Global Warming

Meanwhile sea level rises won’t affect Pacific islands

After seeing what $100k of troughers coin gets you…a report into a possibility, maybe, sometime  in the future ,Wellington might, just maybe have a problem with rising sea levels, you might be surprised to find out that other academics think sea level rises are a but ‘meh’ especially for the Pacific.

Rising sea levels caused by global warming are unlikely to swamp the small atoll nations of the South Pacific, a University of Auckland academic claims.

Writing for the Australian science website Conservation, Professor Paul Kench said new evidence suggested that low-lying coral reef islands would be more resilient to sea-level rise than thought.

Sand and shingle islands lying one to three metres above the current sea level were considered among the most vulnerable places on Earth.

“The new findings suggest that, rather than being passive lumps of rock that will be swamped by rising seas and eroded by storms, the islands are dynamic structures that can move and even grow in response to changing seas,” he said.

Kench closely examined how reef islands formed over the past 5,000 years, including Jabat Island in the Marshall Islands. That island was created 5,000 years ago as sea level rose to 1.5 metres above its present level.    Read more »

NZ researcher earns a cool $100k on the global warming gravy train

Two years ago, give or take, the Open Polytechnic reported

resizedimage346262-Gregory-De-CostaOpen Polytechnic associate professor Dr Gregory De Costa has been awarded a $100,000 research grant from the Asia Pacific Network for Global Change Research (APN-GCR).

“Results of the project will be developed into a management tool to deal with global climate change and its resulting impact on land and water resources in selected Asia Pacific sites. As well as establishing a composite model to forecast changes in land and water resources due to seawater level change, we will also develop a technical and human dimension management strategy. This will increase the profile and awareness of global change, its effect, mitigation and management,” says Dr De Costa.

So, what do you do when someone pays you a cool 100 grand to research a certain problem?  You give them value for money, that’s what.  Today, Fairfax reports Read more »

The climate essay warmists are trying to suppress

NOTE: This op-ed is apparently too hot for some editors to handle. Late last week it was accepted and posted on politix.topix.com only to be abruptly removed some two hours later. After several hours of attempting to determine why it was removed, I was informed the topix.com editor had permanently taken it down because of a strong negative reaction to it and because of “conflicting views from the scientific community” over factual assertions in the piece.

Fortunately, some media outlets recognize a vigorous scientific debate persists over humanity’s influence on climate and those outlets refuse outside efforts to silence viewpoints that run counter to prevailing climate alarmism. My original piece follows below.- Craig Idso

Guest essay by Dr. Craig D. Idso

The release of a United Nations (UN) climate change report last week energized various politicians and environmental activists, who issued a new round of calls to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Some of the most fiery language in this regard came from Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), who called upon Congress to “wake up and do everything in its power to reduce dangerous carbon pollution,” while Secretary of State John Kerry expressed similar sentiments in a State Department release, claiming that “unless we act dramatically and quickly, science tells us our climate and our way of life are literally in jeopardy.” 

Really? Is Earth’s climate so fragile that both it and our way of life are in jeopardy because of rising carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions?

In a word, no! The human impact on global climate is small; and any warming that may occur as a result of anthropogenic CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions is likely to have little effect on either Earth’s climate or biosphere, according to the recently-released contrasting report Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts, which was produced by the independent Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC).    Read more »

Too right George, now tell them to bugger off

George Brandis is standing up for freedom of speech in Australia despite the howls of outrage from the left who as well all know are only supporters of freedom of speech if it is speech they agree with.

George Brandis has compared himself to Voltaire and derided proponents of climate change action as “believers” who do not listen to opposing views and have reduced debate to a mediaeval and ignorant level.

In an interview with online magazine Spiked, the Attorney-General also declares he has no regret for saying Australians have the right to be bigots and accuses the left of advocating censorship to enforce a morality code on the nation.

It comes as former Australian of the year Professor Fiona Stanley said climate science had been denigrated through politicisation and denial, and issued a stinging attack on the federal government for the absence of a specific department to tackle global warming.

Senator Brandis, who is driving reforms to Australia’s racial discrimination act, describes the climate change debate as one of the “catalysing moments” in his views on freedom of speech.

