by 2030. The commission says the price tag is still uncertain and will rise for decades or centuries, but is probably higher than current levels of official development assistance (ODA), which reached a record $119.8 billion in 2008.

In the short term, it urges donors to mobilise $1-2 billion to help vulnerable low-income nations, particularly in Africa, and poorer small island states.

The next stage would be for countries to agree on a flexible financing mechanism with democratic and efficient governance, and ensure that national and local governments and organisations can access the funding they need from different sources at a minimum cost.

The commission says donors should start by funding high-priority projects identified in the National Adaptation Programmes of Action drawn up by around 40 of the poorest countries, which have received little support so far. It also calls for a dramatic expansion of disaster response and preparedness systems, supported by an international financing mechanism triggered automatically by major events.

"This report should highlight to all United Nations member states that significant additional finances for adaptation must start flowing from richer to poorer nations," said Camilla Toulmin, director of the International Institute for Environment and Development, which advised the commission. "At the same time global greenhouse gas emissions must be drastically reduced to limit the ultimate costs of adaptation, which will be measured not in dollars but human lives."

LINKING GLOBAL AND LOCAL

The commission emphasises the importance of putting local communities - and among them the poorest, most vulnerable families - at the centre of adaptation efforts.

"The plan is to give a voice to the poorest of the poor, to see that there is capacity out there, and how to build that," Sweden's Carlsson told AlertNet at a recent event in London.

The report says international organisations and national governments have often found it hard to aid and cooperate with local authorities in cities, towns and villages. It calls for stronger links and partnerships, including the private sector, to allow major initiatives like carbon trading and technology transfer to reach the local level.

The commission also argues for greater recognition of the strategies and capacities already being used by individuals, families and communities to cope with fluctuating weather patterns and rising disasters.

"The struggle to react to climate change as a 'crisis' diminishes opportunities for local people to take ownership of their own climate change agenda and integrate it into their own development strategies," the report notes.

Carlsson argues that fighting poverty and tackling climate change should be addressed together, with the aim of building people's ability to manage risks and shocks. In richer countries, technical measures will be more important in adapting to climate change, but in most states, both approaches will be required.

The role of institutions is crucial because they distribute resources and services and are the channel for people to express their needs, the report says. But so far climate change adaptation has largely been the responsibility of the weaker institutional areas: environment, development and disaster risk reduction.

"We cannot continue to work in silos and with the gaps between institutions that so often prevent coordinated and coherent action," said Carlsson in a statement. "Climate change affects all sectors - we must consequently work across all of them."

The report includes examples of how individuals, communities and governments are experiencing and responding to the impacts of a changing climate in Mali, Cambodia and Bolivia.

Antonio Mamani is a small farmer living near Lake Titicaca to the west of the Bolivian capital La Paz, who has struggled to grow enough potatoes this year amid a drought. He wants government help to access faster-growing potato varieties, crop insurance, weather forecasting and protection from the malarial mosquitoes moving into his area for the first time.

Meanwhile, the government is trying to factor climate change into its development planning and tap into the knowledge of indigenous people like Mamani, as fast-melting glaciers threaten to inundate La Paz, and floods, droughts and forest fires eat into the nation's gross domestic product.

The pressing challenge for the international community, as highlighted by the commission's report, is how to help Mamani, his fellow farmers and the Bolivian government meet their needs fast enough to stop climate change causing serious damage to the economy, ecosystems and people's lives.

http://www.alertnet.org/db/an_art/20316/2009/04/14-181305-1.htm

[Voskhod3]

The world will fail to reach a new deal to tackle global warming unless rich countries stick to a promise to help poorer nations adapt to the harmful effects of climate change, says the final report of an international commission backed by the United Nations.

I'll translate.

The western world better get used to people in poor countries taking your job because they will do it for peanuts.

My company announced another 150 job cuts today in the western world, however they are not cutting jobs in Asia where they have been moving our jobs for the last few years.

This is Globalist bullshit that serves two ends, the first being more money for them and the second being another step towards the one world government.

I'm in a bad mood today.. some of my colleges are going to be losing their jobs.

I hate the people running the world, I hate them bad.

[mrfierce]

I'll translate.

The western world better get used to people in poor countries taking your job because they will do it for peanuts.

My company announced another 150 job cuts today in the western world, however they are not cutting jobs in Asia where they have been moving our jobs for the last few years.

This is Globalist bullshit that serves two ends, the first being more money for them and the second being another step towards the one world government.

