Ten awards will be given to prominent global warming skeptics at the Ninth International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC-9), taking place in Las Vegas on July 7-9.
It’s great to see people who have put their careers and reputations on the line for scientific progress get the recognition they deserve. Awards are not as exciting as “new science” I know, but they are an important way to say thank you for some exemplary dedication. There are some giants here who I very much admire.
Sherwood B. Idso, Arthur B. Robinson, Roy Spencer, Viscount Monckton of Brenchley,
S. Fred Singer, Willie Soon, Patrick Moore, Tom Harris, Alan Carlin, E. Calvin Beisner .
There is still time to get tickets to go to the conference. We, unfortunately, can’t be there, but had fabulous, rewarding experiences in the past. It is a great credit to Heartland that they put on better science conferences than The Royal Society. The truth shall not be suppressed (but only because some people put in the effort to get it out there). Don’t discount how useful it is to make the effort to say thank you.
The winners and more information about them have been posted here (the news releases are here). The award sponsors are listed below.
E. Calvin Beisner, Ph.D. Outstanding Spokesperson on Faith, Science, and Stewardship
The Heritage Foundation
Alan Carlin, Ph.D. Climate Science Whistleblower Award
Don’t Tread on My Business Foundation
Tom Harris, B. Eng., M. Eng. Excellence in Climate Science Communication
The Heartland Institute
Sherwood B. Idso, Ph.D. 2014 Frederick Seitz Memorial Award
Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)
Viscount Monckton of Brenchley Award title (it’s a secret)
Sponsor (it’s a secret)
Patrick Moore, Ph.D. Speaks Truth To Power
EarthFree Institute
Arthur B. Robinson, Ph.D. Voice of Reason
The Heartland Institute
S. Fred Singer, Ph.D. Lifetime Achievement in Climate Science
The Heartland Institute
Willie Soon, Ph.D. Courage in Defense of Science
George C. Marshall Institute
Roy Spencer, Ph.D. Outstanding Evangelical Climate Scientist
The Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation
From Joe Bast:
The global warming “skeptics” movement has emerged over the years as a real force for good in the world, thanks in large part to the courage and dedication of these ten men. Let’s give them the recognition they deserve, bestowing on them the honor and gratitude that is wrongly withheld by institutions in the grip of a popular delusion. If they won’t honor our heroes, then we will!
Many thanks to the seven organizations (besides The Heartland Institute) who stepped forward to sponsor awards and the many donors who contributed to the stipends. It’s called “working together,” and it really works!
We are lucky to have The Heartland Institute. Thanks to Joe Bast.
Congratulations are definitely in order to these, and it’s not just hyperbole, brave scientists for their adherence to the scientific method and for avoiding the easy path via the so-called consensus. Keep doing what you’re doing. The entire world in in your debt.
322
Security sweep recommended.
51
Extra security?
It’s in Las Vegas. If you travel to America the TSA will know more about your gut than your doctor.
The plaintive howls of the climate speech suppressors will seem like singing angels by comparison.
____
Jo nitpick: that first climateconference link is prenovafied, a minor inconvenience.
—-
Thanks! Annoyingly the wordpress default adds my entire domain name to any link that doesn’t have http:// in front. Bah! Fixed. – Jo
60
When I read that so many eminent sceptics will be at one venue my alarms went off.
Warmists are hardly rational people and as their religious platforms are beginning to crumble, I’d imagine the extremists will get desperate.
All it would take without adequate security is a purchase of a ticket to the event, two cell phones and less than $50 of household chemicals to make an effective IED.
Anything is possible when it comes to extremist warmists and there are no shortage of those types in their camp.
50
(Emphasis added)
Does that mean what I think it means?
80
Yes it does plus it’s been common knowledge for sometime.
Now that you know it means what you think it means, what does that mean?
120
The Cornwall Alliance is the sponsor of the Award. (I’ve made that a bit clearer in the post).
90
Well I might have missed it. But for those who were wondering:
I think I like them a lot more than I now like the Methodist Church! I mean Uniting Church actually.
190
PC
“I think I like them a lot more than I now like the Methodist Church! I mean Uniting Church actually.”
Me Too! (Uniting Church – rather left wing I think)
I actually attend a protestant church near where I live BUT that doen’t mean they,christians, support one side or the other. I’m definately a skeptic but many of my fellow church goers are the worriers (not actually alarmists but worriers). So one cannot “tar us all with the same brush” – just most of them LOL.
110
One thing it does mean is that Spencer is not a Pagan which means he is not carrying the philosophical baggage that, when one scratches beneath the surface, is the prime motivating driver, rather than the “settled science” of alarmist climate science
Of course some alarmist scientists and their lay followers go beyond a philosophical embrace and are unashamedly card carrying Pagans e.g. Sir James Lovelock and Tim Flannery.
172
What do you have against Pagans?
22
Aw hell. Every religion has a potload of stuff against every other religion. If they didn’t, there would be no reason for their own.
My questions are, when did pagans begin issuing cards, and who are the certifying body?
Oh, one more; what rational being gives a rat’s patootie? (Not that any religious belief is rational.)
52
Garry not only are you not up to speed with how the Pagan world view provides the rationale for the claims of the alarmist sect of climate science but also you seem to be short of a dictionary.
Full Definition of CARD-CARRYING
1: being a full-fledged member of an organization (as a Communist party)
2a : strongly identified with a group (as of people with a common interest) <card–carrying members of the ecology movement — R. J. Neuhaus
Notice definition 2a. So whether or not Lovelock and Flannery have a signed certificate from their local Pagan assembly they are still card carrying Pagan worshippers of Mother Earth (Gaia).
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/card-carrying
To whet your appetite for a bit of research here's a bit of Paganism from Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, who invoked the ancient jaguar goddess Ixchel in her opening statement to delegates gathered in Cancun, Mexico way back in 2010.
"Cancun talks start with a call to the gods"
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/post-carbon/2010/11/cancun_talks_start_with_a_call.html
30
One can be a pagan and a scientist, just as there are some Christians who are scientists and atheists who are scientists. We don’t have to tar ll pagans just because some/most/many warmists have pseudo/partial pagan attributes.
30
Meant to be all pagans, not ll pagans.
10
That has been a concern for me Llew.
While I continually hold up Spencer and Christy as my debating weapons with warmists. I do cringe when one is informed enough to point out the depth of their “faith”.
As an atheist and a skeptic, I regard religion as a little less credible than AGW theory, but not by much. So a having people of faith as sceptical counterparts does not sit particularly comfortably with me.
