Archive for the ‘ Science ’ Category

Do the math


It seems the ALP isn’t much chop at it.

Riddle me this. With any budget surplus and carbon tax compo set to be tied to a hopeful EU carbon (dioxide) price of around $29 a ton, how’s it all going to work when it’s less than $5 a ton?

I hope they succeed


Asteroid mining.

Now there’s another mob hoping to cash in.

They’d be exempt from any carbon tax, right?

Fan death


Fan death, or the belief that keeping the fan on whilst you sleep in a closed room will kill you, is a widely held belief in South Korea.

Sounds ridiculous, right?

However, top scientists have explained it and confirmed its veracity. There are regular news reports. Every fan in Korea has a timer on it to prevent this lethal threat.

Even Korean wifey has challenged my laughter with documentary X that was on TV.

Talking to my cousin last night, he noted how effing stupid that an entire nation could believe such crap. My reply was essentially, meh, replace “fan death” with “global warming”, and you have an entire planet believing such nonsensical shite … backed up by top scientists and constant news reports, no less.

:-)

Snap!

Carbon carking it


Just walk away already. How many more billions need to be wasted on useless gestures?

The world’s only global system of carbon trading, designed to give poor countries access to new green technologies, has “essentially collapsed”, jeopardising future flows of finance to the developing world.

Billions of dollars have been raised in the past seven years through the United Nations’ system to set up greenhouse gas-cutting projects, such as windfarms and solar panels, in poor nations. But the failure of governments to provide firm guarantees to continue with the system beyond this year has raised serious concerns over whether it can survive.

No worries. There’s another junket in Qatar this December.

Image H/T Craig Kelly MP, via reader Sean (on Facebook)

Kelly:

Australian taxpayers are funding a 21-strong delegation of bureaucrats from the Department of Climate Change to attend a UN “Climate Change Conference” in Bangkok, with all the departmental staff travelling bus
iness class.

This delegation follows a $360,000 trip for a 38-member delegation to last year’s UN “Climate Change Conference” in Mexico, where Climate Change Minister Mr. Combet, parliamentary secretary for Climate Change Mark Dreyfus, and their advisers all flew business class to exotic Cancun – which followed the then Rudd government spending nearly $1.5 million on travel and accommodation costs for his delegation of 68 to Copenhagen “Climate Change Conference”.

What if?


Man, I haven’t laughed so hard in ages.

What would happen if you tried to hit a baseball pitched at 90% the speed of light?

xkcd’s Randall Munroe does the math.

The answer turns out to be “a lot of things”, and they all happen very quickly, and it doesn’t end well for the batter (or the pitcher).

Other important need-to-know questions are answered such as how much Force power Yoda has. Turns out it’s about as much as a Smart Car…

The site’s in the blogroll under “What if?”

So where are these climate scientists, gurus, our government is so sure of?


A planet in peril, or a society?

On ABC’s QandA political affairs program last Monday, aside from GetUp!’s Simon Sheikh’s collapse, we were privilege to the dulcet tones of Climate Change minister, Greg Combet.

A major part of his reassuring argument is that the government simply cannot ignore the warnings of all the world’s top scientists.

Noted empirical evidence – namely that we haven’t seen any warming in at least ten years – was dismissed as a rubbish argument.

No, Combet smoothly argued the scientists had to be trusted.

So? Who?

The IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change?

Even they’ve admitted they are just another UN body, and certainly not the “gold standard”.

They admitted they don’t necessarily promote views of the world’s “top scientists”, but rather, make sure every geographic region is represented as equally as possible.

Sorry, but that’s not the world’s top scientists.

No Frakking Consensus:

Leading scientists. Top climate scientists. The best scientific minds. That was the fiction. Now, at long last, the IPCC is admitting that its authors don’t, in fact, all belong to the highest echelons of the scientific community. Instead we’re advised that the IPCC has “always sought” to “achieve geographic representation.”