I'm in a bad mood today.. some of my colleges are going to be losing their jobs.

I hate the people running the world, I hate them bad.

I can completely understand you - I also know lots of people who have lost their jobs recently and are desperate. Everything is a mess at the moment and I don't think politicians (who caused it in the first place) will be able to fix it again.

[mr anderson]

Emissions trading stand-off presses Labor election trigger

Phillip Coorey
May 27, 2009

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/emissions-trading-standoff-presses-labor-election-trigger-20090527-bmfy.html

THE Rudd Government's emissions trading scheme is headed for defeat as a result of a Senate stand-off, handing Labor a trigger for an early, double dissolution election.

The scheme is set to be voted down by the Senate next month, despite the Opposition Leader, Malcolm Turnbull, announcing yesterday the Coalition wanted to delay a vote until early next year - after the United Nations climate change conference in Copenhagen.

The Coalition would then demand that the scheme be radically remodelled along the lines of the scheme proposed by the United States President, Barack Obama, which is now before Congress and is far more generous to heavy polluters.

Mr Turnbull said that Labor's scheme should meanwhile be subject to another inquiry, this time by the Productivity Commission. But the Government flatly rejected the call and said it would put its scheme to a vote in June as scheduled.

A double dissolution can only take place if a bill is rejected twice by the Senate, three months apart.

If the bill is defeated or deferred next month, it will count as the first rejection. Labor could put the bill up again in October, and if it were again defeated or deferred, the Government would have a trigger for an election.

The Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, accused Mr Turnbull of a failure of leadership by constantly putting off a decision on whether to placate right-wing Liberals and the National Party .

"What we have here is a series of excuses to underpin the fact that the Leader of the Opposition has not had the courage to take on the climate change sceptics in his party," Mr Rudd said. The same attitude had cost Brendan Nelson the leadership of the Liberal Party, he said.

Mr Turnbull said Labor's scheme was flawed and would cost jobs. Given its start date had been delayed a year until 2011, there was no urgent need to pass the legislation before the Copenhagen conference in December, when other nations would state their intentions and the US model would be highly influential, he said.

"For the sake of six months let's get this right. Let's not sacrifice jobs on the altar of Kevin Rudd's vanity."

Labor's scheme aims to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 to between 5 and 25 per cent below their 2000 levels.

As compromises for delay, Mr Turnbull offered the Coalition's support for those targets to give the Government some bargaining power at Copenhagen. He also proposed a voluntary carbon trading scheme to start in January, in which companies and individuals could start trading permits. Any offsets could be banked against a future emissions trading scheme.

Mr Turnbull said the Coalition would vote against Labor's scheme in June if its push for a deferral was defeated.

That was the most likely scenario yesterday after the independent senator Nick Xenophon, whose vote is crucial, refused to back the Coalition's deferral.

Senator Xenophon also opposes the scheme but said he supported a delay only until August, when Parliament returns from the winter break. That was enough time for parties to negotiate changes, he said.

Senator Xenophon said he would vote down Labor's scheme in June if his deferral option was defeated. "I don't think we can justify a delay until after Copenhagen," he said. Nor did he support the Coalition push for Australia to adopt the US model because the two nations had different economies.

The Family First senator, Steve Fielding, backed the Coalition, but the Greens opposed a delay - they want to vote against the scheme as soon as possible because they believe it does not cut emissions hard enough. "[It] is dead in the water and it will not pass this year," a Greens senator, Christine Milne, said.

The prospect of an early election was discussed in the Coalition party room yesterday but it was decided to call the Government's bluff.

A report by the Productivity Commission has found spending on government programs tackling climate change will amount to $23.6 billion over the next five years.

[Brocke]

Climate report warns of more fire days
10:26 AEST Wed Jun 3 2009

The number of extreme fire days in Victoria will skyrocket by up to 230 per cent in the next 40 years, prompting calls for a catastrophic level of alert, a climate change report warns.

The Victorian government's green paper on climate change, launched on Wednesday, also warns of job losses and a hefty increase in the cost of living.

The report predicts average temperatures to rise by more than three per cent on 1990 levels by 2070.

There will be more days above 35 degrees and a possible 11 per cent decrease in rainfall.

Fire danger days will become more frequent and more severe.

Between 2000 and 2007, there was a 62 per cent increase in fire weather warnings.

The risk will rise by up to 50 per cent by 2050, while extreme fire days could rise 230 per cent in the same period.