21
I understand your concern Safetyguy66.
But consider if you will; there really is a God, and Roy and others have found sufficient evidence that convinces them that he is indeed real. When you find out that God is real, there is no longer any conflict between faith and science. Science becomes a discovery of how things work.
I’m just trying to point out that it only seems to be a conflict if your convinced God isn’t real. When you discover that he is, that conflict goes away, but the physical sciences still remain.
140
What evidence is there for gods existence Greg? Not just your belief, I mean something empirical.
13
There isn’t any empirical evidence as far as I know. Devout believers would probably ask you to prove that he isn’t real !! .. Unfortunately you can’t prove that he *isn’t real, just like they can’t prove that he *is real. Their religion is based on blind faith — believing in something while having little or no evidence. The most they can do is point to aspects of the environment and the universe that we have no explanations for. Also, they can tell stories about when their god, Christ, or guardian angel ‘must’ have been there to help them, or answer their prayers.
61
Faith also includes believing in something in spite of the evidence to the contrary. To faith, reality is irrelevant. No proof possible. No proof necessary. All you have to do is *believe* and it is instantly made true. Faith creates its own gods, spirits, demons, angels, and the like out of less than nothing. It builds long complex stories with words having no reference to anything real. In a sane world, this would be called delusional and likely a psychosis.
11
Evidence? None! But what is it within the human brain that most people need something to believe in? Church going and religious belief has gone down considerably over the last 40 years or so and because this, it has left many with a void in their lives and belief system and they then grasp for something to fill that void. Isn’t Global Warming / Climate Change one of the many new religions that have replaced the void that religion and church going used to fulfill?
30
There is a lot of historical evidence, if you want to go that way.
There is a lot of personnel witness of his direct intervention, eye witness accounts are usable in a court of law, though there is no physical evidence.
And finally, if God is real, he can make himself known to whom he will, and hide from whom he will.
But I’m sure everyone will agree, this is not the place to discuss the existence of God. I was just trying to make the point that a belief in God doesn’t conflict with the search for science.
20
Religion is based on FAITH and not facts.
It is the opposite of science.
You either believe or you don’t.
It is impossible to prove that GOD exists.
Clearly this eludes you “FIN”…..
00
It means you can’t control who appreciates you and what for.
It’s just one of those ironies of life that one of the people with scientifically-based reasons for doubting AGW extremism also happens to believe in I.D.. The alarmist innuendo is that I.D. adherents are anti-science and will believe things for which there is no evidence. It’s ironic because that’s what climate skeptics say about CAGW. Whatever is said about Spencer and I.D. is a cherrypick that doesn’t extrapolate to the rest of the climate realists.
Other surveys (such as by Pew) have found non-religious people are 40% more likely to believe the Earth is warming than religious people, and religious people who say Earth is warming are 30% less likely to attribute it to human activity. Religion does seem to have a mild boosting effect on counter-alarmist beliefs, but at a relative risk of 1.3 it’s quite small and it’s arguable whether that effect is due to faith or skepticism. Perhaps people with a Garden of Eden view of Earth’s climate were more likely to seek out the other side of the story on the science. Even if their initial motivation was faith based, after some study their reasoning may be as rational as the infidels. You can’t tell from such surveys.
60
There is a corollary that exposes the failed reasoning: That in order to be a scientist one must also be an atheist, agnostic or non-believer.
The fact that Christy and Spencer are Believers gets much traction in CAGW camps. To me that is very offensive at minimum, downright frightening if I dwell on it.
150
Here’s a relevant Spencer “rant” on all sorts of religious beliefs including some of the basic assumptions of science.
“Science and religion: Do your own damn Google search”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/01/science-and-religion-do-your-own-damn-google-search/
20
Not sure why you would brand it a “rant” I read it and it seems to be a fair and open discourse from someone with intelligence who holds true to certain beliefs. I also read some of the comments and they in the main agreed – I suppose in the end we are all entitled to our opinion. I did like Roys comment that he thinks it takes a lot more “faith” to believe in evolution!! don’t you agree?
30
I suppose in the end we are all entitled to our opinion.
This is true ColA as long as your opinion is not religious,political,weather related or racist.Many people do not share their opinion anymore so as not to offend others.I really miss people who have common sense and a sense of humour,both are disappearing from OZ culture.
20
Rant is a bit strong that’s why “rant” was used.
I’m a fan of Spencer and his honesty re how little is really known as yet about how Earth’s climate system works. I think he may have also labelled it a “rant” as he deliberately set out to smile at the futility of the conveniently atheistic warmist’s implied charge of him being a religious crank.
My background is not biology but engineering and mathematics so I’m more impressed with his almost zero possibility of macro evolution being the source of all life on Earth. Then again if I was an atheist I’d probally clutch at that impossible probability.
10
Rather the Stewardship of Creation than the Stewardship of Destruction.
180
Thank you, Jo Nova, for this salute to a few remaining heros of the Scientific Revolution that Copernicus started in 1543!
On behalf of my research mentor, the late Professor Paul Kazuo Kuroda (whose death was reported in the following BBC News Report)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2170881.stm
[SNIP. Sorry, you’ve posted that link before, and it’s not that connected to this topic – Jo]
10
I have a theory that independent minded fans of smaller government rarely honour their hero’s with awards compared to the natural-born-networkers who favour big-government.
It could be that most awards start out neutral but after a generation or two they’ve inevitably been taken over by personalities who are passionate about committees and team-work. Look at the Nobel Prize. Who would have imagined a peace prize would go to government committees just for doing their job (and not being very good at it either).
I might be wrong, I’ve never bothered counting the data…
330
Nobel committee likely subverted, like almost all committees. They have their uses, but the people who are passionate about committees soon take over. Libertarians usually can enjoy themselves on their own!
Winston Churchill won the Nobel Prize for Literature. However he said that he would have liked the Nobel Peace Prize! Interesting when you think about it.
170
Churchill was a lifelong passionate war monger, so the Peace prize would be ridiculous. His cavalry charge at Khartoum under Kitchener was possibly the greatest loss of life in the very successful campaign against the Mahdi. The fact that it was utterly unnecessary was typical Churchill. However he was the right man at the right time in WWII and the one man Hitler feared because he would rather fight than eat or negotiate. His blood, sweat and tears speech apparently was much envied by Goebbels but Churchill was not a man of peace, not descended from the Early of Marlborough and born at Blenheim palace. His family led armies across Europe before.
The puzzle is that the Nobel committee gave the Peace prize to Al Gore and the IPCC? Now that takes explanation.
