“The problem isn’t that Johnny can’t read.
The problem isn’t even that Johnny can’t think.
The problem is that Johnny doesn’t know what thinking is;
he confuses it with feeling.”
– Thomas Sowell
AUSTRALIA’S ‘premier’ science body, the CSIRO, is a prime example of a government funded agency who has been fatally captured by global warming groupthink and climate change hysteria, resulting in a litany of failed predictions and costly fear-mongering, thanks in part to their own contribution to the global set of overheated climate models.
AN example of the CSIRO’s fealty towards the Climate Crisis Industry can be seen in the use of sea level rise figures far in excess of even the IPCC…
In its 2012 report, State of the Climate, the CSIRO says that since 1993 sea levels have risen up to 10mm a year in the north and west. That means that somewhere has had a 19cm-rise in sea level since 1993. Where is this place? The European satellite says that sea levels have been constant for the past eight years.
A 2003 CSIRO report, part-funded by the ski industry, found that resorts could lose a quarter of their snow within 15 years…
“For the first time, they realised that their attention should be directed to a common enemy,” says Andrew Fairley, head of the Alpine Resorts Co-ordinating Council, which advises the State Government and oversees the management of Victoria’s six snow resorts. “And that enemy is climate change.”
Like those who rely on the Great Barrier Reef, the Australian ski industry sees itself as a frontline victim of global warming. A 2003 CSIRO report, part-funded by the ski industry, found that the resorts could lose a quarter of their snow in 15 years, and half by 2050. The worst case was a 96 per cent loss of snow by mid-century.
CSIRO – Simulations of future snow conditions in the Australian alpine regions
The low impact scenario for 2020 has a minor impact on snow conditions. Average season lengths are reduced by around five days. Reductions in peak depths are usually less than 10%, but can be larger at lower sites (e.g. Mt Baw Baw and Wellington High Plains).
The high impact scenario for 2020 leads to reductions of 30-40 days in average season lengths. At higher sites such as Mt Hotham, this can represent reductions in season duration of about 25%, but at lower sites such as Mt Baw Baw the reduction can be more significant (up to 60%)…
We have very high confidence (at least 95%) that the low impact scenarios will be exceeded and the high impact scenarios will not be exceeded.
ALL around the world, warmist institutions and the climate-theory-obsessed compliant mainstream media were once predicting the end of snow… Read the rest of this entry »
IT’S time for “the talk.” You know, the one we’ve been putting off because it’s “inconvenient”. That end-of-life conversation…
YEP! Antarctica, the ‘inconvenient’ pole, the naughty child, has been gaining ice mass and cooling for decades, despite a 20 percent increase in atmospheric CO2, and model predictions to the contrary.
2015 NASA Study
Guardian Report 2015
From the abstract:
Mass changes of the Antarctic ice sheet impact sea-level rise as climate changes, but recent rates have been uncertain. Ice, Cloud and land Elevation Satellite (ICESat) data (2003–08) show mass gains from snow accumulation exceeded discharge losses by 82 ± 25 Gt a−1, reducing global sea-level rise by 0.23 mm a−1.
“It is becoming more and more apparent that sea levels rise and fall without any obvious connection to CO2 concentrations.”
Holocene Sea Levels were 2 Meters Higher
1. Are Modern ‘Anthropogenic’ Sea Levels Rising At An Unprecedented Rate? No.
Despite the surge in CO2 concentrations since 1900, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has concluded that global sea levels only rose by an average of 1.7 mm/yr during the entire 1901-2010 period, which is a rate of just 0.17 of a meter per century.
During the 1958 to 2014 period, when CO2 emissions rose dramatically, a recent analysis revealed that the rate of sea level rise slowed to between 1.3 mm/yr to 1.5 mm/yr, or just 0.14 of a meter per century.
Frederiske et al.,2018 “Anthropogenic” Global Sea Level Rise Rate (1958-2014): +0.14 of a meter per century
“For the first time, it is shown that for most basins the reconstructed sea level trend and acceleration can be explained by the sum of…
View original post 893 more words
“So even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and our river systems…” Tim Flannery 2007
WHEN the Abbott Government axed the Climate Commission in 2013, in what was its very first act of government, professional alarmist Tim Flannery and his mates immediately created a Climate Council to keep up their propagandising.