"Such is the impact of climate change on fire risk that CSIRO models highlight the need to change the Fire Danger Index to include two new categories of risk, recognising very extreme and catastrophic fire conditions," the report says.

The report also warns of difficult times ahead, with the Latrobe Valley, in southeast Victoria, which derives about 10 per cent of jobs from the coal-fired power industry, particularly vulnerable.

However, the report says brown coal will continue to provide the majority of the state's power in the next 10 years and change will take several decades.

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=821168

[mr anderson]

Why I am a Climate Realist -  Dr Willem de Lange

http://www.nzcpr.com/guest147.htm

23 May 2009

In 1996 the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Second Assessment Report was released, and I was listed as one of approximately 3000 “scientists” who agreed that there was a discernable human influence on climate.

I was an invited reviewer for a chapter dealing with the economic impact of sea level rise on small island nations. In keeping with IPCC procedures, the chapter was written and reviewed in isolation from the rest of the report, and I had no input into the process after my review of the chapter draft. I was not asked if I supported the view expressed in my name, and my understanding at the time was that no evidence of a discernable human influence on global climate existed.

The chapter I reviewed dealt primarily with the economic consequences of an assumed sea level rise of 1 m causing extensive inundation. My response was that I could not comment on the economic analysis, however, I disagreed with the initial assumptions, particularly the assumed sea level rise in the stated time period. Further, there was good evidence at the time that sea level rise would not necessarily result in flooding of small island nations, because natural processes on coral atolls were likely to raise island levels.

The IPCC Second Assessment Report assessed sea level rise by AD 2100 as being in the range 0.20-0.86 m, with a most likely value of 0.49 m (less than half the rate assumed for the economic analysis). Subsequent research has demonstrated that coral atolls and associated islands are likely to increase in elevation as sea level rises. Hence, the assumptions were invalid, and I was convinced that IPCC projections were unrealistic and exaggerated the problem.

Following the release of IPCC Second Assessment Report I also co-authored the sea level rise section of the New Zealand impact report, and same section for a revised report following the release of IPCC Third Assessment Report (2001). The third report followed the trend of decreasing sea level rise projections evident in sea level rise literature, with a most likely projection of 0.44 m. However, some extreme scenarios were added at a late stage of the review process to give a wider range of projections from 0.09-0.88 m. There was little support in the literature for these extremes, and my view was that a range of 0.31-0.49 m was more reasonable. I also expected future projections to be lower.

For the New Zealand 2001 report, I was asked to state that sea level rise was accelerating, or at least could be accelerating. However, my own research and published literature shows that sea level fluctuates at decadal time scales. Therefore, although there was an increase in the rate of sea level rise around 1998, I expected sea level rise to slow and reverse early in the 21st Century. The underlying long-term trend, however, was likely to decrease, and there were some tide gauge data to indicate that it had started to do so. In the 1980s, the New Zealand rate was 1.8 mm per year. By 1990, it was 1.7 mm per year, and by 2001 it was 1.6 mm per year. These changes are small, and were not enough to prove that sea level rise was slowing. However, they clearly did not show that sea level rise was accelerating.

After 2001, published studies continued to project lower global sea level rises over the 21st Century, and several reported a slowing of the rate of rise during the 20th Century. Shortly before the IPCC Assessment Report 4 was published I undertook a literature review of all sea level studies, which: projected lower levels than the IPCC Third Assessment Report review; indicated a slowing of the rate of sea level rise; emphasised the role of decadal scale fluctuations; and there was concern about the discrepancy between satellite and tide gauge sea level measurements. It was recognised that, although satellite sensing gives a better overall measurement of global sea level, satellites reported twice the rate of sea level rise being measured at the coast. It was evident that satellite data could not be combined with tide gauge data.

The IPCC Assessment Report 4 report emphasises a single paper, which was not available when I conducted my review, which spliced the satellite data onto the tide gauge data to “find” acceleration in sea level rise over the period of satellite measurement. This is being used to imply that global sea level rise is accelerating due to global warming (now renamed Climate Change). The satellite data only covered the period of increasing sea level associated with decadal cycles, and the known discrepancy between satellite trends and tide gauge trends was not corrected for. This is poor science comparable to the splicing of proxy and instrument data in the infamous Hockey Stick graph, and the splicing of ice core and instrumental CO2 measurements to exaggerate the changes.