41
All true!
However I think Churchill meant that a just Peace was worth fighting for:
20
Don’t forget Alfred Noble made his fortune from the invention of explosives, which has caused more pain and misery to humans than most other things.
An award that stems from such a paradoxical invention might be expected to be somewhat of an ambiguous tradition.
311
thingadonta, I’ve made this point before…
Nobel did invent dynamite, which considerably stabilized earlier dangerous volatile explosives such as nitroglycerin.
This single innovation is credited with saving the lives of countless engineers, miners and quarrymen.
242
Joanne, the Nobel peace prize has been a joke for decades. Look how they gave 0bama the prize for doing nothing. Even after 5+ years as president of the USA, he still hasn’t done a thing to promote world peace.
260
Not peace, it is piece (No pun intended). He is breaking the US into pieces. It is pressure group warfare where he fantasizes he picks the winners and losers but everyone loses in the long run.
170
Networkers… they make me shudder. I have several working theories on big organisations/government based on personal observations (after several years in public service).
1) Talent will only take you so far in Government – Government claims to be a meritocracy, but promotions are rarely merit-based only. I have seen far too many people who are very competent held back by layers of incompetent managers.
2) Networking can get you anywhere – In large organisations networking is far more valuable than performance on the job. While talent will get you promoted to a point, one needs to network to make it all the way. Networking ability without underlying talent is, however, sufficient for ample promotion.
3) Boom and bust promotion of incompetence – when the economy booms talented individuals move to the private sector for higher pay and vice versa during busts. As a consequence, the less talented tend to stay behind and have longevity when it comes to promotional opportunities. It is not unlike the metallurgical process called “jigging” … the gangue floats in this example.
4) Networkers and wasted time – networkers are forever having “catch up” meetings with other people, generally senior in position, in order to lay the seeds of future promotions. This is not productive time (from an organisational perspective).
5) Networkers hold back talent – they feel threatened by their lack of talent and hold back talented individuals in favour of other networkers who will be “yes people.” Ultimately they feel threatened that you will show them up at meetings. In order to avoid this, they attend the meetings with your briefs, tend to misinterpret the information and come back with silly recommendations. The resulting need for upward management is tedious and a waste of time.
6) Networkers love committees – committees and meetings is where good ideas (thought up by talented people) go to die. Networkers love committees because no one is responsible for decisions (the committee decided) and it provides lots of further networking opportunities. Managers in government inevitably have their calendars carpet bombed with endless committee and catch up meetings.
7) Networkers love process – process is an offshoot of committees. Process is another way incompetent people can hide in organisations. Tending to process, pushing documents around … it all feels very important to them, but ultimately it involves no original or useful work.
I could go on at length, but I am sure you get the drift. Anyone who thinks there is efficiency in big organisations and government is living in a dream world.
90
What a great experience it would be to go, if anyone is going in an official capacity and needs someone to carry their bags I’m your man. 🙂
The Heartland Institute was one of the first AGW skeptical links I looked into thanks to warmists whining on about how corrupt they apparently were, when I compared Heartland to Big Green & co I knew where my loyalties should be, so thanks warmists for steering me in the right direction.
220
Contact Jennifer Marohasy!
However I doubt if she has nay lack of volunteers to carry her bags!
90
Thank you, thank you, Jo and friends.
70
Sallie Baliunas?
50
She is very deserving of recognition.
See here a beautiful essay on the errors of Kyoto published by the Laviousier group
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/climate-change/Baliunas.pdf
40
It seems there is still a long way to go for the sketpics of alarmism.
Steve Jones writes in The Serpents Promise, that he finds it ‘impossible to understand’ why people would be sceptical of man made climate change. Like people ‘rejecting gravity or evolution’, and he is a well read and otherwise intelligent scientist. I don’t suppose a scientist ever over-stated a case.
Seems being part of the establishment makes one completely blind to its’ weaknesses, which some groups and individuals obviously take advantage of. A bad apple in a bunch of good apples in science seems able to remain a bad apple for way, way too long. I find it difficult, but not impossible, to understand why science seems rather unable to pick up on its’ weaknesses and errors.
The establishment has some way to go, if they find it simply ‘impossible’ to entertain the notion that scientists can exaggerate, that they can fabricate for a deeply held cause, and they are human. Why is it that bankers and the financial industry can do this kind of thing, and everyone is not surprised, but for science and scientists this somehow never occurs?
If they are 24 fields in science which are doing the right thing, and one has lost its way because it is more political then most of the others, isn’t this possible?
I guess the trouble is that career academics and bureaucrats become blind and immune to their colleague’s errors and misadventures, its human nature to do this, but it is nevertheless surprising how blind to their own they can be.
70
The names that I know on the list certainly are very brave persons. I particularly like the swashbuckling Monckton.
150
Jo, or anyone in the know,
What can you tell me about the Worldwatch Institute, and David Orr who represents it. It is apparently some kind of alarmist organisation disseminating the usual climate hysteria, but I would like to know more about the scientific credentials of some of its leading spokesmen, including David Orr.
10
MurrayA – The internet is a great tool for research.
http://blogs.worldwatch.org/sustainabilitypossible/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/SOW2013-26-Orr-.pdf
10
speaking of AWARDS!
2 July: SMH: Philip Chubb: Carbon pricing: how Labor failed the nation
(Philip Chubb, a gold Walkley and Logie winner, is Head of Journalism at Monash University. His recent book Power Failure examines the inside story of climate politics under Rudd and Gillard.)
In April 2010 Rudd, whose command and control leadership was precisely the opposite of what was required to solve a complex problem like climate policy, publicly acknowledged defeat. The shock was profound. We had watched the train crash as it came ever-closer, although without recognising the inevitability of tragedy. We had waited in vain for Rudd to explain the meaning of carbon pricing. We had seen him sideline other ministers who might have helped us understand.
We had been transfixed as he squandered the gift of consensus, employing it as a weapon to destroy Liberal leader Malcolm Turnbull rather than as an opportunity to be grasped fully and urgently. Tony Abbott, with his infantile anti-science slogans, was thus Rudd’s creation. We had invested more faith as he (Kevin Rudd) flew to Copenhagen, puffed up to save the earth, only to suffer an emotional breakdown that left him empty of the courage needed for a double dissolution election. We had sat bemused as he then strove to blame Julia Gillard for his sad rush to hoist the white flag.