The end of Chapter 5 in my book reads:

Journalists say we should trust the IPCC’s conclusions because its reports have been written by the world’s finest scientific minds. But in order for that to be the case the IPCC would need to apply very different criteria when selecting its authors.

It would need an explicit policy that says something along the lines of: Even though we are a UN body, we are not influenced by UN diversity concerns. We select the world’s best experts and only the world’s best experts – regardless of where they come from or what gender they happen to be.

In fact, readers may recall that the crux of the IPCC argument, the one governments such as our own are rolling with (OK, well basically just ours), was written by a teenage boy.

The blurb:

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) performs one of the most important jobs in the world. It surveys climate science research and writes a report about what it all means. This report is informally known as the Climate Bible.

Cited by governments around the world, the Climate Bible is the reason carbon taxes are being introduced, heating bills are rising, and costly new regulations are being enacted. It is why everyone thinks carbon dioxide emissions are dangerous. Put simply: the entire planet is in a tizzy because of a United Nations report.

What most of us don’t know is that, rather than being written by a meticulous, upstanding professional in business attire, the Climate Bible is produced by a slapdash, slovenly teenager who has trouble distinguishing right from wrong.

This expose, by an investigative journalist, is the product of two years of research. Its conclusion: almost nothing we’ve been told about the IPCC is true.

So?

Who?

What top climate scientists? Could Combet quote one? A credible one?

The “father” of global warming Gaia theory, perhaps?

No. Remember, James Lovelock came out recently and admitted much of the doom and gloom he’d forecast simply isn’t and hasn’t turned out to be the case.

Unfortunately, not so many other climate scientists are as free to revise their views as Lovelock is. You see, he doesn’t require government funding to keep him afloat.

That is a significant catch 22 that simply cannot be dismissed.

So?

Who?

Australia’s very own Climate Commissioner, Tim Flannery, who the government pays $180,000 per year for three days work per week?

Well, this is a bloke who predicted permanent drought for Australia’s three major eastern coastal cities.

Now the dams are as good as full, and the desal plants have been mothballed – at a cost of considerable billions.

So? Who?

That other government-paid climate expert, Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, who predicted our thriving reefs would be wiped out by now?

Who, Combet? Who, Gillard?

Who are they, are they on your payroll, and have any of their predictions come true?

Of course, their argument is bunkum, like as if a trace gas, of which humans produce only a fraction of, somehow drives global climate.

Hence, you’ll see more arguments like GetUp!’s Simon Sheikh’s; that being, “to rise above the politics”, like he said on QandA last Monday.

You see, to them, it was never about the science, even though that’s of course what they claimed and possibly what they also believed to a point.

And when the science started riding home, the hard empirical data that refuted the models, they argued it was time to “move on from that”.

OK. So we’re back to the political argument many claimed it always was?

Oh no, now it’s “let’s rise above the politics”.

Utterly vacuous words and sentiments. Deceitful, too – and perhaps to themselves the most.

People like Sheikh I do believe mean well. But he’s trying to change the way the world works because essentially, he doesn’t understand how the world works (and he must have been asleep in history class).

I would argue, however, that he does see genuine problems such as real pollution but has unfortunately, like many of our politicians and scientists, been caught up in CO2=pollution nonsense hypothesis.

He’s stuck.

He, like the other 50,000 delegates at the Rio+20 convention, have made and staked their careers on this.

Families to feed.

For example, what would he and his wife, Australian Youth Climate Coalition (AYCC) chairperson, Anna Rose, do if this all came unravelled?

What would Combet do?

What would Flannery do?

What would Gillard do?

Looking at the big picture, that is hardly important. It’s what they’ve done, what they’re doing, and what they will do before time is up that actually matters in the broader sense.

Larry Pickering:

Now we know what Emerson’s “Whyalla” rendition was all about. It was a “get that up ya” celebration which wasn’t directed at us at all. He had already lost us.

Gillard’s old bed mate, Emerson, was serenading Abbott alone in a taunting display of ridicule.