Despite therefore finding accelerating sea level rise, the latest IPCC assessment projects lower sea level rises than the previous ones. The methodology used to report the projections was changed to make comparisons harder, but the range of 0.18-0.59 m equates to a most likely rise of around 0.39 m. The IPCC Assessment Report 4 also included an extra 0.20 m allowance for uncertainties associated with destabilisation of the Greenland and West Antarctic Ice Caps. Various groups have speculated that the collapse of these Ice Caps could produce a much higher additional sea level rise. In contrast, published studies that have specifically studied this contribution have concluded that given the worst possible scenarios, the maximum extra contribution is 0.18 m. Hence, the IPCC Assessment Report 4 allowance is a very conservative upper bound.

What has sea level actually done so far this century? There have been large regional variations, but the global rate has slowed and is currently negative, consistent with measured ocean cooling. Claims to the contrary are exaggerations and not realistic.

So, given my understanding of oceanography, what do I believe about climate change? Firstly climate change is real, and has occurred on Earth for at least 4 billion years – as long as an atmosphere and oceans have existed. Climate change occurs in cycles at various time scales, with the shorter time scales known as weather (by convention the distinction is 35 years). Trying to stop or control climate change is akin to stopping ocean tides. Secondly, I believe human activities affect climate, otherwise why would I bother with a mortgage. The climate inside my house is different to the climate that would exist if my house were gone.

There are many ways human activities affect climate on a small scale. Interestingly the concentration of CO2 is not one of them (CO2 are often elevated inside buildings). As the size of the area considered increases, the impact of human activities decreases. As the latest IPCC report notes, there is no convincing evidence of the impact of CO2 (or any other human influence on climate) at a continental scale. Yet, they say that the impact of a CO2 (and other gases treated as effective CO2) is the dominant driver of climate at a global scale and will have catastrophic consequences. This conclusion I strongly disagree with. Why?

It is frequently pointed out that the Earth is approximately 32°C warmer than it would be without an atmosphere due to the Greenhouse Effect. This is misleading, as the climate system responsible for this extra warmth includes many components. Important ones omitted in most discussions are clouds and oceans. About 70 percent of the Earth’s surface is covered in water, which absorbs sunlight and warms up. The oceans retain heat better than land, and, while slow to warm up, they cool slowly and warm the surroundings (a maritime climate).

Considering the available data, it is clear that the oceans warmed over the 20th Century by about the same amount as the atmosphere. This agreement should not be entirely surprising as 70 percent of the mean global air temperature comes from over oceans. The inconvenient truth that is generally ignored, is that the atmosphere is not capable of warming the oceans to any significant degree – 99.9 percent of ocean heat is derived from sunlight at wavelengths less than 3 microns. The balance is mostly from heat leaking from the interior of the Earth. The Greenhouse Effect involves a delay in the loss of infra-red radiation at wavelengths greater than 5 microns.

What does this mean for climate change? It means that variations in the amount of sunlight reaching the oceans will control the rate at which the oceans warm. This is influenced at long time scales by changes in the Earth’s orbit. At short time scales there are changes in the amount of sunlight associated with the sunspot cycle. These changes are small, but due to the ability of the oceans to store heat it may be possible to have a cumulative effect as sunspot cycles wax and wane. However, the main control is the amount of cloud and ice cover. Clouds and sea ice reflect sunlight before it can be absorbed by the oceans, and is referred to as albedo. Albedo changes have a greater influence on climate than the Greenhouse Effect, and are usually invoked to produce the catastrophic consequences of “Climate Change” (aka Accelerated Global Warming).

Oceans lose heat through evaporation (53 percent), infra-red radiation (41 percent) and conduction (6 percent). The Greenhouse Effect can slow the loss of the infra-red radiation, thereby warming the atmosphere but not the oceans. However, evaporation accounts for more than half the heat loss. Evaporation produces clouds, and hence there is a feedback loop – warming the oceans results in more evaporation, producing more clouds, which increases albedo, which cools the oceans. This is exactly what was observed during The Tropical Ocean Global Atmosphere Coupled Ocean Atmosphere Response Experiment (TOGA COARE) that was set up to investigate the Pacific Warm Pool – the warmest ocean water in the western equatorial Pacific Ocean. COARE also found that rainfall would cool the ocean surface, so increased evaporation producing rain is another feedback loop.