The fact that we got to mid-2010 with a deep black hole where climate policy had been was a result of the erosion of the checks and balances that Australians wrongly believe are embedded in their system of government. We were prey to Rudd’s personality. And what a personality it turned out to be. Australians were victims of his hubris and cowardice. This has become very clear after more than 100 interviews and two years researching the disasters of Australia’s attempt to establish carbon pricing for my book Power Failure…
The lesson for the future of carbon pricing is this: while Gillard was more effective than Rudd, success requires a restoration of our system of checks and balances and a different type of leader. But for this change to occur Australians must firmly demand it. The immediate prospect of this is not good. We will suffer many more bushfires and floods before we see another serious attempt to price carbon.
http://www.theage.com.au/comment/carbon-pricing-how-labor-failed-the-nation-20140702-zssyo.html
***now, what made me wonder if the arrogant Philip Chubb might be related to our beloved Chief Scientist?
18 May 2014: ArtsOnline Monash Uni: MFJ celebrates successful school and book launches
The new School of Media, Film and Journalism (MFJ) was formally launched on May 14 alongside the launch of Associate Professor Phil Chubb’s new book Power Failure.
***More than 100 people including Monash’s Chancellor, Alan Finkel, and Dr Elizabeth Finkel, along with Australia’s Chief Scientist, Professor Ian Chubb, who is Phil’s brother, and staff and students attended the joint celebration…
Distinguished Professor Ross Garnaut launched Power Failure with the words: “This is an interesting and important book…
http://artsonline.monash.edu.au/journalism/mfj-celebrates-successful-school-and-book-launches/
UNBELIEVABLE!
60
Congratulations to all the award recipients.Knowledge, expertise, logic and honesty = good science.
60
oops the philip chubb link was from The Age, of course, tho it was in SMH as well.
10
United we’ll stand, divided we’ll hang.
http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2014/07/03/is-science-a-bloodsport/
Pointman
60
Jo, it’s too bad that you and David can’t make it to Las Vegas. I would have gone just to meet you!
70
HI Jo how come the best scientist has not been nominated .David Evans? Its time Tony gave you both the recognition you deserve, and a reward .Keep up the great work .Best Wishes Peter Styles
110
Patrick Moore. What a coincidence. I have been stirring the pot over at Greg Laden’s blog the last couple of days.
http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2014/06/27/who-founded-greenpeace-not-patrick-moore/
I know, I know…..what was I doing over there? Well…..I was bored.
80
I have just left my final comment.
20
[Not only off topic but crude. Re-word it or forget it. Mod oggi]
00
Jo.
C Northcote Parkinson wrote satirical books on expanding academic empires and bureaucracies.
Work expands to fill the time available- well research expands to spend the funds available.
60
Don’t forget the Peter Principal, that people tend to rise to their level of incompetance.
cheers,
gary
71
Also some perceptive words on Government and scientific work, with the Government pushing for certainty and deadlines regardless of the actual results.
20
listen from approx 18mins – The Australian’s editor, Chris Mitchell, states The Australian’s position has been, and remains, that an ETS is the best choice for carbon abatement.
abc’s Aedy says there’s a consensus of 97% of atmospheric scientists that CAGW is true and, altho Aedy admits he is no atmospheric scientist himself, he would be inclined to believe the 97% of scientists if they all agreed.
Aedy says The Australian publishes CAGW sceptics all the time.
Mitchell says yeah, that’s what people say, but they did a count & there had been 21 sceptic pieces in the 12 years he has been editor, & probably a hundred non-sceptic pieces! (HOW ABOUT LITERLLAY THOUSANDS OF PRO-CAGW PIECES IN 12 YEARS, MITCHELL?)
Aedy brings in former abc, now fairfax columnist Jonathan Holmes, to critique this claim. he says u have to tip-toe through The Australian these days & say this is an agenda-driven piece, this is news. (UNLIKE THE ABC, I WOULD HAVE THOUGHT, WHERE BASICALLY EVERYTHING IS AGENDA-DRIVEN, JONATHAN).
AUDIO: 3 July: ABC Media Report: The Australian newspaper turns 50 with Richard Aedy
five comments only, 3 of them by someone called Richard la Sarcophage, all 3 indicating who abc broadcasts for, & who is listening.
comment by Richard la Sarcophage:
Congratulations for not guffawing as Mitchell asserted that ‘The Australian’s’ has published more (was it really five times more??!!) climate science than denialist dross. That’s real chutzpah! No wonder The Australian and Tony Abbott are joined together like Siamese twins.
comment by jenny:
Yes that was a hoot! …
And when he blamed Gillard for the destruction of the aluminium and car industries.
I was a bit peeved that that last comment was let through to the keeper…
comment by Richard le Sarcophage:
Yes, there it was, in the replay. Mitchell claiming only 21 denialist opinion pieces in twelve years and five times as many in favour of climate science. There must be another ‘The Australian’ that Mitchell reads, from a ‘bizarro world’ where up is down and right is left for that amazing statement to stand. Will Media Report find some junior to do the sums, or has someone done them already, to refute this ‘Through the Looking Glass’ insanity? I read the rag frequently and can recall scores of denialist screeds, and numerous attacking renewable energy, pushing the fake ‘wind turbine syndrome’, and attacking every environmental policy, including an editorial diatribe this week against the Renewable Energy Target. Not to forget the pledge to ‘destroy’ the Greens….
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/mediareport/the-australian-newspaper-turns-50/5567148
there’s also talk about The Australian losing money. hey, abc, u lose over a billion dollars of taxpayer money each year, while insulting & ignoring over half the population! when will u learn the difference between the responsibilities of publicly-funded broadcasting & commercial media.
slash the budget.
40
this abc summary – as so often these days – doesn’t mention Smith will move from the chimps to the fish who can’t find their friends because of CAGW study:
4 July: ABC Breakfast: Science with Chris Smith (The Naked Scientists): chimps
The latest news from the world of science with Chris Smith, including new research on how humans can speak to chimps.
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/science-with-chris-smith-chimps/5570786
methinks abc likes to hide the fact they do CAGW advocacy in so many programs!
30
o/t but here’s why i keep saying you should write to your Super Fund Managers if you do not want your money gambled on ever-changing CAGW policies:
4 July: AFR: Phillip Coorey: Lower RET target would hit superannuation funds
The federal government’s plan to circumvent Clive Palmer and water down the renewable energy target will have adverse effects for the retirement savings of millions of Australians, says the Investor Group on Climate Change.
In a letter to businessman Dick Warburton, the head of a government review of the RET, the investor group’s chief executive Nathan Fabian warns that plans by the government to drop mandated renewable energy production from 41,000 gigawatt hours to 26,000 gigawatt hours by 2020 would hurt those who had already invested in the sector.
