It was an appeal using rhetoric and not science because the most severe impacts of these natural disasters come from the challenge of managing increased population or changed population demands, not changes in the events per se.
Great fires are a regular feature of North American and Australian landscapes, and their human impact is worst when they reach housing or infrastructure built among trees, on the edge of bushland that has not been cleared by "cool" burn-offs.
Civilisations have been hit by droughts since the Nile delta drought of 4200 years ago destroyed Egypt's old kingdom, leaving the pyramids as witness. As global citizens, we still have much to learn about the management of water, it seems, whether in our Murray-Darling backyard or in the Sahel of Africa.
The term "powerful storms" summons up graphic images of Hurricane Sandy, which devastated New York - except it was no longer hurricane-strength when it, like a dozen others in written history, it struck. But the Manhattan area it flooded contained huge areas of high-density development on reclaimed swamps, ponds and what was riverbed before civilisation drained, dozed and filled it to provide for the population of one of the world's greatest cities. When New York has absorbed the lessons from this, it will be able to pass on advice and technology to places such as Bangladesh.
It is worth looking at some recent peer-reviewed science that points in such a direction.
A growing number of mainstream scientists agrees there is evidence for such cycles as drivers of climate change, although debate on causes and mechanisms is strong. By way of example, I note three recent papers that find evidence for long-term cycles influencing the Earth's climate.
Weichao Wu of the Peking University and colleagues studied sea-surface temperature records preserved in deep-sea sediments near Okinawa in the Pacific Ocean, and found evidence for multiple cyclic temperature variations over the past 2700 years.
The most interesting temperature peaks correspond to medieval, Roman and possibly Minoan warming periods of about 900, 1800 and 2500 years ago. The paper is significant in that it concludes that the current rate of global temperature change lies in the same range as that of those historical warming periods.
This suggests we have evidence that challenges current climate orthodoxy on two grounds, first by suggesting that such warming events were global not local European phenomena, and second that current warming is not unprecedented in the historical record.
While we read many claims by oceanographers of an increasing rate of rise in sea-levels associated with increased atmospheric carbon dioxide, an alternative interpretation of observed data is made in a recent analysis by Don Chambers (photo right) of the University of South Florida and colleagues. Chambers "Is there a 60-year oscillation in sea-level?" and shows evidence that the answer is probably yes.
poses the question:
I read his data and find it is arguable that the upswing of that oscillation is responsible for about half of the current 3mm/year rate of rise, leaving the background rate of rise at about 1.7mm, where it has been for 110 years.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change lead author Stefan Rahmstorf, writing in the climate scientists' blogsite Real Climate this month, commented on whether the data supports an interpretation of cycles, or non-cyclic shifts associated with changes in aerosols and current increases in greenhouse gases. Rahmstorf concludes in favour of the latter but ends with the objective and open-minded comment "if the system (is cyclic), we'd expect the opposite. In 30 years' time we will know for sure."
Offering considered alternative interpretations on the significance of a carefully constructed set of observational data is the essence of scientific debate; either may be right and I would add that if Chambers is right, the accelerating rate of increase in sea-levels has topped out about now, and the 10mm a year rises needed to reach the feared "1 metre rise by 2100" are not going to happen.
A third work that may eventually prove immensely important in understanding cycles in climate change is a study by J.A. Abreu of the prestigious Swiss university ETH, with co-authors including Ken McCracken, Australia's 1995 Australia Science Prize winner . Abreu reconstructs a history of solar sunspot cycles over the past 10,000 years from elemental isotopes created by cosmic rays impinging on the atmosphere, subsequently preserved in Greenland ice-core records.
Australia's 1995 Australia Science Prize winner
These records show a series of cycles ranging from 88 years to 504 years with longer cycles of 974 and 2300 years evident in later work now accepted for publication (subject to minor changes). Thus
we see that sun-spot cycles, which have been understood for centuries to influence our climate on an 11-year cycle, also have predictable longer-period cycles in the hundreds and thousands of years, and present a mechanism to explain observational data of the type given by Wu and colleagues.