While he says he believes in man-made climate change, the Queensland senator tells the magazine he is shocked by the “authoritarianism” with which some proponents of climate change exclude alternative viewpoints, singling out Labor’s Penny Wong as “Australia’s high priestess of political correctness”.

He said it was “deplorable” that “one side [has] the orthodoxy on its side and delegitimises the views of those who disagree, rather than engaging with them intellectually and showing them why they are wrong”.

As examples, he points to Senator Wong and former Prime Minister Julia Gillard, who he accuses of arguing “the science is settled” to shut down political debate on climate change. Read more »

The seppos are looking at fart taxes now

We managed to defeat Helen Clark’s plans to impose fart taxes on the nations cattle.

The battle is only beginning in the US where a wider ranging fart tax is being proposed.

Last month, the President released a climate action plan designed to cut methane emissions.

If you are a cow, be afraid. Be very afraid.

The same goes for humans.

The plan outlines voluntary measures, such as a “Biogas Roadmap,” to reduce dairy sector greenhouse gas emissions by 25 percent by 2020. There’s concern though that these measures merely represent the tip of the iceberg.

Agriculture accounts for only about 8 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions from human activities. Within that 8 percent, the second largest source of agriculture emissions is enteric fermentation—the digestive process that leads to cow methane emissions, which are emittedin ways that are not appreciated at dinner parties. Methane emissions from enteric fermentation, while covering numerous livestock animals, are overwhelmingly from cows. Read more »

Want to combat global warming? You need to agree to fracking and nuclear power

I wonder if Gareth Hughes would care to comment on this news.

To be consistent with the MSM breathlessly reporting all doomsday IPCC predictions (most of which never eventuate) will we see headlines of fracking saving the environment and insightful comment from global warmists backing the IPCC findings ?

I think probably not.

Climate scientists have backed Britain’s shale gas revolution – saying it could help to slow  global warming.

The world’s leading experts on climate change say fracking will cut greenhouse gas emissions and should be made central to the country’s energy production.

It will help the UK move away from ‘dirty’ coal and contribute to saving the environment, according to a report by the influential Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The report says it is ‘quite clear’ that fracking is ‘very consistent with low-carbon development’ and the technology could ‘significantly’ reduce emissions.

The unexpected endorsement from 235 eminent United Nations scientists and economists will be a welcome boost to David Cameron, who is a keen advocate of the new technology.

It is also a blow to green activists, who seek cuts in greenhouse gas emissions but are concerned about the effects of fracking.  Read more »

Perhaps Hekia could implement this here

Michael Gove is by far the best minister of education that has ever lived in modern times.

Unlike Hekia, who like to attend conferences with union hacks, the UK has Gove who is tuned into what parents want and cares not a jot if it upsets the union barons, the politically correct, the right on social set or whoever…he cares about kiddies getting a great education.

On that note he has said that there will be professional consequences for crusading principals who continue to use children as political pawns in their political games.

Headteachers who brainwash children with green propaganda are breaking the law, Michael Gove has suggested.

The Education Secretary has read ‘with concern’ a report which accused ‘activist’ teaching staff of trying to turn pupils into ‘foot soldiers of the green movement’.

It found the marks children were awarded in exams depended on  ‘parroting’ the green agenda. And many widely-used textbooks included inaccurate examples.

A spokesman for Mr Gove said: ‘The Secretary of State read this report with concern.

‘Schools should not teach that a particular political or ideological point of view is right – indeed it is against the law for them to do so.’

The study, by a think-tank set up by former Tory Chancellor Lord Lawson, warned that ‘eco-activists’ in the education system were urging  children to use ‘pester power’ to ensure parents are forced to adopt lifestyle choices dictated in schools.

‘We ïŹnd instances of eco-activism being given a free rein within schools and at the events schools encourage their pupils to attend,’ it said.

‘In every case of concern, the slant is on scares, on raising fears, followed by the promotion of detailed guidance on how pupils should live, as well as on what they should think.’

The Global Warming Policy Foundation report, by Andrew Montford and John Shade, described the teaching of climate science in British schools as ‘disturbing’.  Read more »

Tuatara have survived for 200 million years but now climate change will kill them all!

hero-14989-new

That’s the claim…I’m not kidding.

Apparently global warming is going to cause strictly male Tuatara births. Temperature is a common determining factor for reptilian sex during incubation.