***These include industry superannuation funds which own renewable energy firm Pacific Hydro.
“Multiple IGCG members invested in renewable energy assets on behalf of their superannuation fund beneficiaries as a result of the current 2020 renewable energy target,’’ the letter says. “Some 5 million Australians are financially exposed to these assets via their Australian-based superannuation funds, which hold equity stakes in . . . the Australian energy company, Pacific Hydro.
“Many IGCG members also have public equity exposures to Infigen energy and private equity exposures to companies that operate in renewable energy markets. Additional exposures are held via infrastructure asset managers,” Mr Fabian said.
He warns any cut to the RET would result in lower revenue for exiting assets, greater difficulty in servicing debt, lower or no distributions to investors and “negative movements in periodic asset valuations, directly flowing through to investment and retirement account balances’’…
Subsequently Mr Palmer, who demanded no change to the RET until after the next election in return for voting next week to abolish the carbon tax, told The Australian Financial Review his party would consider strengthening that demand to ensure the government does not exploit the loophole which would see renewable energy production dramatically reduced. “I’ll be talking to my senators about it,’’ he said…
http://www.afr.com/p/national/lower_ret_target_would_hit_superannuation_qWK3dxuaNyzUQGhLhwiJWP
00
Green groups keep Aboriginal people in poverty
NYUNGGAI WARREN MUNDINE
It was great to see Cape York traditional owners defeat Queensland’s Wild Rivers legislation in the Federal Court last month.
40
Warren did not mention the fact that the Wild Rivers was also a trade off with the Greens on the Traveston Dam issue. The Greens and the Wilderness Society were absent from that fight that I was heavily involved with because it was a saucer pond, no deeper than eight metres when at maximum capacity.
Hunt was heavily involved behind the scenes also. Pressure was applied to Garrett and he relented to the chagrin of Rudd who had an interest in seeing the people of the Mary River Valley suffer.
The beginning of the end for Garrett. Some inside information to clarify the situation.
50
handjive –
this is even worse:
Nafeez not attracting the usual army of CAGW zealots with this one — only six comments as i post this:
3 July: Guardian: Nafeez Ahmed : World Bank and UN carbon offset scheme ‘complicit’ in genocidal land grabs – NGOs
Plight of Kenya’s indigenous Sengwer shows carbon offsets are empowering corporate recolonisation of the South.
Between 2000 and 2010, a total of 500 million acres of land in Asia, Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean was acquired or negotiated under deals brokered on behalf of foreign governments or transnational corporations…
The World Bank’s Natural Resource Management Programme (NRMP) with the Kenyan government, launched in 2007, has involved funding for projects in the Cherangany Hills under the UN’s Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) programme, including “financing REDD+ readiness activities” some of which began in May 2013.
Under the REDD scheme companies in the developed world purchase carbon credits to invest in reducing emissions from forested lands. Those credits turn up on the companies’ balance sheets as carbon reductions. In practice, however, REDD schemes largely allow those companies to accelerate pollution while purchasing land and resources in the developing world at bargain prices.
A FPP background brief on the role of the World Bank claims that the implementation of NRMP – overseen by the very same KFS forces conducting a scorched earth campaign in Cherangany – violates the Bank’s own operational safeguard policies…
A letter to the Bank in March by No REDD in Africa network (Nran) – a group of African civil society organisations – signed by over 60 international NGOs accused the Bank with the above words of “both admitting its complicity in the forced relocation of the Sengwer People as well as offering to collude with the Kenyan government to cover-up cultural genocide.”…
As “carbon credit financier and broker”, the World Bank is “aiding and abetting the forced relocation of an entire Indigenous People through its Natural Resource Management Plan (NRMP) which includes REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation), in the Cherangany Hills”, said the letter….
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/jul/03/world-bank-un-redd-genocide-land-carbon-grab-sengwer-kenya
.pdf: (12 pages) Report: Status of Forest Carbon Rights and Implications for Communities, the Carbon Trade, and REDD+ Investments
http://www.rightsandresources.org/documents/files/doc_6594.pdf
30
2 July: Washington Times: Valerie Richardson: Obama grants wind industry permit to kill eagles, ruffling more than feathers
By sacrificing a few bald eagles, the Obama administration may have opened a can of worms.
In a bid to give alternative energy sources a boost, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has quietly granted a California wind energy farm a permit to kill a limited number of endangered bald and golden eagles that get sliced up in its giant turbines. But last week’s free pass is sparking anger from wildlife advocates and from free market advocates who ask why they don’t qualify for the same dispensation…
The American Bird Conservancy filed a lawsuit last week against the 6-month-old federal rule expanding permits for killing bald and golden eagles from a maximum of five to 30 years, charging the Interior Department with “multiple violations of federal law.”
Conservancy spokesman Bob Johns said the organization is on board with green energy but the Obama administration has gone too far with incentives for the wind industry. The incentives include optional guidelines on environmental rules and production tax credits…
Last week, the Fish and Wildlife Service ruffled feathers by issuing what officials called a first-of-its-kind permit that allows a 50-turbine Northern California wind farm to kill up to five golden eagles over five years. In exchange, the developer agreed to retrofit 133 utility poles to reduce eagle deaths by electrocution…
Michael Sandoval, an energy analyst with the Independence Institute in Denver, said there is inevitably enormous outrage when sea gulls or ducks are coated with oil after a spill, but much less concern over wind turbines that chop eagles in half or cause bats to explode.
“Preferred energy policy favoring wind produces double standards…
Since the 1980s, wind turbines have killed an estimated 2,000 to 3,000 eagles, but the industry has paid only one fine, Mr. Johns said.
“If you or I get caught with an eagle feather, we’ve got some serious explaining to do. We’re going to pay a hefty fine,” said Mr. Johns (Conservancy spokesman Bob Johns). “There’s no exception noted in the law for the wind industry. The notion that somehow they’re entitled when the law doesn’t provide for it is ridiculous.”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/2/california-grants-wind-industry-permit-to-kills-ea/
10
Sea Level Rise Is Forcing This Island Nation To Buy Land 1900km Away In Fiji
http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2014/07/sea-level-rise-is-forcing-this-island-nation-to-buy-land-1900km-away-in-fiji/
06
“warcroft”,
One word for that s”story”……
B******T !!
10
Pardon the O/T … is it just me, or is Lambie starting to make Pauline Hanson look like a moderate?
https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/24384934/pm-needs-a-bucket-of-cement-lambie-says/
I really don’t see how her comments are in any way helpful to running the country and setting policies.