The mechanisms of sun-spot, solar magnetic field and cosmic ray interactions are complex and will be intensely studied, but the associations illustrated here demand consideration when we seek to model our future climate.
The devastating impacts of extreme climate events of which Obama speaks have always been with us, and we have to expect that the human tragedies they bring will be exacerbated by growth in global population.
The Way I See It.....cycles in climate change imply our efforts should be targeted at mitigation of effects, not changing the climate. Spending billions of taxpayers money to reduce temperature by one or two degrees is a fools errand and starves an nation's economy for decades. The eradication of Green ideology and money spent on mitigation will be more fruitful.
It is my hope that scientists advising our politicians will include the rich literature represented here in their briefings to politicians - or alternatively, that politicians will demand it. And may there be a quorum of politicians who will say as does Boris Johnson (photo right) while contemplating the exceptional snow and icicles in Trafalgar Square: "I have an open mind."
Saturday, November 22, 2014
Let's get real here....ground troops will eventually be needed to wipe out the Islamic State but what then? As long as the West fails to understand Islam's evil it will continue to fail to combat the worst of its atrocities; more beheadings, rapings and women and girls sold into slavery. Shias and
Sunnis are Islamic just as Catholics and Protestants are Christian and regime change in Iraq from Sunni to Shia presents exactly the same problem but from a different direction.
Barack Obama hasn’t figured it out yet. The last war between Iran and Iraq was a Sunni/Shia war. Their systemic hatred of each other led to Iraq using ballistic missiles to shower chemical poisons on Tehran and Iran to use children to clear mine fields by forcing them to run ahead of their tanks.
Iraq held weapons superiority over Iran due to Western loans of $80 billion but Iran’s tactical superiority levelled the playing field to a stalemate after eight years and millions dead.
With this conflict as a background the US defeated the Sunni Ba’athist Party power structure of Saddam Hussein and left a Shia, al-Maliki, in charge with the help of a southern Shia majority. A foreseeable disaster to everyone, except the US.
Undeterred, the US has now endorsed yet another Shia, Prime Minister Hadir al-Abidi, (photo left) to replace the non-inclusive al-Maliki. And guess what! The Iranians have also endorsed the new Shia PM and have been crossing their borders to help fight their old enemy the Sunnis, who in retaliation to the regime change have now become the Islamic State.
Of course the disenfranchised Sunnis in the north have joined ISIS and the Shia military are being summarily executed or have dropped their guns and are running for their lives while trying to change uniforms.[How does ISIS identify Sunni from Shia? Easy, they are told to pray. Sunnis and Shia pray to Allah differently and those exposed as Shia are immediately confined to mass graves.]
But hang on, Iran is the enemy of the US, it plans to wipe Israel off the map, so WTF is it doing helping the US defeat ISIS when Iran itself is the subject of vicious US sanctions over its nuclear capacity, likely to be knocked out again by the Israelis backed by the US?
Obama, scratching his self-imposed grey hair, has now written a series of appreciative letters to Tehran welcoming their involvement. (Although the exact content of the letters remains classified.)
And now the other arch enemy of the US, Syria’s Assad, might also be checking his letter box, because he too is helping to kill Islamic State fighters, while US ally, Turkey, refuses to take sides.
It’s really tough having an ally like the US. It insists on Middle East intervention when it has no concept of the consequences. Intelligence is lacking both on the ground and in the heads of the CIA and military brass.
“Al-Qaeda has been all but destroyed”, said Barack, (who was actually training and supplying arms to the ISIS, via the CIA, to defeat Assad) but Al-Qaeda is alive and well, fragmented and more dangerous, under a dozen different names in north Africa, including the Khorosan who now operates in Raqqa, northern Syria, with the ISIS. Excuse the language but what a fucking mess.
But nowhere near the debacle yet to be confronted in Afghanistan once the US departs that little incendiary cesspit. Despicable Shariah Law will certainly be reimposed by the patient Taliban who will make the ISIS onslaught look like a Sunday school picnic, with the support of northern Pakistan.
The Way I See It.....the one consistent thread weaving its way through Middle East conflicts is Islam and the quickest way to get it here is to get involved there. But it is already here and the quickest way to embolden it is to appease it! And that’s exactly what Western countries are doing.