What does this have to do with the 20th Century? Well the observed climate change is consistent with variations in albedo and associated ocean warming and cooling, suggesting that it is just a natural cycle. This pattern of behaviour is evident in palaeoclimate data for most of the last 10,000 years. None of this is simulated in climate models. Instead they focus on the 20th Century increase in CO2, CH4 and a few other greenhouse gases. The increasing concentrations correlate well with global temperature. This is taken as proof that the greenhouse effect is driving temperature.

However, it is also correct that changing ocean temperatures affect the concentration of these gases in the atmosphere. At annual and 2-7 year time scales it is clear that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is strongly driven by the ocean. At longer time scales it is also clear that the concentration of greenhouse gases lags behind, and therefore is driven by, temperature. Once again the oceans are the likely control on atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations. The IPCC position requires that for 50-100 year periods everything works in reverse, which still showing a n oceanic influence at shorter time periods. It is more likely that the warming of the oceans since the Little Ice Age is a major contributor to the observed increase in CO2. Carbon isotopic ratios indicate that while there is a contribution from the burning of fossil fuels, it is of the order 1-5 percent of the increase.

So, I am a climate realist because the available evidence indicates that climate change is predominantly, if not entirely, natural. It occurs mostly in response to variations in solar heating of the oceans, and the consequences this has for the rest of the Earth’s climate system. There is no evidence to support the hypothesis runaway catastrophic climate change due to human activities.

[mr anderson]

Lateline news story - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-OdgsReSKQ

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2008/s2588715.htm

Independent Senator Steve Fielding says he is concerned global warming may not be man-made, after attending a conference of climate change sceptics in the US.

Lateline interviews Senator Fielding- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eK_NR_fqnXY

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2008/s2588747.htm

Senator Steve Fielding joins Lateline to discuss his position on climate change.

TONY JONES, PRESENTER: Senator Steve Fielding joined us just a short time ago in our Washington studio.

Steven Fielding, thanks for joining us.

STEVE FIELDING, FAMILY FIRST SENATOR: Yeah, good evening, Tony.

TONY JONES: Are you more or less sceptical about global warming after going to that conference?

STEVE FIELDING: Look, I don't think it's matter of being sceptical or extremist on this issue; it's too important to play politics with. And what I've done, I've got a self-funded trip here, you know, myself to Washington, one of the biggest economies in the world, to really hear first hand both sides of the argument about global warming and what is the response that America are looking at taking and then also considering what Australia should do in that context. And I think it'd be derelict if I didn't inform myself. I'm an engineer, Tony, and I suppose that looking at both sides is pretty important, looking at the science and the facts and then analysing that and then making a decision.

TONY JONES: OK, who impressed you in the conference yesterday?

STEVE FIELDING: Well, look, yesterday I was seeing the scientists that were questioning the issue of what is driving global warming. Today, I'm meeting Obama's administration and also later on Senator Waxman's office and his team to hear the other side view. But yesterday, there was certainly a view that was questioning what was actually driving climate change and whether there was a direct link between CO2, or carbon emissions, and global warming. And they were putting forward some science and some evidence and some facts that were questioning whether CO2 is actually driving global warming.

TONY JONES: Well, they were saying that it isn't driving global warming. You just spent the whole day listening to people who claim that global warming is essentially a conspiracy; there's no need to do anything about carbon emissions. So I wonder has that influenced in any way your decision on how to vote for the emissions trading scheme when it comes into the Senate?'

STEVE FIELDING: Look, I'll be hearing from the White House today. Of course this trip is pretty critical in making sure that I'm fully informed and of the arguments for and against. And I'll be coming back to Australia to sit down with the - Senator Wong and the Rudd Government to share with them and to just to see what their thoughts are and what I've heard from here. Now, what they did say yesterday, the scientists - and, look, I'm not saying that they're right, but they've actually put a very big question about the link between carbon emissions and global warming. Now, what they put forward yesterday was that in fact over the last 10 years, carbon emissions have gone up, but and global - or the temperatures, global temperatures have not gone up. Now, that obviously ...

TONY JONES: Well, I mean, yes, that is their claim, that since 1998, when there was a peak in temperatures, it hasn't gone up. But you'd be aware of the other evidence on that, wouldn't you, I dare say? That Britain's Hadley Centre, ...

STEVE FIELDING: Yes.

TONY JONES: ... which is one of the most respected organisations involved in measuring global temperature has data for global mean temperatures that says 1998 was the hottest year on record; 2005 the second hottest year on record; the third hottest, 2003; the fourth, 2002; the fifth hottest, 2004 and the sixth hottest, 2006. They're saying they're the hottest temperatures ever measured since temperatures were first taken in 1880.