60
This is the IPA’s take on Ricky Muir. I expect the same sentiment applies to new senators like Lambie, except that a little more of this and she is simply identifying herself as a rude Bogan.
20
Can you just imagine Senutter Lambie’s diplomacy if she were to achieve her desire to be Prime Minister?
Scroll down to the telephone message she left on someone’s answering machine. “I’ve had a gutful to this sh*t.
10
This Lambie character is a nutjob !
That fact that a person can win a senate seat yet only receive 1500 or so votes is an outrage and clearly demonstrates that preferential voting does not work.
Lambie even thinks that “she” should be Prime Minister !
WTF !!!
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/palmer-united-party-senator-jacqui-lambie-wants-to-be-prime-minister/story-fnihsrf2-1226978353195?nk=5e36e76a92b029bc67b979fd9b3da8d7
10
More O/T stuff, or is it… the _real_ climate experts* encourage Abbott & co to rethink the repeal:
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/respect-climate-science-anglicans-urge-tony-abbott-to-change-tack-on-climate-change-policies-20140704-zsvyn.html
* The Anglican Church, of course … didn’t you know?
40
Bulldust,the cynical side of me thinks that the church view on climate change policy may have a little to do with Pat’s post on super funds losing money if RET is reduced.The church would’nt have money invested here,would they?The government have to decide whether investors lose their customers money or the whole country loses.The warmer wally scam certainly reaches a long way.
30
Religion is not science.
The two are opposites and no church has any business pontificating on any scientific matters…..
10
No, but its a well known fact if you live THE world’s hot spot for MS
[And where might that be? And what causes that particular location to be “the world’s hotspot”? -Fly]
03
“the world’s hotspot”, well after the help of professor google that seems to be ‘The Orkney Isles’, out of 170 females, 1 will have MS. Which was a bit of a surprise, because its on the same latitude as Norway with its low rate, put down to a basic diet of fish, like Orkney? But lets just say Scotland in general, eh!
‘And what causes that particular location to be “the world’s hotspot”, latitude, therefore lack of sunshine and thus some essential vitamins. And possibly a Viking ancestry, there’s that Norway connection again. But perhaps its all down to haggis, I had it once, never again!
02
“blackadderthe4th”,
The only hotspot is the one inside that THING between your ears !
10
Bulldust –
here’s the Guardian version:
4 July: Guardian: Melissa Davey: Anglican church synod urges Coalition to respect science on climate change
Bishop Tom Wilmot says the government has worked to ‘denigrate science in general and environmental science in particular’
The Anglican Church general synod has unanimously passed a motion urging the federal government to respect the science on climate change.
Speaking at the gathering of Anglican diocese representatives in Adelaide, Bishop Tom Wilmot, of Perth, said the dismantling of the Climate Commission proved the Abbott government was not interested in the truth about climate science….
The motion states “with deep regret that it is future generations and other forms of life who will bear the real cost of our heavy dependence on carbon-based energy”…
But it appears the passing of the motion has done little to sway the environment minister, Greg Hunt.
A spokesman told Guardian Australia: “We do fully accept the science. The problem with the carbon tax is that it has an adverse impact on families, whilst failing to significantly reduce emissions.
“We therefore hope the Anglican church will agree that the Coalition’s approach of taking pressure off electricity prices and actually achieving a significant reduction in emissions is a far better policy.”
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/jul/04/anglican-church-synod-urges-coalition-to-respect-science-on-climate-change
reminder:
(subscription requred for rest of article)
29 April: Australian: Bjorn Lomborg: Renewables pave path to poverty
THE Australian government recently released an issues paper for the review of the renewable energy target. What everyone engaged in this debate should recognise is that policies such as the carbon tax and the RET have contributed to household electricity costs rising 110 per cent in the past five years, hitting the poor the hardest.
A Salvation Army report from last year found 58 per cent of low-income households were unable to pay their electricity bills on time. Lynne Chester of the University of Sydney estimated last year that 20 per cent of households are now energy poor: “Parents are going without food, families are sitting around the kitchen table using one light, putting extra clothes on and sleeping in one room to keep warm, and this is Australia 2013.”…
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/renewables-pave-path-to-poverty/story-fni1hfs5-1226898730123?nk=b87523c7b34d534d032de8d98da81d2c
it is staggering to see the likes of Bishop Wilmot shilling for CAGW. of course the MSM love it.
20
ABOUT GAIA – source:
Report Number 13
U.S. – Australian Joint Workshop
June 27, 1994 – July 1, 1994
National Science Foundation of the USA,
Irradiance change, a problem which has been dubbed ‘the faint sun problem’. The climatic stability was subsequently called ‘Gaia’.
http://gong.nso.edu/science/papers/Report_13.pdf
GONG acknowledgment:
This work utilizes data obtained by the Global Oscillation Network Group (GONG) Program, managed by the National Solar Observatory, which is operated by AURA, Inc. under a cooperative agreement with the National Science Foundation. The data were acquired by instruments operated by the Big Bear Solar Observatory, High Altitude Observatory, Learmonth Solar Observatory, Udaipur Solar Observatory, Instituto de Astrofísica de Canarias, and Cerro Tololo Interamerican Observatory.
20
2 July: CNS News: Apollo Astronaut: Climate Alarmism Is the ‘Biggest Fraud in the Field of Science’
Climate alarmism is “the biggest fraud in the field of science” and the 97% consensus claim is nonsensical, Apollo 7 astronaut Walter Cunningham tells MRCTV in a preview of his presentation at the upcoming Heartland Institute climate conference, July 7-9.
“Since about 2000, I looked farther and farther into it,” Col. Cunningham (USMC, Ret.) tells MRCTV in an exclusive interview. “I found that not one of the claims that the alarmists were making out there had any bearings, whatsoever. And, so, it was kind of a no-brainer to come to the conclusion.”
Cunningham rejects the notion of man-made climate, not only as fact – but also as even qualifying as an actual “theory”:
“In the media, it was being called a theory. Obviously, they didn’t know what it means to be a theory.”