And that's the rub. One can't help but look at the current ad hoc, half-hearted effort against ISIS without thinking that the goal isn't really beating ISIS, but beating back bad press. It's a policy built around keeping the lid on public criticism -- at least until the President has cleaned out his desk in the Oval Office.
Thursday, November 20, 2014
The University of Queensland, along with a bevy of the ALP Left, was the perfect venue for guaranteed applause when bombastic President Obama promised to achieve something that he will never need to deliver. He bragged how he and Xi Jinping toasted their ''deal'' with a Chinese wine.
Actually he said he would use his “best efforts” to achieve a 26 per cent decrease in greenhouse gasses buy 2025. But Barry O. won’t be here, he’ll be on the well-worn guest speaker circuit for ex-aspirational Presidents.
And, at the same time, in a magnificent feat of negotiating skill he was able to convince Chinese President Xi Jinping to promise to dramatically increase his CO2 emissions each and every year until 2030. Wow, that’s some sort of achievement and the ALP and the brainwashed uni students went wild with excitement. Suckers!!
Well, the wrong people were applauding, it should have been the climate realists, because Obama and Xi Jinping had just admitted that global warming is a nonsense created by the UN’s corrupt IPCC and by the time the Paris Conference on Climate Change comes around next year even the far Left should have twigged to the fraud.
The IPCC reports that 97 per cent of scientists agree with anthropogenic “warming”. However they do not report that over 30,000 climate scientists have disagreed with them. You see, the IPCC deals in percentages while climate realists deal in numbers. Ninety-seven per cent sounds a lot, but it’s not. It may well be 9.7 “scientists” out of 10 agree with the IPCC... with the 0.3 having lost their government grants for speaking out.
Here’s an interesting background to the massive climate fraud led by ex railway diesel mechanic,
1 The UN is insolvent: Half of Africa and South America and much of Europe don’t pay their dues and don’t intend to (this problem was exacerbated by the GFC). In 1988 the UN set out to remedy the financing shortfall with a massive climate scare.
2 The vehicle: With an average of seven climate catastrophes per year since Adam, the UN realised that these natural occurrences have never been blamed on anything!
3 Revenue source: World governments must pay 10% of the scam to the UN.
4 Incentives: World governments will each reap unprecedented receipts from what will effectively become a tax on carbon. Environmentalists and coal-hating Green minorities will naturally become allies in the scam and (small ''l'') liberal governments will acquire funding for socialist programs and their dream of a meaningful redistribution of income. Promoters of the scam, like Al Gore, will be rewarded by becoming billionaires overnight and the whole process will be one step closer to a UN dominated world government.
[Witness Gillard’s and Milne’s plans for ridiculously ambitious social programs before they were thwarted by the abolition of massive carbon and mining taxes. “Socialism masquerading as Environmentalism”, said Tony Abbott. He was right!]
5 What exactly is this IPCC: It’s a group of disgruntled misfits that calls itself a scientific body. It is no such thing. Very few members are “scientists”. They are economists, bureaucrats, industry representatives, radical environmentalists, and far Left professional activists.
6 How does the IPCC operate: It collates papers from environmental socialists all over the world and writes up regular reports that reflect the common view. It will NOT accept papers from so called sceptics. Many “sceptical” scientists who express doubts about the IPCC’s alarmist views have found their government funding curiously cut.
7 What is a scientist?: There is no degree called “a scientist”. You can be a “scientist” in any field you want from climate to child behaviour and tree frogs. If you want be known as an official “scientist” simply write a paper on any subject your peer reviewers will agree with and have it officially peer reviewed, and... Voila! You’re a scientist and bumping shoulders with uni graduates who have agreed to nominate each other for professorships.
8 The IPCC’s record: Every single climate model of the IPCC has so far been proved wrong and is it any wonder? For example, a Dr Daniel Scott, a contributing author to chapter 14 of the IPCC’s Working Group 2 travelled, all expenses paid, to Tunisia, Germany, Greece, France, England, Puerto Rico, Switzerland, Australia, New Zealand, Sweden, Scotland, Italy, South Africa, Las Vegas, and numerous other destinations to deliver papers on the effect climate change “might” have on golf tournaments, ice-fishing, alpine skiing and tourism events in Canada’s capital city. (Nice work if you can get it, and they all take turns in “getting” it.)
