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.
“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
When all else fails, like empirical (scientific) evidence, not supporting your hypothesis/theory of man-made “global warming”, “climate change”, “global cooling”, or “global whatever it may be”, target human emotions. In this instance – World Heritage sites.
More classic UNEP agitprop to attempt to scare, deceive and convert you.
Remember all these fears and scares are based on failed (overheated) UN/IPCC CMIP5 RCP8.5 climate *models*.
Predictive (UN IPCC) models are not science and do not observe reality. They are predictions based on perceived inputs in and desired results out. Then the CAGW complicit MSM media simply runs with the output because those same modelled outputs suit their agenda nicely too, objectivity denied absolute.
By Paul Homewood
The Union of
Socialist Concerned Scientists have teamed up with the UN for their latest scare story, how thousands of world heritage sites are at risk from climate change.
Their British offerings include the remarkable neolithic site of Skara Brae in the Orkneys.
View original post 208 more words
97% of climate models say that 97% of climate scientists are wrong. Yet we base, literally, trillions of dollars of other people’s (taxpayers) money on alarmist climate change policy, schemes and rent-seeking scams (windmills/solar) on overheated, predictive models that do not observe climate reality.
CMIP5 IPCC climate models don’t even ‘model’ clouds, the sun or ocean currents (AMO/PDO).
What possibly could go wrong? /sarc.
RCP8.5 BS in = Alarmist BS out.
It’s no wonder ‘Climate models don’t work’!
Guest essay by Larry Hamlin
In February 2016 climate scientist Dr. John Christy presented testimony to Congress demonstrating that climate models grossly exaggerate and over estimate the impact of atmospheric CO2 levels on global temperatures . Dr. Christy noted in his testimony that “models over-warm the tropical atmosphere by a factor of approximately 3″.
NOAA climate activist scientist Dr. Gavin Schmidt challenged Dr. Christy’s work claiming that it was “partisan” and using vague statistical arguments claimed that Christy’s work improperly presented the performance of climate models. These claims by government scientist Dr. Schmidt peaked the interest of statistics expert Steven McIntyre who was one of the most prominent experts to expose the flawed science (proxy shenanigans) and mathematics (statistical errors) behind the now disgraced thousand year long global temperature profile infamously known as the “hockey stick” (https://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2005/09/ohioshort.pdf).
Mr. McIntyre conducted a review of Dr. Schmidt’s claims (https://climateaudit.org/2016/05/05/schmidts-histogram-diagram-doesnt-refute-christy
View original post 752 more words
Climatism comment :
“We need to get some broad based support,
to capture the public’s imagination…
So we have to offer up scary scenarios,
make simplified, dramatic statements
and make little mention of any doubts…
Each of us has to decide what the right balance
is between being effective and being honest.”
– Prof. Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology,
lead author of many IPCC reports
“I believe it is appropriate to have an ‘over-representation’ of the facts
on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience.”
– Al Gore,
Climate Change activist
A forthcoming report points lowers estimates on global warming
By Dr Matt Ridley
Later this month, a long-awaited event that last happened in 2007 will recur. Like a returning comet, it will be taken to portend ominous happenings. I refer to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) “fifth assessment report,” part of which will be published on Sept. 27.
Admittedly, the change is small, and because of changing definitions, it is not easy to compare the two reports, but retreat it is. It is significant because it points to the very real possibility that, over the next several generations, the overall effect of climate change will be positive for humankind and the planet.
Specifically, the draft report says that “equilibrium climate sensitivity” (ECS)—eventual warming induced by a doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which takes hundreds of years to occur—is “extremely likely” to be above 1 degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit), “likely” to be above 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.4 degrees Fahrenheit) and “very likely” to be below 6 degrees Celsius (10.8 Fahrenheit). In 2007, the IPPC said it was “likely” to be above 2 degrees Celsius and “very likely” to be above 1.5 degrees, with no upper limit. Since “extremely” and “very” have specific and different statistical meanings here, comparison is difficult.
Still, the downward movement since 2007 is clear, especially at the bottom of the “likely” range. The most probable value (3 degrees Celsius last time) is for some reason not stated this time.
A more immediately relevant measure of likely warming has also come down: “transient climate response” (TCR)—the actual temperature change expected from a doubling of carbon dioxide about 70 years from now, without the delayed effects that come in the next century. The new report will say that this change is “likely” to be 1 to 2.5 degrees Celsius and “extremely unlikely” to be greater than 3 degrees. This again is lower than when last estimated in 2007 (“very likely” warming of 1 to 3 degrees Celsius, based on models, or 1 to 3.5 degrees, based on observational studies). Keep Reading »
- The state of climate science: ‘fluxed up’ | Watts Up With That?
- Lomborg: climate models are running way too hot | Watts Up With That?
- One Step Forward, Two Steps Back | Watts Up With That?
- Temperatures rise over ‘inconsistencies’ in UN climate change report | The Australian
- EU policy on climate change is right even if science was wrong, says commissioner – Telegraph
- The real climate change deniers aren’t sceptics but the alarmist Ecotards
- UN-Settled Science
- Bureaucratic Dioxide
- A cooling consensus
- Scientists talking about no warming
- Modelling Climate Alarmism
- NATURE STUDY Confirms Global Warming Stopped 15 Years Ago | CACA
- Peer into the Heart of the IPCC, Find Greenpeace | CACA
- UN Agenda 21 Links
- GLOBAL WARMING THEORY – Circular reasoning at its best