“If we go back to the warmist hypothesis – not a theory, but, a hypothesis – they’ve been saying from the very beginning that carbon dioxide levels are abnormally high, that higher levels of carbon dioxide are bad for humans, and they thought warmer temperatures are bad for our world, and they thought we were able to override natural forces to control the earth’s temperature. So, as I’ve looked into those, that’s the problem that I’ve found, because I didn’t find any of those to be correct – and, they certainly were not a theory, it was just their guess at what they wanted to see in the data they were looking at.”…
Cunningham notes that, while climate alarmists are concerned that the atmosphere currently contains 400 parts per million of CO2, that’s only a tenth of the level his spacecraft had to reach before causing concern. In his Apollo craft, an alarm would go off when CO2 reached 4,000 parts per million and, in today’s space shuttle, the trigger is 5,000. And, in submarines where crewmen may be on three-month missions, CO2 has to reach 8,000 parts per million before the alarm is activated…
“To me, it’s almost laughable, it’s the biggest fraud in the field of science, certainly in my lifetime, maybe the biggest one in centuries.”…
Worst of all, Cunningham says, media are promoting the “nonsensical” claim that there’s scientific consensus accepting the hypothesis of man-made climate…
http://cnsnews.com/mrctv-blog/craig-bannister/apollo-astronaut-climate-alarmism-biggest-fraud-field-science
20
btw there’s a video i haven’t watched yet at CNS News/Walter Cunningham link.
00
naturally, no MSM yet picking up this Point Carbon story:
EU carbon plunges 6 pct on technical selling
LONDON, July 4 (Reuters) – European carbon fell 6 percent on Friday after breaching a key technical support level, which triggered automatic sell orders and knocked benchmark prices to a two-week low…
http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/reutersnews/1.5916825
Labor politicians should take heed of the following.
if they have any integrity, or concern for their own constituents, they would vote with the Govt to repeal all CAGW policies/bodies. amusing to see Guardian’s Rory Carroll added to Reuters’ long list of zealous CAGW writers:
4 July: Reuters: Rory Carroll: UPDATE 1-California Democrat introduces bill to delay cap-and-trade expansion
A California Democrat on Thursday introduced a bill he believes will keep gasoline prices down by delaying the expansion of the state’s carbon cap-and-trade program, a move that has angered environmentalists.
Assembly member Henry Perea said a three-year delay is needed to ensure that the state does not raise billions of dollars through the sale of carbon permits to fuel suppliers at the expense of residents struggling to get back on their feet after a long recession…
Environmentalists blasted the bill…(WHO CARES?)
http://in.reuters.com/article/2014/07/04/california-markets-carbon-idINL2N0PF03Q20140704
30
ugly:
4 July: AAP: Paul Osborne: Abbott carbon tax repeal in limbo
Bills were scheduled for debate on Monday, the first day of sitting of the new Senate in which the government expects to have the numbers to axe the tax.
But the chamber is awaiting the tabling of a completed report into the bills by its environment and communications committee before going ahead with the debate.
Labor and Greens senators refused to take part in a meeting of the committee on Friday, which was expected to vote on bringing forward the tabling of the report by a week to Monday…
“It is time for Labor and the Greens to simply stop being parliamentary vandals,” he told AAP on Friday.
Labor and the Greens argue the Senate itself set the July 14 reporting date and there is no urgent need to change it.
The Greens have proposed a further inquiry with an October reporting date…
The Australian Greens on Friday launched an online campaign urging voters to contact crossbench senators and ask them to delay a vote on the carbon tax repeal.
“What’s the ETS repeal rush? Senators – it’s only your first week,” the party said in a statement…
https://au.news.yahoo.com/a/24385290/abbott-carbon-tax-repeal-in-limbo/
00
Australains don’t want a carbon dioxide (plant food) tax and they don’t want a bloody ETS (Economy Termination Scheme) !!!
10
4 July: Guardian: Katharine Murphy: Carbon tax goes ‘lock, stock and barrel’, says Greg Hunt after call to keep ETS
Environment minister rejects Ross Garnaut’s call to preserve ETS with floating price and allow use of international credits
The government is objecting to stalling around the tabling of the committee report. The manager of government business, Mitch Fifield, said on Friday the committee report was actually completed and therefore should be tabled early next week to allow the chamber debate to proceed.
“We understand Labor and the Greens refused to participate in a meeting of the Environment and Communications Committee this morning, therefore depriving the committee of a quorum and stopping it from passing motions,” Fifield said.
“The committee has finished its report on the carbon tax package of legislation and sought to table it before Monday, to allow debate to get underway as promptly as possible – but the underhand tactics of Labor and the Greens have so far prevented that.”
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/04/carbon-tax-goes-lock-stock-and-barrel-says-greg-hunt-after-call-to-keep-ets
10
an extraordinary attack on Maurice Newsman by Tim Elliott at Fairfax. at least 10,000 words, at a guess. had to find out Elliott wrote it from a mention elsewhere, on a smh page online:
4 July: SMH: Maurice Newman, the million-dollar smiler
One night in April 2007, Maurice Newman gave what should have been a perfectly innocuous speech at a Rotary Club dinner in the country town of Crookwell…
Wind farms, said Newman, were costly, ineffective and unsightly. “I also pointed out,” he says, “that they do little to cut emissions.”
According to local grazier Charlie Prell, who was also there that night, Newman went further, attacking farmers who hosted turbines as “greedy and not giving a bugger about their neighbours or anyone else in the district”. As a farmer well-known for wanting turbines on his land, Prell took Newman’s attack personally.
“I’ve lived here for 30 years,” Prell says. “I’ve seen farmers struggle through drought and low commodity prices. It’s a daily slog that Newman doesn’t get because he hasn’t experienced it. And now those farmers have an opportunity to make their farms sustainable, and he doesn’t want it because it’ll impact his retirement block.”…
Prell wasn’t the only one taken aback that night. “I stopped breathing when Maurice mentioned wind farms,” then club president, David Johnson, says. “It wasn’t his expertise. We asked him to talk about his background and instead it was all about greedy farmers piggy-backing off wind farms.”
(Newman denies using the word greedy – “it’s not a Maurice word,” he says – and claims he never criticised people for hosting turbines.) After the speech, Prell approached Newman and introduced himself…
Newman has long sold himself as an intellectual maverick and independent thinker. “He gets mileage out of his climate scepticism,” says a former senior Liberal. “It suits him to sustain it.” But his scepticism also owes much to his experience on the Y2K committee, where he spent much time preparing Australia for a threat that he felt in retrospect had been magnified by vested interests and which ultimately proved to be bogus.
Newman’s stance on climate change is simple: “The scientists are wrong.”…
And the suggestion that 97 per cent of scientists are in agreement about climate change is a “myth”. Global warming, Newman has written, is “a religion … replete with its own church (the UN), a papacy (the IPCC), and a global warming priesthood masquerading as climate scientists.”
