How Wrong Can The Age be? The Age's Dementia.

The Age, a consistent pusher of the falsified Man Made Global Warming Hypothesis, has shown some lack of journalistic integrity in their recent editorial

Repeal of carbon tax shames our nation

Take their opening sentence:-

The overwhelming majority of the world's climate scientists concur: the emission of greenhouse gasses as a result of human activity is contributing to a rise in temperate and to the resulting climate change that poses nothing short of an existential threat.

Three thoughts out of three wrong. Have they forgotten Journalistic Integrity? Whatever happened to Sceptical Journalism?

NewsTrust is a guide to good journalism: 

They write that "the best way to learn news literacy is to think like a journalist." (link)

The four Ds of thinking like a journalist exemplify these qualities. They are: 

1. Doubt — a healthy skepticism that questions everything.
2. Detect — a “nose for news” and relentless pursuit of the truth.
3. Discern — a priority for fairness, balance and objectivity in reporting.
4. Demand — a focus on free access to information and freedom of speech.

Looking at the Age and their support for the global warming hoax, they have completely failed in every respect to think like good journalists.

Applying the four Ds to the above opening sentence.

"The overwhelming majority of the world's climate scientists"

The consensus notion has been pushed by three flawed yet peer-reviewed papers:

1. Oreskes: LINK
2. Doran and Zimmerman: LINK
3. Cook et al: LINK

A sceptical journalist can easily research the validity of these three "peer reviewed" papers. Taking the last first, google search result for "cook 97 consensus" leads with three rebuttals of the paper. Lord Monckton reviewed the paper and found  0.3% CONSENSUS, NOT 97.1%

Enough said.

Joseph Bast who heads the Heartland Institute points out, “It is important to distinguish between the statement, which is true, that there is no scientific consensus that AGW [anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming] is or will be a catastrophe, and the also-true claims that the climate is changing (of course it is, it is always changing), and that most scientists believe there may be a human impact on climate (our emissions and alterations of the landscape are surely having an impact, though they are often local or regional (like heat islands) and small relative to natural variation).” (link)

Naomi Oreskes wrote in her paper:

The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong.

That's probably the most accurate part of her paper. The US Senate Environment Committee:

FACT: Oreskes’s study contained major flaws. Oreskes did not inform readers in today’s commentary that she admitted to making a search term error that excluded about 11,000 papers –more than 90% of the papers– dealing with climate change. Oreskes also failed to inform readers that, according to one critique of her study, less than 2% of the abstracts she analyzed endorsed what she terms the “consensus view” on human activity and climate change and that some of the studies actually doubted that human activity has caused warming in the last 50 years.

Two down and one to go:

Doran and Zimmerman:

A google search of "Doran and Zimmerman" finds the word "flawed" arising frequently. One such result is the paper by Murray Goot of Macquarie University as part of the Garnault Review. (link)

Criticism of the paper has focused on the second of the two findings, the claim that ‘97% of climate scientists’ agree that the planet is experiencing anthropogenic climate change; specifically, the criticisms have focused on the nature of the sample, the number of respondents in the sample regarded as most expert in 3 the area, and especially on the wording of the questions. The first of the two findings that showed 90% agreeing that ‘compared with pre-1800s levels’ the ‘mean global temperatures have generally risen’ rather than ‘fallen, or remained relatively constant’ is relatively
uncontroversial; protagonists on both sides of the debate on anthropogenic global warming can readily agree to that.

 Although response to the first question was 3,146, the second question received only 79 responses - 77 agreed to the question:

 According to one critic the question ‘Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?’ is a question to which ‘most climate scientists’ would say yes ‘even if they aren't concerned about future climate change’. On this view, the question was deficient at every turn. 

 The Age editorial continues:

the emission of greenhouse gasses as a result of human activity is contributing to a rise in temperate (sic) and to the resulting climate change that poses nothing short of an existential threat.

Temperate is an adjective. So, does a rise in temperate mean "more temperate?" Or did they mean a "rise in temperature?" Let's assume the latter.

According to the Alarmists, the main greenhouse gas (GHG) is carbon dioxide which they falsely label carbon. (carbon dioxide is one carbon atom bonded to two oxygen atoms. If the call CO2 'carbon', why don't they call water (H2O) 'oxygen'?)