The Way I See It......the word is out that the IPCC is actually a fraudulent body of gooks who are now frantically pressing (small l) liberal leaders to up the ante and make meaningful commitments to the global warming scam all to the future determent to their trusting citizens.. Their Socialist breatheran in the environmental organizations are ramping up the hype with traditional scaremongering phrases to add impetus to the so-called coming Armageddon.
Thus the determination of Obama to get global warming on the table prior to the final watershed scarefest in Paris, hoping that it might add credibility to his tattered reputation as a slack douse bag and pull up his legacy a notch higher than Jimmy Carters'. But it’s all coming apart at the seams. Paris is the last hurrah for the desperate UN’s IPCC... and don’t they know it! Now all they need is a huge blizzard like what happened at Copenhagen Climate Conference to put the real lid on the ''The Biggest Hoax of the Century''. I just hope Dear Readers that your eyes are fully open now.
The new Norwegian Prime Minister, Erna Solberg, known more affectionately as “Iron Erna” began a program which targets and deports immigrants who have ties to radical groups or have committed violent crimes while in Norway.
While many in the West suggest this is a racist move, it's worked in a dramatic fashion and with national, not racial, identification and violent crime figures have dropped dramatically. the “Oslo Local News” reports violent crime has decreased by 31 per cent after a record number of immigrants were deported by Norwegian authorities.
The National Police Immigration Service of Norway, Politiets Utlendingsenhet (PU), deported a record 824 people in October. The previous record was set in the previous month when 763 people were deported.
PU believes the reason for the decrease in crime is more resources and more staff. It has also become easier for Norwegian authorities to deport people back to Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq and Nigeria.
Kristin Kvigne, head of PU, said, “This month helps us reach our anticipated figure for this
The centre-right government of Iron Erna has predicted that 7,100 people will be deported in 2014. At the end of October, PU had so far deported 5,876 immigrants.A percentage of those deported in 2014 were asylum seekers who had their applications for continued asylum rejected. They were then deported along with their families.
The majority of deportees, however, had committed crimes or had returned illegally to Norway after already having been deported. Kvigne said it was important to view the high number of deportations made by PU in the context of dramatically falling crime rates across the country.
But not everyone in Norway is happy with the fall in violent crime. One academic socialist politically correct twit, Dr Unni Wikan, (see photo right) Professor of Social Anthropology at the University of Oslo slammed the new policy saying:
“Norwegian women must take responsibility for the fact that Muslim men find their manner of dress provocative. And since these men believe women are responsible for rape, the women must adapt to the multicultural society around them.”Wow, that sounds like a typically muddle-headed response from academia. Using Dr Wikan’s logic, it is the victim's fault that she has been raped and she should dress more appropriately so as to quell the immigrants’ desire to rape her! Bloody unbelievable ! Must Westerners make another accommodation to these unwelcome ethnics? Oh well, with a face like that I would guess she's safe to walk the streets of Oslo!
The Way I See It.....the difficulty for the Australian Government is that most of the crime is committed not by immigrants but by children of immigrants..... people who were born here. How you deport people who were born here is a complete mystery. Deport to where? Are they to be rendered Stateless? Who will accept them if they are guilty of violent crimes? Just do what is done in their
parent's home country....FLOG THEM !
The only alternative is to place them in off-shore processing centres where suddenly there is plenty of room is available. There ya go, The political correct Appeasers would be proud of me. I didn’t mention the word “Islam” once.
Monday, November 17, 2014
''Today's global warming is well within historic range''
- says Professor Michael Asten , from Australia's Monash University
- US President Barak Obama vows action on climate change with the declaration "none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires and crippling drought and more powerful storms".
ALMOST everything you’re told about Barack Obama’s “breakthrough” deal with China on global warming is a con.
But, God, listen to the spin.