Newman’s assertions – climate scientists call them “zombie arguments”, because they keep on popping up – have all been comprehensively debunked, repeatedly and in detail, by national academies of science around the world, including the US National Academy of Sciences, the American Geophysical Union, the Royal Society of London and the Australian Academy of Science. Andy Pitman, a climate scientist from the University of NSW, tells me that, “Newman’s arguments are so wrong they are inconsistent with some fundamental laws of physics.”…
http://www.smh.com.au/national/people/maurice-newman-the-milliondollar-smiler-20140630-3b2qs.html
all our MSM, without exception, from Sky/News Ltd/Fairfax/ABC are in total attack mode on the repeal of the carbon tax, etc.
The Conversation is so desperate it has a piece by Mike Sandiford, Director, Melbourne Energy Institute at University of Melbourne, who was a member of the ARC College of Experts 2009-2011, appealing to Jacquie Lambie, complete with multiple graphs, which i am sure Lambie will be well equipped to understand!
Sandiford: “If the new senator is sincere in putting Tasmanian interests first, then she might not do much better than to advocate a strong price on carbon, both nationally and internationally.”
sceptics need to be contacting Canberra.
10
(2 pages) 3 July: Washington Times: Ben Wolfgang: Obama pleas to China, India to forgo use of coal falls on deaf ears
Far East shuns renewables for cheap energy
Coal may have played an integral role in turning the U.S. into the world’s top economic superpower, but President Obama is actively pushing China, India and other emerging economies to ignore the fuel that powered the Industrial Revolution and instead embrace renewable sources favored by those on the political left.
As part of his passionate push on climate change, the president recently implored developing countries to “leapfrog” old energy sources, which are the primary drivers of carbon emissions…
So far, however, there’s little evidence those countries intend to listen to Mr. Obama, with China’s coal consumption, for example, skyrocketing and projected to keep growing for the foreseeable future. The country now accounts for nearly 50 percent of all global coal consumption, according to the Energy Information Administration (EIA).
Some energy analysts say that expecting the president’s sermon — in which he urges nations to now do as we say, not as we did for more than a century — to dramatically alter the worldwide energy landscape is a glaring example of the “dream world” that Mr. Obama and his backers in the environmental movement call home…
“The left used to look at telling the rest of the world what to do as something to be frowned upon when the U.S. was doing it. Now they seem to practice it with a lot of gusto,” said Dan Kish, senior vice president of policy at the Institute for Energy Research. “The idea that they’re going to forgo the Industrial Revolution, which really was an energy revolution, and go to forms of energy that [Mr. Obama] finds really cool is a dream world.”***…
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/3/obama-pleas-to-china-india-to-forgo-use-of-coal-fa/
our MSM still believes in Obama’s “dream world”, ignoring the reality of his actions, and are the last media holdouts in the world, still convinced Obama is “COOL”.
the article by Wolfgang reminds me of Lord Monckton when he talks of how the progressive left passionately defended the coal miners when Thatcher declared war on them, but now stand with the financial elites against the coal industry & the working poor, who can’t afford to heat their homes. what a turnaround. shame on them.
10
how scared are they?
4 July: UK Daily Mail: Darren Boyle: BBC slammed by listeners and criticised by its own compliance unit after Radio 4 Today programme gave ‘undue prominence’ to climate change sceptic
Successful complainant accused the BBC of ‘acting irresponsibly’
The BBC’s Editorial Compliance unit has blasted its flagship Today programme over its failure to provide balance on a debate on climate change.
The show’s editorial team was found to have given minority views and opinions ‘equal footing’ to those of the scientific consensus.
The programme, broadcast in February during the major flooding crisis featured climate change scientist Sir Brian Hoskins from Imperial College London who was debating the issue with a founder of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, which is sceptical as to its impact…
The main complaint for made by former Green Party councillor and low-energy specialist Chit Chong who said the BBC acted irresponsibly in allowing the debate to consider the existence of climate change.
Speaking today Mr Chong said: ‘Dismissing climate change today is the same as trying to argue that smoking is not harmful. The science has proved the existence of climate change.
‘By broadcasting programmes that question the existence of climate change, the BBC is confusing people, allowing them to deny what is actually happening. It is not responsible journalism.
‘Politicians look at the public mood when considering policy and if sections of the population are sceptical to climate change, the government’s policy decisions will reflect that.’…
Several listeners complained to the BBC’s Editorial Compliance unit who, according to The Independent, will criticise the show’s approach in a report due to be released later today.
According to Fraser Steel, head of the unit: ‘Minority opinions and sceptical views should not be treated as if it were on an equal footing with the scientific consensus.
‘Lord Lawson’s views are not supported by the evidence from computer modelling and scientific research and I don’t believe this was made sufficiently clear to the audience.
‘I do not believe it was made sufficiently clear that Lord Lawson’s views on climate change are not supported by the majority of climate scientists, and should not be regarded as carrying equal weight to those of experts such as Sir Brian Hopkins.’ …
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2680370/BBC-slammed-listeners-criticised-compliance-unit-Radio-4-Today-programme-gave-undue-prominence-climate-change-sceptic.html#ixzz36YxdO6tu
00
According to this White House report to President Obama – April 2013. Space Weather/Solar Flares and our changing sun are exactly the same thing as climate change.
00
According to this White House report to President Obama – April 2013. Space Weather/Solar Flares and our changing sun are exactly the same thing as climate change.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/spaceweather_2013_report.pdf
00
Since the late 1970s, the amount of solar radiation the sun emits, during times of quiet sunspot activity, has increased by nearly .05 percent per decade, according to a NASA funded study.
“This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it could cause significant climate change,” said Richard Willson, a researcher affiliated with NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University’s Earth Institute, New York. He is the lead author of the study recently published in Geophysical Research Letters.
“Historical records of solar activity indicate that solar radiation has been increasing since the late 19th century. If a trend, comparable to the one found in this study, persisted throughout the 20th century, it would have provided a significant component of the global warming the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports to have occurred over the past 100 years,” he said.
NASA’s Earth Science Enterprise funded this research as part of its mission to understand and protect our home planet by studying the primary causes of climate variability, including trends in solar radiation that may be a factor in global climate change.
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/0313irradiance.html
00
NASA – The Inconstant Sun – NOT MANMADE
An experiment on board shuttle mission STS-107 is monitoring the Sun’s variable brightness. Scientists say it’s crucial data for understanding climate change.
When the Sun’s activity is low, its weakened magnetic field lets more cosmic rays into the solar system, so carbon-14 abundances go up. http://science1.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2003/17jan_solcon/
00