Scientists agree that rises in temperature precede rises in  the "green house gas" atmospheric CO2. (link) 

What is actually happening this century?

The main data sets that the "climate" scientists use all show no temperature (temperate?) rise this century whilst the rise in atmospheric CO2 continues.

Climate4You 

Has the Age invoked the 4Ds?

1. Doubt — a healthy skepticism that questions everything.
2. Detect — a “nose for news” and relentless pursuit of the truth.
3. Discern — a priority for fairness, balance and objectivity in reporting.
4. Demand — a focus on free access to information and freedom of speech.

I detect that they have not shown discernment, doubt their partiality and demandbetter journalism.

Death by Delay

Another Issue of "Carbon Sense” prepared by Viv Forbes 

and  The Carbon Sense Coalition.

Please pass on. We rely on our supporters to spread the word.
TO DOWNLOAD THIS NEWSLETTER WITH ALL FIGURES INTACT, CLICK THE FOLLOWING LINK: http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/death-by-delay.pdfhttp://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/death-by-delay.pdf

www.carbon-sense.com

18 July 2014
Death by Delay - the New Green Weapon.

“The difference between taking a part of my life,and taking my whole life, is just a matter of degree.” Anon

Special thanks to Mr. Larry Pickering for permission to
reproduce this cartoon. If you like, you can follow him on facebook or
visit him at pickeringpost.com/ Copyright L Pickering 2014

There was a time, before the baby-boom generation took over, when we took pride in the achievements of our builders, producers and innovators. There was always great celebration when settler families got a phone, a tractor, a bitumen road or electric power. An oil strike or a gold discovery made headlines, and people welcomed new businesses, new railways and new inventions. Science and engineering were revered and the wealth delivered by these human achievements enabled the builders and their children to live more rewarding lives, with more leisure, more time for culture and crusades, and greater interest in taking more care of their environment.

Then a green snake entered the Garden of Eden.

Many of the genuine conservationists from the original environmental societies were replaced by political extremists who felt lost after the Comrade Societies collapsed and China joined the trading world.

These zealots were mainly interested in promoting environmental alarms in order to push a consistent agenda of world control of production, distribution and exchange – a new global utopia run by unelected all-knowing people just like them.

Michael Gorbachev is a prominent example. Consistent open and covert support came from Hollywood, government media organisations and the bureaucracy.

The old Reds became the new Greens.

The new Greens used every credible-sounding scare to recruit support – peak resources, acid rain, ozone holes, global cooling, species extinction, food security, Barrier Reef threats, global warming or extreme weather to justify global controls, no-go areas and international taxes to limit all human activities. Each cause spawned its dedicated bunch of activists.

However the public became disenchanted with their politics of denial, and their opposition to all human progress, so they have adopted a new tactic – death by delay.

“We are not opposed to all development, but we want to ensure all environmental concerns are fully investigated before new developments get approval.”

In fact, their goal is to kill projects with costly regulations, investigations and delay. Their technique is to grab control of bureaucratic bodies like the US EPA which, since 2009, has issued 2,827 new regulations totalling 24,915,000 words.

A current example of death by delay is the Keystone Oil pipeline proposal which would have taken crude oil from Alberta in Canada to refineries on the US Gulf Coast – far better than sending it by rail tankers.

It was first proposed in 2005, and immediately opposed by the anti-industry, anti-carbon zealots who control the EPA and other arms of the US federal government.

The proposal was studied to death by US officials and green busybodies for nine long years.

This week the Canadians lost patience and approved an alternative proposal to take a pipeline to the west coast of Canada, allowing more Albertan oil to be exported to Asia.

Jobs and resources that would have benefitted Americans will now go to Asia.

Naturally the Green delayers will also attempt to throttle this proposal.

Over in Europe, shale gas exploration is also being subject to death by delay. In Britain, the pioneering company, Caudrilla, has been waiting for seven long years for approvals to explore. In France, all such exploration is banned.