*You know, if they’d actually just made it a big money-go-round – not a take from the rich, give to the poor – but an actual money-go-round, and admitted it as simply as that, something that might have stimulated the economy, I’d probably be half for it…*

Also, if this carbon tax did ANYTHING to lower global temperatures, then they might have a sliver of an argument. That said, the whole world could adopt it and not even Tim Flannery claims it would make an iota of difference.

Their argument of, “So what? We do nothing?” is fallacious. By wasting so much time, money, and endeavour on the carbon caper, there is in fact a lot we are not doing that we should be doing again.

Unintended consequences of carbon emissions


More plant life.


A new study published today in “Nature” by authors from the Biodiversity and Climate Research Centre and the Goethe University Frankfurt suggests that large parts of Africa’s savannas may well be forests by 2100. The study suggests that fertilization by atmospheric carbon dioxide is forcing increases in tree cover throughout Africa. A switch from savanna to forest occurs once a critical threshold of CO2 concentration is exceeded, yet each site has its own critical threshold. The implication is that each savanna will switch at different points in time, thereby reducing the risk that a synchronous shock to the earth system will emanate from savannas.

Quick! Tax it!

Build the USS Enterprise?


This bloke reckons it can be done.

Our great taxpayer-funded seer, Tim Flannery


Now perfessor Flannery reckons violence in Western Sydney will increase because of – you guessed it – global warming.

Tim has quite the reputation for getting scary predictions wrong. Take the one where he reckoned our dams would be empty by now.

But let’s not be too harsh on poor Flannels.

Actually, as a species, we love imagining the future.

But we don’t always get it right… not that that’s stopping the carbon tax that isn’t actually a carbon tax.

Who says we don’t care for the environment?


A recent study reckons we don’t…

CONCERN for the environment has dwindled into a ”middling” issue that many people do not have strong feelings about, a major study into Australian attitudes towards society, politics and the economy has found.

Food, health, crime, safety and rights to basic public services – the tangible things that people confront on a daily basis – are dominant national concerns.

”Australians are effectively indifferent to global and societal issues, rating these significantly lower,” said the report What Matters to Australians, produced by the University of Technology, Sydney and the Melbourne Business School, with the support of the Australian Research Council.

Just my own opinion, but I reckon almost everybody has “concern for the environment”. Heck, even the evil skeptic James Delingpole, currently in Australia on a speaking tour, is enjoying Taronga Zoo.

It’s just that more and more of us don’t think an essential, oderless, colourless trace gas – er, make that human contribution to that trace gas, CO2, which occurs mostly naturally – is harmful to the environment.

And maybe we don’t think spending $76,000,000,000,000 to fight C02 is worth it.

And that taxing it won’t save the polar bears… which don’t need saving anyway.

Via Climate Nonconformist, who adds:

The environmentalists came on too strong and now they’re being ignored. Plus, getting your predictions wrong all the time doesn’t help. Nor do scandalous revelations about hidden declines, corruption of peer review, avoidance of data/FOI requests or deleted emails.

BTW, nice picture of man-made clouds the Age put above the story…

Well, well. Our artists turn sceptic


Whoda thunk d’artists would put on a play with a climate sceptic as the hero?

North Korea’s rocket of FAIL


Three attempts. Three fails. That’s North Korea’s record when it comes to rocket launches.

North Korea’s much hyped long-range rocket crashed into the sea about a minute after launch today, South Korean and other officials said, dealing a blow to the prestige of the reclusive and impoverished state.

Diddums. And the press bus took a wrong turn, too.

A cloud of brown dust swirled down deeply potholed streets, past concrete apartment buildings crumbling at the edges. Old people trudged along the sidewalk, some with handmade backpacks crafted from canvas bags. Two men in wheelchairs waited at a bus stop. There were stores with no lights, and side roads so battered they were more dirt than pavement.

“Perhaps this is an incorrect road?” mumbled one of the North Korean minders, well-dressed government officials who restrict reporters to meticulously staged presentations that inevitably centre on praise for the three generations of Kim family who have ruled this country since 1948.