STEVE FIELDING: And so that puts a question on it. But, Tony, you know, you've got to actually look at the facts and figures, which you've put forward a case. I'll need to (inaudible) just to make sure that what I heard yesterday, what are the arguments against it. You've put them forward, but I need to check today with the Obama administration, and I may even check with the Bradley area as well and just to make sure because this is too big an issue to get wrong. And what's worst, if we make the wrong decision, what's worse than that is if we make the right decision too late. And so the issue is that if you look at the graphs, if you look at the temperatures over the last 10 years, yes, they've gone up and down, but they've actually, if you look at the average, it stayed reasonably level, and CO2 emission over that time have gone up drastically. So, the whole idea about that there's a direct link between CO2 ...

TONY JONES: Well, you can ask ...

STEVE FIELDING: ... as major driver of temperatures is a question that's been put to me, and I think I need to get to the bottom of it. And it really is important. I don't know what training that you've got, but as an engineer, I'm trained to actually look at both sides of equation and that's what I'm doing.

TONY JONES: So, how are you planning to make up your mind in that case? Because, obviously, you've now heard a whole range of sceptics, some of them scientists, some of them not. Now you're gonna meet scientists who have a very different view. How are you going weigh who's got this right?

STEVE FIELDING: Well, you've got to challenge both sides. And up until now, I, like most Australians, have just believed one side of the story totally. I've never - we've never really considered as Australia, there's been never a real debate about looking at the other side of it. And I think we've all just believed that it's definitely global warming is a real issue and global warming is driven by carbon emissions. Now, the questions - and these scientists are pretty reputable yesterday. For them to actually say so strongly and to just to discount it out of hand I think is foolish, Tony, and I don't think we've had the proper debate in Australia about this issue. And therefore, I think, you know, I need to actually be convinced myself. Now obviously, the Rudd Government are totally convinced. I need to bring back the information that I've got from yesterday, what I'll hear today, over the next couple of days, and sit down with Penny Wong and also the Rudd Government and just have them challenge it back and then I'll actually, then maybe even look at the UK and what they've done. And then make a final decision.

But, Tony, this is going to be the biggest issue facing Australia. It will cost jobs, there's no doubt about it. And, as I said, to get it wrong, the risks are so high either way. Either way you do this, you've got to make sure you get it right, and I think I owe to the Australian people and I'd be derelict in my duties not doing what I'm doing. And as I said, it's a self-funded trip...

TONY JONES: OK, so...

STEVE FIELDING: ... I'm not paid by anyone to do this. I actually believe it's important to. Because like most Australians, we've just believed one side of the debate and I haven't really spent enough time looking at the other side of the debate and that's what I'm doing.

TONY JONES: Alright, so are you gonna go into the White House and actually have a devil's advocate debate with the White House experts, with the scientists who are advising Barack Obama, putting to them what you've heard at this sceptical conference and arguing the toss with him? Is that the way you're gonna handle this?

STEVE FIELDING: I'll be doing two things. I wouldn't be so provocative and rude about it, Tony, but what I do want to do is to find out what they're actually doing, what they believe, what globally needs to be done - So their own, you know, Waxman sort of plan that they've currently got in place and what that's doing. And secondly, I will be actually, you know, not challenging them, but asking them to say, "What do you say about this sort of science? What do you say about the claims that are being made yesterday?" And I think just to sort of say, "Well, discount them as being sort of, you know, irrational and not logical and extreme," you know, I heard some stuff yesterday from, I think, pretty credible people that we need to actually challenge ourselves to make sure that we've got it right, Tony.

TONY JONES: Have you still got on open mind? When you go into the White House, will you have an open mind?
Could they convince you, you come out the other end of this process and decide that the sceptical scientists are wrong and the vast majority of other scientists are right?

STEVE FIELDING: Of course, Tony. I think that's the key to it, is you've got to have an open mind. And I think - I tend to think that, even around the world and certainly from Australia, I don't think we've paid enough attention to the other side of the debate. I don't think we've really sort of chewed on it, tussled over it, thought about it and made sure that it actually is the right way of actually going and there is this direct link. They have actually got models that show that the solar energy, in other words, the energy from the sun has a higher direct link with global temperatures than carbon emissions. And this is going back, not only over the last 10 years, but hundreds of years.