Greens also attempted to perpetually delay all development on aboriginal land in Cape York using a new weapon – “Wild Rivers Declarations”. These declarations were recently struck down by the Australian Federal Court. Warren Mundine, Executive Chairman of the Australian Indigenous Chamber of Commerce, was moved to say:

“It’s easy to oppose. It’s a lot harder to build something that delivers jobs, creates economic prosperity and gives remote communities a sustainable future.”

No wonder India recently accused Greenpeace and other delayers of being “a threat to national economic security”.
Viv Forbes,14/7/14
For those who wish to read more:
Founder leaves after Greenpeace took a sharp turn to the political left and "evolved into an organization of extremism and politically motivated agendas":
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/26/confessions-of-a-greenpeace-droput-to-the-u-s-senate-on-climate-change/

Canada approves pipeline to the Pacific Coast:http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/6/18/canada-approves-northerngatewaypipeline.html
Obama continues his attack on US Energy:
http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com.au/2014/06/obama-continues-his-attack-on-us-energy.html
Britain wastes shale gas potential:
http://www.cityam.com/article/1398365112/how-britain-wasting-its-real-shale-gas-potential
Greenpeace is a threat to national economic security:http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/12/india-labels-greenpeace-a-threat-to-national-economic-security/
http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/ib-report-to-pmo-greenpeace-is-a-threat-to-national-economic-security/

Green groups try to keep Aboriginal communities in poverty:http://www.afr.com/p/opinion/green_groups_keep_aboriginal_people_dyQc0k0oqQYyVwUpl7qhLM

The Green Agenda:http://www.green-agenda.com/globalrevolution.html


The Sky Fell last month, but almost nobody noticed.
The sky fell on Hawaii last month, all because carbon dioxide levels peeped above the much-hyped 400 ppm hurdle. Chicken Littles all over the world squawked into their friendly media megaphones about numerous imminent global warming disasters. One warned: “the fate of the world hangs in the balance.” (Similar alarms were rung when the 350 ppm level was passed).

Thanks to “Minnesotans for Global Warming”
for this illustration:
http://m4gw.com/four-reasons-why-400-ppm-co2-is-not-a-problem/

But nobody else noticed anything scary.

Four pieces of well-established evidence say that 400 ppm of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is not a concern.

Firstly, there has been no increase in global temperatures since 1998 despite 16 years of rising carbon dioxide levels and heavy usage of carbon fuels. Clearly, CO₂is not the main driver of global temperatures.

Secondly, the ice core records show clearly, with no exceptions, that all recent ice ages have commenced when the atmosphere contained relatively high levels of carbon dioxide. The temperature fell first, and then carbon dioxide levels fell. This proves that high carbon dioxide levels do not guarantee a warm globe, but could suggest that they may be a harbinger of a coming ice age. Ice will cause far more damage to the biosphere than even the worst warming forecast.

Thirdly, current levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide are not extreme or unusual. Carbon dioxide reached 2,000 ppm in the luxuriant era of the dinosaurs, and ten times current levels (4,000 ppm) when the great Devonian coral reefs were flourishing. There is no tipping point into runaway global warming, or we would have tipped eons ago.

Finally, current carbon dioxide levels are just above starvation levels for plants. All vegetation would grow stronger, faster, and be more drought resistant and heat resistant if carbon dioxide levels trebled to 1,200 ppm. Such levels are no threat to humans – US submarines operate at up to 8,000 ppm for cruises of 90 days. Topping 400 ppm should be a cause for celebration – it shows that Earth is emerging from the cold hungry years of the ice ages.

Climate Cassandras have blown false trumpets once again.

Viv Forbes 9/7/2014
For those who wish to read more:
400 ppm is just a big yawn:
http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/05/14/co2-nears-400-ppm-relax-its-not-global-warming-end-times-but-only-a-big-yawn-climate-depot-special-report/

Past Climates and carbon dioxide levels:http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

Nothing new about Climate Change:http://carbon-sense.com/2013/11/30/nothing-new-about-climate-change/

Current warming is just recovery from the Little Ice Age:http://vimeo.com/14366077

Carbon dioxide lags not leads global temperatures:http://www.co2science.org/articles/V6/N26/EDIT.php

Home truths about carbon dioxide in the atmosphere:http://www.firstthings.com/article/2011/06/the-truth-about-greenhouse-gases

Carbon Dioxide feeds the world:http://carbon-sense.com/2010/04/15/carbon-dioxide-time-lapse/


So Much for the Consensus – just 20% believe “the debate is over”.