IT wasn’t a hard decision for then PM Abbott to make considering the string of outlandish claims made by Flannery and the Commission…
IN what was to be their final report and parting gift to the Australian taxpayer, the Climate Commission’s 2013 “Critical Decade” report, claimed that there is a one-in-two chance that there will be no humans left on the planet by 2100
“There’s a one in two chance that by 2100 there’ll be no human beings left on this planet. The planet will exist, but it’s just that my granddaughter won’t be part of it. And I think that’s a pretty alarming statistic, probability, one in two chance if we don’t correct our behaviours.” – Former Defence Force chief Admiral Chris Barrie releasing the Climate Commission’s 2013 doomist report
SINCE then, the Climate Council has maintained its position as Australia’s premier alarmism generating machine. Every year the level of hysteria increasing faster than global temperatures.
THEIR latest report couched in pseudo-science and alarmism claims that Australia’s $40 billion tourism industry is at risk thanks to your sinful existence…
This morning Tim Flannery & Co [at the Climate Council] must be tickled pink to see how much adverse publicity they have generated [with their report last week], and not merely in the domestic press. From Pakistan to the Caribbean there are stories today about the slow death of the Great Barrier Reef, the intolerable heat allegedly set to afflict the Red Centre and how big chunks of Hobart will be swallowed by the heat-swollen waters of the Great Southern Ocean.
That there are casualties and collateral damage as a consequence of one organisation’s blinkered determination to promote itself and its allies’ climate cause should not need to be stated…
[T]here were no reassuring words from Queensland Tourism Minister Kate Jones… So how did the tourism minister react to the Climate Council’s codswallop and bleak appraisal of tourism’s future? Why, God help us, she endorsed it!….
That impression that North Queensland (and the Centre and Hobart, too) are not worth a visit would be hard to avoid in light of the Reef-is-dying coverage the Climate Council orchestrated. Below, a collection of international headlines and snippets re-broadcasting word of the Reef’s impending demise:
Australian Tourism Industry Under Climate Change Threat
Climate change threatens Aussie tourism
Australia tourism industry under climate change threat – study
Why are coral reefs important and why are they dying?
Tourism is the Australian industry least prepared for climate change, report says
Climate change to cripple Australian tourism industry: report
Australia tourism industry under climate change threat, study warns
Aussie tourism hotspots threatened by climate change
Australia’s popular tourist destinations are in the climate firing line: report
All in all, not a bad day’s damage for the Climate Council to inflict on an innocent industry.
THIS latest episode of climate alarmism churned out of Flannery’s panic-factory, based solely on the ‘evidence’ of broken and overheated UN IPCC computer models further trashes Australia’s international reputation, directly affecting the crucial tourist industry and the livelihoods of the good people who are employed within it.
MORE evidence that climate alarmism has cost far more than any slight global warming ever could!
AT risk, an estimated 10,000 jobs. How many more are at risk now?
WHO will be made accountable or held responsible for the exaggeration of data and wreckless alarmism? No one, of course. Because again, the worst any climate change alarmist can ever be accused of is an excess of “Save the planet” virtue.
See more Flannery :
- Tim Flannery | Climatism
- TIM FLANNERY’S Bizarre Globalist Rant | Climatism (MUST WATCH)
- Flannery sacked | Herald Sun (Great look at Flannery’s impressive ‘CV’)
- THE Great Global Warming “Pause” | Climatism
- CLIMATE Alarmism Has Cost Far More Than Any Global Warming Ever Could | Climatism
- THE Great Barrier Reef Lie – Climate Scientists’ Scaremongering Trashed By Mother Nature | Climatism
“Even this week’s cold weather is probably being caused at least in part by global warming, said Jonathan Overpeck, a climate scientist at the University of Michigan.”
BUT wait, there’s more! …
“So what happens if global temperatures take a real plunge for a sustained period? Don’t worry, the explainers have that one covered as well – James Hansen, former NASA GISS Director, published a paper which suggests global warming will trigger a short ice age in the near future…”
ERGO, no! There is no “weather or climate shift [that could] cast doubt on the dominance of that wicked little trace molecule.”
HOT, cold, wet, dry, snow, drought, flood, heatwave, blizzard – it’s ALL “global warming” aka “climate change” aka “climate disruption” and it’s ALL your fault!