Male tuatara can expect lonely love lives as the climate warms – before they eventually become extinct.

Males are already starting to outnumber females on Cook Strait’s North Brother Island, Victoria University researchers have found.

The issue stems from how the gender of the reptiles is decided in the eggs.

Clutches exposed to warmer temperatures produce male hatchlings.

Because of this, rising temperatures from climate change could lead to disastrous results for the island population, researcher Nicky Nelson said.   Read more »

Christopher Booker on climate fraudsters and charlatans

Christopher Booker writes at the Telegraph about climate scaremongers who are still twisting the evidence over global warming:

When future generations come to look back on the alarm over global warming that seized the world towards the end of the 20th century, much will puzzle them as to how such a scare could have arisen. They will wonder why there was such a panic over a 0.4 per cent rise in global temperatures between 1975 and 1998, when similar rises between 1860 and 1880 and 1910 and 1940 had given no cause for concern. They will see these modest rises as just part of a general warming that began at the start of the 19th century, as the world emerged from the Little Ice Age, when the Earth had grown cooler for 400 years.

They will be struck by the extent to which this scare relied on the projections of computer models, which then proved to be hopelessly wrong when, in the years after 1998, their predicted rise in temperature came virtually to a halt. But in particular they will be amazed by the almost religious reverence accorded to that strange body, the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which by then will be recognised as having never really been a scientific body at all, but a political pressure group. It had been set up in the 1980s by a small band of politically persuasive scientists who had become fanatically committed to the belief that, because carbon dioxide levels were rising, global temperatures must inevitably follow; an assumption that the evidence would increasingly show was mistaken.

Five times between 1990 and 2014 the IPCC published three massive volumes of technical reports – another emerged last week – and each time we saw the same pattern. Each was supposedly based on thousands of scientific studies, many funded to find evidence to support the received view that man-made climate change was threatening the world with disaster – hurricanes, floods, droughts, melting ice, rising sea levels and the rest. But each time what caught the headlines was a brief “Summary for Policymakers”, carefully crafted by governments and a few committed scientists to hype up the scare by going much further than was justified by the thousands of pages in the technical reports themselves.  Read more »

Lying about Climate Change is ok if you’re pushing a green agenda says a peer reviewed paper

James Delingpole reports at Breitbart:

Lying about climate change to advance the environmental agenda is a good idea, say two economists in a peer-reviewed paper published in the American Journal of Agricultural Economics.

The authors, Assistant Professors of Economics Fuhai Hong and Xiaojian Zhao, take it as a given that both the media and the science establishment routinely exaggerate the problem of climate change. But unlike the majority of their colleagues in academe – who primly deny that any such problem exists – they go one step further by actively endorsing dishonesty as a way of forcing through (apparently) desirable public policy.

The abstract of their paper reads:

It appears that news media and some pro-environmental organizations have the tendency to accentuate or even exaggerate the damage caused by climate change. This article provides a rationale for this tendency by using a modified International Environmental Agreement (IEA) model with asymmetric information. We find that the information manipulation has an instrumental value, as it ex post induces more countries to participate in an IEA, which will eventually enhance global welfare. From the ex ante perspective, however, the impact that manipulating information has on the level of participation in an IEA and on welfare is ambiguous.

This paper will be excellent news for climate scientists working at institutions like NASA GISS, the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, and Penn State University.

For many years now, they have faced the huge challenge of trying to maintain their academic credibility and generous government grant funding despite increasing evidence that man-made global warming theory is a busted flush and that really it is about time they all found jobs more suited to their talents, such as enquiring whether sir would like a large fries and McFlurry with his Big Mac.

Now, thanks to the inspired sophistry of their new friends Assistant Professors of Economics Fuhai Hong and Xiaojian Zhao their various data manipulation, decline-hiding, FOI-breaching, scientific-method abusing shenanigans have been made to seem not evil or wrong but actively desirable for the good of mankind.

This is not quite the first time that climate scientists have advocated lying in pursuit of the higher cause of greater global regulation, one world government, economic stagnation and higher energy prices.

A premise built upon lies and deceit will soon crash to the ground no matter how many fools are hoodwinked. That time is now upon us as not a single prediction or computer model is in sync with what reality is. The lies are apparent and now people are calling them on it.