The Rasmussen polls in US reveal that:

·         63% of US voters say the debate over global warming is NOT over.

·         60% of oppose any move by news organisations to ban sceptics.

·         48% think there is significant disagreement within the scientific community over global warming.

·         42% believe that the media exaggerates global warming alarm.

·         35% believe that scientists generally agree on the subject.

·         22% believe the media present an accurate picture.

·         20% believe the debate on global warming is over.

See the story on:http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/general_lifestyle/july_2014/only_20_think_debate_about_global_warming_is_over
And a discussion at: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/11/rasmussen-poll-63-say-the-debate-about-global-warming-is-not-over-60-pan-bbcs-decision-to-exclude-skeptics/

The Big Lie:

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it,
people will eventually come to believe it.

But the lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie."

Josef Goebbels, Nazi Minister of Propaganda

Governments in Australia, UK and Germany in particular can no longer shield their people from the reality of soaring costs and unreliable performance caused by their lies promoting wind and solar for grid power and their hobbling of reliable electricity producers such as coal, gas and nuclear power.

Ian Plimer new Book Launch.
Professor Ian Plimer has written a new book “Not for Greens” which will be launched in Melbourne and Brisbane by IPA. For info see:
http://rsvp.ipa.org.au/?ee=1


Peer Review of Tim Flannery – “The Weather Makers Re-Examined”.
Dr Wes Allen has examined the book that gave Tim Flannery his Australian-of-the-Year crown and his well-paying job as Climate Commissioner. And Dr Allen has written a very readable and well documented book examining every chapter of it. He says:

 “From cover to cover, Tim Flannery’s message is that ‘we are now the weather makers’. Move over sun, moon, stars, planets, Earth’s mighty oceans, mountains and volcanoes – almighty man now rules the weather! In the context of known geological and cosmic climatic forces, such an anthropocentric focus is almost pre-Copernican.”

Dr Allen puts every chapter of Tim Flannery’s thesis on global warming alarmism under the spotlight of the most up-to-date scientific realism - in climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide, the reliability of the temperature records, sea levels, glaciers, the true state of the Arctic, Antarctic, Greenland, the Great Barrier Reef, extreme weather events, acidification of the oceans, oscillating Atlantic and Pacific currents and much more.

The Weather Makers is shown to contain 23 misinterpretations, 28 contradictory statements, 31 untraceable or suspect sources, 45 failures to reflect uncertainty, 66 over-simplifications or factual errors, 78 exaggerations and over a hundred unsupported dogmatic statements, many of them quite outlandish.

I read this book from cover to cover and learnt a lot from it. I commend it. Get it here:
http://www.irenicpublications.com.au/html/excerptsWMR.html

The Carbon Tax is Gone

Who killed the carbon tax? It is said that victory has a thousand parents, but defeat is an orphan.

So there will be many claiming credit for abolishing the carbon tax. Tony Abbott deserves much credit, supported by people like Dennis Jensen, George Christensen, Barnaby Joyce, Ron Boswell, Andrew Bolt, Alan Jones, Alan Moran and the bloggers. Providing scientific support, Australians like Ray Evans, Bob Carter, Ian Plimer, Jo Nova, David Evans, Bill Kininmonth, David Archibald and Cliff Ollier stand tall. (This list omits very many other deserving people who played their part, and are entitled to claim credit. Apologies to them in advance.)

Unfortunately, the job is not nearly over. We still have the Green Energy subsidies and targets, far too many bureaucracies still white-anting away, too much being spent on climate-fests, global warming research, climate bureaucracies, Kyoto carbon credit forests and the silly “Direct Action” still breathes. Flannery and Gore will never give up, the Green/ALP coalition waits its chance, much of the media will maintain the rage . . . etc
Prepared by Viv Forbes and Helpers from:
The Carbon Sense Coalition
Rosewood    Qld   Australia
forbes@carbon-sense.com