President Obama told ecstatic students in Brisbane on Saturday that last week’s deal to limit carbon dioxide emissions would help save our Great Barrier Reef and “I want that there 50 years from now”.
Greens leader Christine Milne insisted it showed the Prime Minister Tony Abbott “is completely out
Opposition Leader Bill Shorten said it recognised “human activity is already changing the world’s climate system”, and “we most certainly need to address climate change as the presidents of China and the United States have done”.
Red China was going green, agreed the warmist ABC, since “the most concrete target is to have 20 per cent of China’s energy produced from renewable sources by 2030”.
Hear all that?
Every claim is actually false, fake or overblown, as so often with the global warming scare.
Here are the five biggest falsehoods told about this “breakthrough”.
First, Labor is wrong: this deal proves nothing about global warming. In fact, there has still been no warming of the atmosphere for 16 years, contrary to almost every prediction.
Forget the excuse that the missing heat is hiding in the deep ocean. NASA researchers last month said a new study had found the “waters of Earth’s deep ocean have not warmed measurably since 2005”. Nor, incidentally, have we seen the biennial bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef predicted in 1999 by Australian alarmist Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, (photo left) a well-known government grants trough-feeder, and a lead author of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. He has had many DUD predictions to his credit.
Second, this is not a real deal.
China, already the world’s biggest emitter, is actually promising little more than what it always planned — to let emissions keep soaring until 2030 as it makes its people richer. China will cap its emissions only in 2030 — the never-never — when its electricity supply is deployed and its population is set to plummet.
In exchange, Obama promises to cut US emissions by 26 per cent of 2005 levels by 2025.
But Obama’s term ends in two years and the Republicans who now control Congress say they’ll try to block his deal.
Republican Mitch McConnell, (photo right) the new majority leader in the Senate, said he was “particularly distressed by the deal”, which “requires the Chinese to do nothing at all for 16 years” and ''what was he thinking?''. And, to add to the phoniness, the deal is neither binding nor enforceable.
Third falsehood? No, this deal doesn’t show the Abbott Government is out of step. Not at all.
The Government’s own planned cuts to emissions — 5 per cent of 2000 levels by 2020 — are not wildly behind the US ones over a similar time span. If anyone is out of step it’s Labor, since China and the US plan to cut their emissions not with a Labor-style carbon tax but with Liberal-style direct action policies.
Fourth falsehood: China did not promise to get 20 per cent of its energy from renewable sources, as many journalists report.The deal instead says that 20 per cent will come from “non-fossil fuels”, which in China’s case includes nuclear power.
Indeed, China plans to have at least five times more nuclear power by 2030, with Sun Qin, chairman of the China National Nuclear Corp, confirming this year that “our 31 extra nuclear plants (added to the present 17) will play an important role in raising the proportion of energy produced by non-fossil fuel”.
And the fifth falsehood?
Let's face it.....the Greens and Labor don’t actually want us to follow the lead of the US and China at all. Not when it comes to how those promises are meant to be delivered.
That’s because most of America’s cuts to emissions come from fracking, a technique that has given the US huge new supplies of natural gas, cheaper than coal and more greenhouse-friendly. But the Greens vehemently oppose fracking, and Labor wants it restricted.
As for China, it plans to have much of its non-fossil power supplied by nuclear plants and controversial dams like the massive Three Gorges project and more dams in the pipeline.
But, again, in an obvious example that the Lunatics have taken over the Insane Asylum, Labor and the Greens oppose nuclear power and fight new dams.So without fracking, new dams or nuclear power, how could Australia possibly match the US and China?
How ? Given wind power is too unreliable and solar hideously expensive?
So people.....what a con you’re being sold.
No, this isn’t a real deal.
Wait! China won’t cut emissions for another 16 years, and Congress will oppose Obama's ''deal''.
And here's your reality check: Labor and the Greens actually oppose the technologies the US and China most rely upon to cut emissions.......Oh, and all the while, still the planet refuses to warm.
The Way I See It......
TONY Abbott has foiled Barack Obama’s attempt to hijack the G20 with climate change, refusing to put a cent into the US President’s push for a $10 billion global green climate fund.