Graph from p3768 of J. Hansen et al.: Ice melt, sea level rise and superstorms.
Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Does record breaking winter cold cast doubt on climate predictions of milder winters? Could ANY weather or climate shift cast doubt on the dominance of that wicked little trace molecule? Apparently not, according to leading climate explainers.
It’s cold outside, but that doesn’t mean climate change isn’t real
Sammy Roth, USA TODAY Published 5:13 p.m. ET Dec. 28, 2017
This week’s cold snap has brought record-low temperatures, freezing rain and heavy snow to much of the United States. But 2017 is still on track to be the second- or third-hottest year ever recorded globally — and scientists say climate change is to blame.
Even this week’s cold weather is probably being caused at least in part by global warming, said Jonathan Overpeck, a climate scientist at the University of Michigan.
View original post 817 more words
“The alarmists’ 12 apocalyptic predictions have proved uniformly wrong. That’s zero percent correct.”
WITH so much of the public’s money spent (Trillion upon trillions) on “Climate Change” aka “Global Warming” aka “Climate Disruption” aka “Climate Crisis”, any sane person would naturally conclude that there is an actual “Climate Crisis”.
HOWEVER, outside of overheated U.N. climate models and daily hysteria from the sycophant lamestream media, there is still no tangible “Climate Crisis”.
THE name change from “global warming” to “climate change” is perhaps the biggest giveaway. Owing to the peer-reviewed, scientific fact that the planet stopped warming around 20 years ago.
ENTER “climate change” – hot, cold, wet, dry, flood, drought, blizzard – it’s all your fault and you and your “unsustainable” lifestyles are ‘changing’ the weather – whatever that means.
AND, what is the mythical perfect climate that alarmists want? What if we stop ALL hydrocarbon based energy tomorrow and there’s a hurricane next year? Or what happens if Australia has a heatwave? How many days should it last? How much less or more rain is better if we get serious and live in caves? Will the weather be eternally idyllic for modern cave-dwelling?
WILL the pontificators of the media driven climate hysteria; DiCaprio, Al Gore, Obama, Bill Nye, The Pope et al live in caves too?
CLEARLY they won’t. But why not? After all, there is a genuine “climate crisis” right? Or at least they tell us that there is. Everyday.
EITHER way, cave or no cave, Leonardo DiCaprio’s new island development is a serious death trap according to what he preaches atop the U.N. pulpit. Whoever advised him to build on an island when sea levels are meant to rise by 10-100 feet by 2100 according to experts like Leo.
MAYBE, just maybe he’s lying his ass off to feed the biggest scientific fraud ever perpetrated upon mankind.
The climate alarmists have long tried to sell their apocalyptic scam by claiming that their policies will avoid catastrophic increases in global temperatures, writes Alan Carlin.
The Daily Caller has recently inventoried some of the widely publicized such climate apocalypses predicted over the last 30 years by examining 12 of them.
The alarmists’ 12 apocalyptic predictions have proved uniformly wrong. That’s zero percent correct.
View original post 67 more words
“Scientific experts are paid and encouraged to provide answers. The public does not have much use for a scientist who says, “Sorry, but we don’t know”. The public prefers to listen to scientists who give confident answers to questions and make confident predictions of what will happen as a result of human activities.
“Their predictions become dogmas which they do not question. The public is led to believe that the fashionable scientific dogmas are true, and it may sometimes happen that they are wrong. That is why heretics who question the dogmas are needed.”
FREEMAN DYSON, one the great scientific minds of our time. Well worth reading his entire essay.
I disagree with his statement; “I am not saying that the warming does not cause problems. Obviously it does.”
I would argue slight warming is beneficial to humanity versus the cold which kills at a ratio of 20:1. Cold is also the enemy of food production too.
HE somewhat clarifies by correctly pointing out, “I am saying that the problems are grossly exaggerated.” And the vast amount of public money spent on AGW theory could be better spent on “poverty and infectious disease and public education and public health, and the preservation of living creatures on land and in the oceans.”
By Freeman Dyson
My first heresy says that all the fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated. Here I am opposing the holy brotherhood of climate model experts and the crowd of deluded citizens who believe the numbers predicted by the computer models. Of course, they say, I have no degree in meteorology and I am therefore not qualified to speak.
But I have studied the climate models and I know what they can do. The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in.
The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we…
View original post 2,206 more words