TONY JONES: Alright, I'm gonna interrupt you there because there is a very long debate to be had on that. We are nearly out of time. But it would be intriguing to see you have this debate with the experts who are advising Barack Obama. And it'd be very interesting to see what you think when you come out the other end of that process, so hopefully we'll get a chance to do that as well.

STEVE FIELDING: Look forward to it, Tony.

TONY JONES: OK, Steve Fielding, we thank you very much for taking the time to come and talk to us tonight.

STEVE FIELDING: Thank you.

[KiwiClare]

That was great. Thanks for posting that information. I know there are people in NZ that will appreciate that news.  He looked as if he was "woken up" at the conference. 

[Brocke]

Climate change poses threat to Mideast security, report warns
Research explores links between global warming, conflict

By W. G. Dunlop
Daily Star staff
Thursday, June 04, 2009

BEIRUT: Climate change poses potential threats to security that could lead to conflict in the Middle East, a report presented Tuesday at the American University of Beirut (AUB) by Oli Brown of the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) says. Brown co-wrote the report, which is entitled "Rising Temperatures, Rising Tensions: Climate Change and the Risk of Violent Conflict in the Middle East." Brown said the report's aim was to explore potential connections between climate change and conflict in the region and to generally raise awareness of the issue.

He added that IISD had conducted fieldwork on climate change and conflict in West Africa, and that the potential linkages between the two issues were comparatively "more serious" in the Middle East than in West Africa.

Past conflicts in the Middle East have led to the destruction of infrastructure, to money being spent on weapons that could have been spent elsewhere and has cut off some peoples' access to land and resources, Brown said. Conflict in the region has also fostered distrust and a "zero-sum" approach to resource negotiations, and has made regional cooperation on resource management projects difficult if not impossible, he added.

Brown also said the lack of a Palestinian state makes it difficult for Palestinians to engage at the international level on climate change and its effects.

He added that these legacies of conflict in the Middle East amplify the challenges posed by climate change in the region.

The report identified six main potential threats posed by climate change in the region, Brown said. It found that climate change could, potentially, lead to increased competition for scarce resources, decreased food production and decreased economic growth.

Climate change could also lead to an increase in rural-urban migration, increased strain on civil services and increased resentment of existing refugee populations. In addition, it could potentially result in the politicization and militarization of resources in the Middle East, and also increased resentment and mistrust of the West, if the West is perceived as not doing enough to address climate change.

Brown said that these threats potentially posed by climate change make conflict in the region more likely, but do not guarantee conflict. People in the region need to be aware of the increased potential for conflict and take steps to address the issue, he said.

The report offers general strategies for reducing the threats to security posed by climate change. It suggests that national governments and authorities in the region work for better agricultural development and disaster planning and for increased water and energy efficiency. It also recommends moving to renewable energy sources. The report also says that all of these aims could be better addressed via cooperation between countries on a regional level.

Brown said that working for increased energy efficiency and developing renewable energy sources has the most significance for Lebanon, as this would help alleviate the energy crisis in the country in addition to reducing Lebanon's greenhouse-gas emissions.

However, various members of the audience expressed skepticism that the governments of the region could or would implement the kind of strategies the report suggested.

Dr. Mutasem El Fadel of AUB's Faculty of Engineering, a panelist for the presentation, seemed to downplay the importance of focusing on climate change in the region.

After the presentation, Fadel told The Daily Star that population growth and various other factors that contribute to water scarcity have a greater impact on demand for water in the region than climate change. He added that the effects of climate change on the water supply could be offset by better water management.

Regarding potential causes of conflict in the region, Fadel said the issue of occupied land is the most important, as "with or without climate change," land occupation is still a problem.

He also added that "we in this part of the world don't cause climate change."

The IISD report was commissioned by the Danish Foreign Affairs Ministry to "have a closer look [at] how climate change would impact stability in the [Middle Eastern region]," said Danish Ambassador to Lebanon Jan Top Christensen, a panelist at the presentation. Farah Salka of IndyACT, an environmental activist group that, according to Brown, helped IISD set up consultations for the report, was also a panelist.

The presentation was hosted by AUB's Issam Fares Institute.

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=1&categ_id=1&article_id=102651

[Voskhod3]

Climate change ate my hamster
Research explores links between global warming and my hamster being eaten

Blah... lots of tenuous links to climate change and my hamster... blah

www.climatechangeatemyhamster.org