And as chair of the G20, he succeeded in ensuring global economic growth and job creation was at the top of the final declaration yesterday, delivering a blow to Mr Obama’s attempts to elevate climate change to a first order issue of the world leader’s meeting.
In one of the rare instances of an Australian leader standing up to a US President on a major policy issue, Mr Abbott refused to allow the final communiqué to include a
Several Australian officials, however, said privately that it had been “discourteous” of the US President to grandstand on the issue as a guest in Australia — this year’s host of the G20. ''Barack Obama was crass, graceless, bombastic and deliberately rude.''
Sunday, November 16, 2014
Professor Michael Asten, (photo right) of Monash University in Melbourne, Victoria is astonished that global warming activists are using dated data to hide the recent decline in temperatures:
THE climate lobby will be working the corridors of the G-20 meeting in Brisbane this weekend, using the recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Synthesis Report and Climate Council commentary....
Both the Synthesis Report and the Climate Council report use old plots that show a steady rise in smoothed temperature to 2010 (the decade of the start of the hiatus). Yet NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies’ global temperature graphs are updated monthly, show five-year averages, are publicly available on the internet and show average temperatures peaked in 2004 and show a decline for the following eight years…
The dichotomy between observational data and models is similarly marked with sea-level data of the past 120 years. The rate of rise across the past century is 1.7mm a year and has increased to about 3.2mm a year across the past 20 years. The data shows that the fast 3.2mm a year rate of rise has occurred twice in historic times (around 1860-80 and 1930-50). The IPCC modelling studies of sea level rise to 2100 show up to 80cm of total rise by 2100, increasing from the present 3.2 to a predicted huge 15mm a year....
Yet neither the IPCC nor the Climate Council, or the publicly funded CSIRO on its website, even admits the existence of recent data such as that by Anny Cazenave (photo left) and co-workers at the Geophysical and Oceanography Laboratory, Toulouse, which shows that from 1994 to 2011 the rate of observed rise in global sea level decreased from 3.5 to 2.5mm a year.Oh, and as for the excuse that the missing heat is hiding in the deep ocean:
This has been studied in a series of important papers, most recently by William Llovel (below right) and co-workers at the California Institute of Technology who used quantitative observations of global ocean mass and temperature profiles to show that the deep ocean has in fact cooled slightly in the past decade. NASA backed that up last month by announcing from a new study: ''The cold waters of Earth's deep ocean have not warmed measurably since 2005, while above the 1.2-mile mark there is some warming, but not fast enough to account for the stalled airOh yes, the so-called latest survey saying that 97 per cent of practicing climate scientists are actually saying there is a broad consensus of human induced global warming.
The various surveys making this claim have been comprehensively debunked. It was found that quite a number of scientists that were included in the survey said the authors had ignored or misrepresented their work. In such surveys, the most that can be said is that scientists agree man has some influence on the climate, which is hardly controversial.
''That warming activists and politicians don’t mention these facts tells me they are not interested in the truth and cannot be trusted.'' says Professor Asten.
The Way I See It......Professor Asten is pointing out a certain arrogance and refusal of many climate scientists to admit mistakes. In fact, climate scientists did not predict this warming pause. They did not predict record crop yields due to a beneficial higher atmospheric CO2. They did not predict record sea ice around Antarctica. They did not predict fewer hurricanes and cyclones. They did not predict colder European winters. They did not predict a return to Australia of dam-filling rains. They did not predict more snow in the northern hemisphere. They did not predict a failure of the Great Barrier Reef to bleach for years now. Many did not predict the ice cover of the Arctic to be so extensive. Panic merchant Al Gore needs to suck that one up and shut up from now on.
Barack Obama, to show he still has relevance, has moved to thrust climate change to the centre of the global political agenda of the Brisbane G-20 meetings, pledging $3 billion to a global climate fund. The President used a speech at the University of Queensland to restate his ''climate agreement'' with China and push the world to do more on climate change, even before he fronted up to the meet-and-greet gathering at Brisbane Entertainment Centre. His rude politicking on our shores showed no doubt he had in mind to humiliate our Prime Minister Tony Abbott's conservative approach to the climate debate.