The thing is, this time the minders didn’t even care when photographers started taking “forbidden” snaps.

Source (more pics here)

More pics

More pics

What a desolate sh*thole.

UPDATE

I’m told the photo of the blue building with the toddler in front of it; that’s a movie theatre. A bit different from a typical South Korean cinema.

When oh when are they going to give up this great comrade Kim crap? The place is pretty much in ruins, no one’s buying this wow-look-how-wonderful-communism-is BS, the people are starving and poor, yet there they are trying to launch a bloody rocket.

FFS

UPDATE II

Michael Ruffles of the SMH was there back in February.

In one furtive encounter in the hotel I was told ‘‘not everything is as it seems’’, and was left, after a mysterious conversation, with the impression that work was being done to bring about change within North Korea.

UPDATE III

They spent $815 million on that dud rocket. That’s a lot of rice and kimchi.

Remember how global warming was supposed to be killing bees?


Those who don’t know about the “global warming is killing bees” story should be envied, and the rest of us should be somewhat relieved.

Kyle Becker aka RogueOperator:

The parable here is too rich to resist. The set-up is that we have corporations selling high fructose corn syrup, basically a government-subsidized product, to honey producers. The latter, not knowing that a deadly toxin lurks in the saccharine mix, are literally feeding their bees poison. After prolonged exposure, the bees become infested with parasites, and die.

Central planning, scientific ignorance, and unthinking drones infested by parasites. Is this not the ultimate microcosm of what is going on in the United States?

PS Will Big Sugar use this in their on-going court case against Big Corn?

Must be that global warming…


Of course it’s just weather, however.

While winter is a distant memory for most Americans, it continues unabated in Anchorage, Alaska — where a new bout of precipitation this weekend helped the city break its record for seasonal snowfall, at more than 133 inches (3.38 meters).

In fact, if there actually were some global warming (we haven’t seen any in 15 years), you might see some happier natives.

“Okay…now the records broken [it stood for 57 years - bing], could you please make the snow go away??!!”

Can’t blame whoever said that. Usually Alaska sees an average of around 60 inches or a full one and a half metres less snow over the long winter season.

And no wonder with news like that, we’re seeing the following.

Green campaigners and climate scientists are losing the public debate over global warming, one of the movement’s leading proponents has admitted.

Dr James Hansen, director of the Nasa Goddard Institute for Space Studies, who first made warnings about climate change in the 1980s, said that public scepticism about the threat of man-made climate change has increased despite the growing scientific consensus.

Consensus, eh? Well, James. Perhaps people’s growing scepticism maybe, just maybe has something to do with that consensus and your their years of grossly exaggerated computer model BS fear-mongering that time has allowed us to check out.

And boy oh boy have there been some whoppers, such as these by Australia’s own government-funded $180,000 per year part time Climate Commissioner, Tim Flannery.

Keeping it on the home front, it could be that folks became a little more cynical when the weather was used by a government that can’t balance the books as an excuse to impose a giant new tax on everyone.

Confirmed: no global warming for the past 15 years


So why oh why PM Gillard your continued push for a carbon dioxide tax, a tax that will do nothing to avert something that isn’t even happening anyway, that the people don’t want, and that is detroying both your own reputation and the very future existence of the ALP as a major political force?

New UK Met Office global temperature data confirms that the world has not warmed in the past 15 years.

Analysis by the GWPF of the newly released HadCRUT4 global temperature database shows that there has been no global warming in the past 15 years – a timescale that challenges current models of global warming.

The graph shows the global annual average temperature since 1997. No statistically significant trend can be discerned from the data. The only statistically acceptable conclusion to be drawn from the HadCRUT4 data is that between 1997 – 2011 it has remained constant, with a global temperature of 14.44 +/- 0.16 deg C (2 standard deviations.)

“[I]t has remained constant”. No warming. No cooling. It’s hard to even argue climate change on that one.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 304 other followers

%d bloggers like this: