Archive

Archive for July, 2007

>Unravelling the myth of the climate change ‘consensus’

July 31, 2007 3 comments

>Viscount Monckton of Brenchley has become somewhat of a lightning rod for the myriad of Climate Brown Shirts that have their noses firmly planted in the public trough by his intelligent and calm questioning of the so-called science behind the climate change industry.

The issue of whether there’s a consensus among climate scientists about the consequences of manmade global warming is one that Brown Shirts need to keep pushing in order to fulfil their misanthropic vision for the rest of us.

Of course there’s no consensus. Furthermore, in my lifetime I have never seen what is supposedly a scientific issue divide so neatly along political lines.

In this analysis, Monckton demonstrates that the whole basis for the consensus is based on a profoundly shoddy piece of research of the type ironically found all too often within the science of climate change (the debunked Hockey Stick, for example).

Here are some key extracts:

The claim of “consensus” rests almost entirely on an inaccurate and now-outdated single-page comment in the journal Science entitled The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change (Oreskes, 2004). In this less than impressive “head-count” essay, Naomi Oreskes, a historian of science with no qualifications in climatology, defined the “consensus” in a very limited sense, quoting as follows from IPCC (2001) – “Human activities … are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents … that absorb or scatter radiant energy. … most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.”

…There is no scientific consensus on how much the world has warmed or will warm; how much of the warming is natural; how much impact greenhouse gases have had or will have on temperature; how sea level, storms, droughts, floods, flora, and fauna will respond to warmer temperature; what mitigative steps – if any – we should take; whether (if at all) such steps would have sufficient (or any) climatic effect; or even whether we should take any steps at all.

…According to Dr. Peiser, fewer than one-third of the papers analyzed by Oreskes either explicitly or implicitly endorsed the “consensus”, contrary to Oreskes’ assertion that the figure was 75%. In addition, 44 abstracts focused on the natural as opposed to anthropogenic causes of climate change, and did not include any direct or indirect link or reference to human actitivies, carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gas emissions, let alone anthropogenic forcing of recent climate change. More than half of the abstracts did not mention anthropogenic climate change at all and could not, therefore, reasonably be held to have commented either way upon the “consensus” as defined by Oreskes.

…Oreskes’ essay is now outdated. Since it was published, more than 8,000 further papers on climate change have been published in the learned journals. In these papers, there is a discernible and accelerating trend away from unanimity even on her limited definition of “consensus”. Schulte (2007: submitted) has brought Oreskes’ essay up to date by examining the 539 abstracts found using her search phrase “global climate change” between 2004 (her search had ended in 2003) and mid-February 2007. Even if Oreskes’ commentary in Science were true, the “consensus” has moved very considerably away from the unanimity she says she found. Dr. Schulte’s results show that about 1.5% of the papers (just 9 out of 539) explicitly endorse the “consensus”, even in the limited sense defined by Oreskes. Though Oreskes found that 75% of the papers she reviewed explicitly or implicitly endorsed the “consensus”, Dr. Schulte’s review of subsequent papers shows that fewer than half now give some degree of endorsement to the “consensus”.

…The outright scaremongers are led by James Hansen, a donor of thousands of dollars to the re-election campaigns of Al Gore and John Kerry. He showed Congress a graph in 1988 that set the trend for wildly-exaggerated projections of future global temperature. The graph presented three scenarios, the most extreme of which had no basis in the scientific literature or in previously-observed trends. Politicians at that time treated the graph with respect because it had been generated by a computer. Yet the model which generated the graph, still in use by Hansen and the UN today, continues to contain “flux adjustments” – i.e. fudge-factors – many times greater than the very small perturbations which the model is supposed to predicting.

And so it goes on. To those that claim a consensus I can only say that if there’s no consensus among the 17 climate models used in the UN’s calculations then how can there be a consensus in the scientific community about the impact of climate change?

As they say; read the whole thing.

Categories: Climate Change

>Global Warming induced hurricanes postponed for another year

>A clear sign that we are careening towards greenhouse gas induced global catastrophe…

NEW YORK (Reuters) -The 2007 hurricane season may be less severe than forecast due to cooler-than-expected water temperatures in the tropical Atlantic, private forecaster WSI Corp said on Tuesday.

“cooler-than-expected” by what? Not all those never-been-right climate models that the aforementioned catastrophes are based on?

The season will bring 14 named storms, of which six will become hurricanes and three will become major hurricanes, WSI said in its revised outlook. WSI had previously expected 15 named storms of which eight would become hurricanes and four would become major hurricanes.

In other words – about the same as there’s been for the last 40 years.

“Because the ocean temperatures have not yet rebounded from the significant drop in late spring, we have decided to reduce our forecast numbers slightly,” said Todd Crawford, a WSI seasonal forecaster.

The energy and insurance industries are keenly watching the 2007 storm season after the record damage caused by hurricanes two years ago.

Caused by the clowns inhabiting New Orleans’ political offices, you mean. Katrina was only a Category 3 storm and should not have been able to cause the damage it did.

During the 2005 season, hurricanes Katrina and Rita devastated parts of the U.S. Gulf Coast and temporarily knocked out a quarter of U.S. crude and fuel production, sending energy prices to then-record highs.

WSI’s Crawford added that wind conditions due to the lack of an El Nino event were less conducive to formation of tropical storms.

Despite the downgraded forecast, WSI still expects the 2007 season to be more active than last year, and added that storm-weary parts of the Gulf Coast could still be hit.

Last year was one of the lowest ever so it’s not that tough to predict it will be more active. Do you like the way that’s written in the negative? “Despite the…”

“We feel the general threat to the western Gulf is reduced slightly, with a corresponding increase in the threat to the eastern Gulf and Florida,” Crawford said.

No bad news for Climate Brown Shirts to report. Bad luck for them. I’m sure they’ll hunt down something suitable, though.

Categories: Climate Change

>Academia vs The Real World courtesy of Ghostbusters

>I turned on the TV yesterday, not knowing what was on, and found that the classic Ghostbusters had just started.

After being kicked out of university due to Dr Peter Venkman’s (Bill Murray) sustained incompetence he and Dr Raymond Stanz (Dan Akroyd) are discussing what the future holds for them. Murray is saying that it’s fate and things will be fine but a worried Akroyd is having none of it:

Dr Raymond Stanz: Personally, I liked the university. They gave us money and facilities, we didn’t have to produce anything! You’ve never been out of college! You don’t know what it’s like out there! I’ve *worked* in the private sector. They expect *results*.

Ghostbusters was made in 1984. I wonder whether a much more actively politically partisan Hollywood would include that line these days?

As I pointed out the other day, the leftist mind is fundamentally immature and there’s no greater example of that intellectual immaturity than in academia.

It also reminded me of the debate about torture doing the rounds last year. The left was taking the “it’s never, ever OK to use torture” line even if an impending catastrophic threat of the variety dreamt up in the TV series 24 was uncovered.

Does the left really believe this or is it simply their usual knee jerk reaction to what they perceive as the right’s predilection for thumb screws, truth drugs and water boarding? The latter, I suspect.

You’ll recall that in another classic movie, also in a similar genre to Ghostbusters – Men In Black – that MIB has one hour to save the world from being destroyed by the Arquillians. They need to get information about what the Arquillians want and ends up interrogating Frank The Pug.

KAY – You busy, Frank?

FRANK THE PUG – Sorry, Kay, I can’t talk right now, my ride’s leaving in —

(Kay grabs Frank. He yelps like, well, a dog.)

KAY – Call the pound. We got a stray.

FRANK THE PUG – Hey! Get your paws off me!

(PASSERBYS glare at Kay, who appears to be seriously mistreating this poor
little dog. Jay tries to explain.)

JAY – The, uh…dog owes my friend some money.

KAY (to Frank) – Arquillians and bugs. What do you know?

FRANK THE PUG – I know nothing.

KAY – Not a thing?

(Kay shakes Frank the Pug, trying to force an answer.)

FRANK THE PUG – Stop it. Okay, okay. Rosenberg wasn’t some two-bit Arquillian. He was the guardian of a galaxy. They thought he would be safe here on earth.

KAY – And the bug had other plans.

FRANK THE PUG – The galaxy is the best source for subatomic energy in the universe. If the bugs get
their slimy claws on it, kiss the Arquillians goodbye.

JAY – Ask him about the belt.

KAY – (to Frank) – Rosenberg said something about a galaxy on “Orion’s belt.” What’s he talking about, Frank?

FRANK THE PUG – Beats me.

(Kay shakes Frank the Pug once more.)

In the movie it seems not only completely credible but quite reasonable, as it does in ’24’. However I’ve done enough research on torture to know that it is, in fact, counter-productive, even in extreme circumstances. I wonder whether those that banged on loudest about torture saw the irony in the above?

Categories: Politics

>Sunday night Aussie rock

>Few Aussie bands have hit the international stage in recent years with the force of Wolfmother.

After releasing their self-titled debut EP through Modular Recordings in September 2004, Wolfmother began appearing at several high profile music events, such as Homebake and the Big Day Out. The EP was a success, reaching number thirty-five in the ARIA singles chart and receiving consistent radio play on Triple J.

In 2005, the band made their way to Los Angeles, working alongside producer Dave Sardy (Marilyn Manson, Oasis) to record their eponymous debut album, released in October 2005.

The first single to be released was “Mind’s Eye”/”Woman” (a double A-side), making its debut on the Australian music charts at number twenty-nine. The album itself entered the Australian Charts at number three and has been a regular feature of the Top 20 ever since, having gone platinum three times. Wolfmother won the 2005 J Award from the Australian youth radio network Triple J for the best Australian album of the year,[1] and finished the year with Falls Festival appearances. Rolling Stone magazine listed Wolfmother as one of their “Top 10 Bands to Watch 2006.”[2]

They achieved a record breaking six songs in the influential 2005 Triple J Hottest 100, with “Mind’s Eye” their highest entry at number six. This breaks the record of five songs previously held by Powderfinger, Queens of the Stone Age, Silverchair and The White Stripes.

Woman (terrific live video from Pinkpop)

White Unicorn (at Pinkpop)

Joker And The Thief (live)

Categories: Australia, Music

>Battle At Kruger Park

July 28, 2007 3 comments

>If you haven’t seen this amazing video of what happens when a herd of buffalo comes across a pride of lions snoozing in the sun and wondering what to do about lunch then you’re in for a treat. There’s a surprise involved, as well, that makes it all the more amazing.

Categories: Africa

>More poll fixing at NineMSN

>I’ve been keeping a record of the poll fixing happening on NineMSN’s online polls. I didn’t have the opportunity to take images of the latest example – Should the government give Dr Haneef his visa back?

When I checked in yesterday evening the Yes vote was around 9500 and the No vote was around 9700. That was in line with the numbers earlier in the day.

One thing I’ve noticed about polls is that the ratio of Yes to No doesn’t change by an material amount once 2000 votes have been cast.

Given the political nature of the question on this poll it comes as no surprise that there has been some mucking about going on overnight.

The numbers have been manipulated to 208,000 to 18,000. I’m not surprised. Manipulating the truth is the left’s number one talent.

Categories: Media

>Typical lefty leaves typical lefty comment

>I have to thank Oscar for leaving a comment on my post The United Nations’ principles to ruin the world, as it provides a clear demonstration of the immaturity of the leftist mind. Perversely, this intellectual immaturity does not mature over time in line with the body, as shown by the destructive ideas of our ‘cultural elite’, educators and media cabal.

Using your own words: “I am – also — beyond being shocked” of how little and stupid is the mind of some people, arriving to so extreme limits of writing “things” like your “comments” …

If you can decode what is fraudulently trying to pass as a sentence in English then I think Oscar is saying that he’s beyond being shocked by my being beyond being shocked.

First of all, “corruption” — as many other tares — was not originated in the Third World. They were “imported”. “Imposed” to be more exact.

Poor Oscar doesn’t get to first base by trotting out the old “all things bad that happen in the developing/Third World are because we ‘imposed’ them.” It’s a pity that Oscar is about as familiar with the history of these places as he is with the English language. If you’ve ever lived in developing countries, as I have for nearly 10 years in Africa and SE Asia, then it is as plain as the nose on your face the advantages British colonialism left for her former colonies. The same can’t be said for French, Italian, Portugese or Spanish involvement with only the rare exception. Notice the the United States isn’t on the list. Oops. A bit inconvenient, really.

Since “discovering” and/or “colonization” times, most of that tares where typical “rules” of the “discoverers” and/or “colonizators” … right ? The ones which did not accept them, were – simply — “eliminated”, “disappeared” , … etc. (I mean: tortures, killed,… etc.); using the long “experience” and all unimaginable “methods” the “discoverers” and/or “colonizators” had in these domains. .. doesn’t it ?

As of today, all this, it is still valid, … correct ? … and … in all “areas” (human rights, labour standards, environment protection, anti-corruption,…) …true ?

What the heck is this man babbling on about? If he thinks that human rights abuses, labour abuses, environmental damage and corruption are due to Western involvement then he’s living in a parallel universe. The most destructive force in these areas over the last one hundred years has been socialism. Point blank.

In conclusion, by now, terrorism and dictatorial regimes, are only simple, effective and efficient consequence of that “rules”. And, ONLY for all these reasons, any action to avoid that “rules” may, should, must be fully encouraged. In the current and/or so terrible “world (or “humanity”) situation”, if an international organization, like the United Nations, is not able to do it, who – in your “opinion” – will be able ?

Oscar. Oscar. Oscar. How do you think these sorts of disputes were handled before the United Nations and League of Nations existed? Hmm? Affected countries either sat down and hashed out a political solution or, in the rare circumstances that didn’t work out, went to war.

Moreover, for many “First” and “Second” World’s geo-politicians, all this, is the “normal” consequence of that “rules”.

“Who” you think are the real “profiteers” ? … of what really happened with the so famous “Oil for Food” Program and related … funds ? I am sure, you will be completely surprised to know “who” really are the ones who really profit all that “corruption”, “extortion”, “bribery”, … etc.

Kofi Annan. One of his predecessors, Boutros Boutros Ghali and a host of countries (particularly the world’s worst country, France). There’s a big list that Saddam was bribing.

“Who” you think are “ruling” the United Nations ? … the Third World Countries ?…

Third World Countries have the same power as First World Countries. One country, one vote. They’ve put together voting blocs that have resulted in the UN Human Rights Council only passing resolutions against one country in the last 12 months – Israel – while pretty much ignoring the slaughter in Darfur, the concentration camp that is North Korea and the subjugation of women in most of the Arab world. They recently appointed Zimbabwe to Chair the Development and Sustainability Council. Zimbabwe!

“What” it is the real power – and use — of the “veto” ?…

Please, read a little bit about, before proposing so stupid principles and/or lists…

Now, about all the current “corruption”, “incompetence”, “favouritism”, “nepotism”,… in United Nations, it is another – and completely different – story, specially in peace keeping activities. We should do whatever necessary to avoid, all of them.

If you can give me ONE example of UN peacekeepers bringing peace to a region in the entire history of the organisation then I’ll give you a brownie point.

Having all this well in mind, please think twice, before writing so stupid and so clearly oriented, ‘concerned’, ‘deeply concerned’ and ‘gravely concerned’ comments…

Oscar.

Why not go to the UN website and do a search through their archives for the word ‘concerned’ or the other phrases above. You will be truly astonished at how much time the UN spends being concerned while sitting on its hands doing absolutely nothing.

Thanks, Oscar, for dropping by and demonstrating that wisdom and leftism are mutually incompatible concepts. Look forward to more amusing, intellectually vapid contributions from you. Please, though, get a proof-reader.

>These people are the scum of the earth

>Taliban kidnappers have shot dead a South Korean hostage and are threatening to kill 22 others unless their demands are met, a Taliban spokesman says.

A local government official confirmed the death.

“Yes, they have killed one of the hostages and efforts are under way to have the others released,” district chief of Qarabagh in Ghazni province, Khowja Seddiqi, told Reuters.

Aid workers, Christians, mothers, fathers, wives, husbands, brothers, sisters – all working in a high risk area to rebuild Afghanistan for the good of the Afghan people.

The sooner we get really serious about dealing with Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Warizistan the better.

Islamic terrorists, their material supporters and their enablers in the Western media are the scum of the earth.

May they rot in Hell.

Categories: War On Terror

>The United Nations’ principles to ruin the world

>I am beyond being shocked by the United Nations’ support for, and enablement of, international terrorism, dictatorial regimes, Third World corruption and human rights abuses while at the same time propounding the views outlined in its Global Compact.

The Global Compact’s ten principles in the areas of human rights, labour, the environment and anti-corruption enjoy universal consensus and are derived from:

  • The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
  • The International Labour Organization’s Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work
  • The Rio Declaration on Environment and Development
  • The United Nations Convention Against Corruption

The Global Compact asks companies to embrace, support and enact, within their sphere of influence, a set of core values in the areas of human rights, labour standards, the environment, and anti-corruption:

Human Rights

  • Principle 1: Businesses should support and respect the protection of internationally proclaimed human rights; and
  • Principle 2: make sure that they are not complicit in human rights abuses.

Straight off the bat, the UN demonstrates that it is profoundly anti-business. The left can’t see anything in other than a political context and therefore it can’t understand that business is, and must be, both apolitical and amoral. It is simply not the job of business to support human rights; it already has the two most morally important tasks that exist – the employment of people and generation of profits in order to deliver tax revenue to the state. It is up to individual governments to ensure that human rights abuses do not occur in their countries.

At this point the educated know-nothings posing as the left’s elite will bleat on about sweat shops and the like without admitting that workers in Third World sweatshops earned more than the average salary in their countries. When pressure came to bear on companies like Nike jobs were lost (from South America to China) and former workers were left with no income and no prospects. This is a clear example of what happens when the rubber of what appears to be a morally correct, compassionate position actually hits the road.

The greatest human rights abuses occur every day in Sudan, Somalia, Iran, North Korea, China, Cuba and, increasingly, Venezuela and other nascent South American dictatorships. None of these abuses, in which millions of people have been killed, tortured or imprisoned in the few years since the beginning of the new millennium have had anything to do with business. They are all down to corrupt regimes, religious intolerance and the predictable outcome of socialist policies.

How can business make an impact on the human rights abuses of Darfur? The violence of expansionist Islam? The gulag known as North Korea?

It can’t. Obviously.

Labour Standards

  • Principle 3: Businesses should uphold the freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining;
  • Principle 4: the elimination of all forms of forced and compulsory labour;
  • Principle 5: the effective abolition of child labour; and
  • Principle 6: the elimination of discrimination in respect of employment and occupation.

These standards show how corrupted the UN has become in our lifetime by socialist doctrine. Twenty or thirty years ago it would have couched these policies in language that hid their true, socialist roots. Collective bargaining costs jobs. Simple as that. It costs tax revenue. It costs economic prosperity. The last thing business should be doing, if it is upholding its moral responsibility to employ people and generate profits, is supporting collective bargaining.

Cuba, North Korea, China etc etc all have forced and compulsory labour regimes yet the United Nations does nothing to deal with them. Furthermore, it propounds eliminating compulsory labour while at the same time advocating for business to compulsorily negotiate with labour organisations.

The issue of child labour is probably only in the list to pull at people’s heart strings, as it has been pretty effectively dealt with over the last couple of decades. Not to say it doesn’t go on at all, it does, but it’s hardly an endemic problem.

The UN and its supporters puts themselves in an awkward position when they attack Western Countries (and particularly the US) for having discriminatory employment regimes. The fact is that if a person is hired as a public servant, for example, then it doesn’t matter whether they’re black, white, yellow, Christian, Muslim, Jew, gay, straight, tall, short, thin, fat or think that Al Gore really cares for the environment – they are all paid exactly the same amount. The same goes for the left’s supposed bogeyman – big business – if you’re employed in a bank or a stockbroker or at Hewlett-Packard or at General Motors then you’re getting paid pretty much exactly the same regardless of your particular group. Is that how it works in the Middle East (Israel excepted)? In Africa? In South America?

Environment

  • Principle 7: Businesses should support a precautionary approach to environmental challenges;
  • Principle 8: undertake initiatives to promote greater environmental responsibility; and
  • Principle 9: encourage the development and diffusion of environmentally friendly technologies

The ‘precautionary principal’ emanated from the environment movement and has as its fundamental position that unless a company can guarantee no harm will come from its products then they should not be allowed on the market. Of course, using this logic we wouldn’t have penicillin or antibiotics or antiseptics or a vast array of drugs and chemicals that have saved millions of lives while at the same time having adverse affects on a tiny percentage of the population. Also using this logic we shouldn’t drive, swim in the ocean, use herbal remedies or even exercise given the potential for fatal consequences. When an aeroplane crashes it’s a tragedy for those on board but the lessons learned save the lives of countless future travellers. We learn from our mistakes not by trying to avoid those we can only imagine.

When the Soviet Empire collapsed, as I’ve pointed out before, the scale of environmental catastrophe shocked even the regime’s most ardent critics. Free markets and private ownership have proven to be the most effective at protecting the environment because people have a financial incentive to ensure an ongoing supply of trees, for example, as distinct from the destruction of forests that takes place when governments pander to environmentalists and don’t do enough clearing to ensure fires don’t wreak massive damage, as happened in Canberra a few years ago.

What product is not more environmentally friendly now than twenty or thirty years ago? Cars certainly are. In order to match the massive fuel consumption of your average 1970 V8 you need to buy a dirty, great Hummer. Today’s V8s are more efficient – and thus better for the environment – than most four cylinder cars were back then. This didn’t happen through business consciously seeking to create more environmentally friendly cars but by competition to deliver cheaper to run products. Markets create efficiency, including environmental efficiency given a few decades to sort themselves out.

Anti-Corruption

  • Principle 10: Businesses should work against corruption in all its forms, including extortion and bribery.

There is no more corrupt major institution than the United Nations, of which the Oil For Food scandal was just one example. If it’s going to lecture on corruption, extortion and bribery then it really needs to get its own house in order first. It turns a blind eye to rapes committed by its peacekeepers, actively supports the North Korean regime by giving it money allocated for aid and ensures a spotlight is not cast on people like Robert Mugabe for the destruction he has wrought to Zimbabwe. It is not for no reason that the United Nations was #1 in my 10 Institutions That Ruin The World list.

The major activities of the UN seem to be hand wringing while being ‘concerned’, ‘deeply concerned’ and ‘gravely concerned’.

This list of ten principles, if enforced, would immiserise more people by undoing the positive effects of globalisation while at the same time negatively impacting the environment.

Categories: United Nations

>BBC climate change ‘mishonesty’ knows no bounds

July 23, 2007 9 comments

>Update 24/7 – Strange happenings indeed. The images in this post all disappeared, except for the one of the road that I’d modified. I’ve received no notification from Blogger of any complaint. If it happens again then we know that someone is really concerned about being exposed this way.

The BBC is one of the loudest voices in the push to immiserise Europe through its promotion of global warming hysteria. In a section titled In pictures: How the world is changing they present the following as proof that we’re all doomed. I refer to it as ‘mishonesty’ – the mistaken belief that it’s OK to bend the truth because the cause is ‘just’ – and in the piece they use the old before/after technique to show the damage that mankind is purportedly doing.

BBC comments against each picture below in blue.



While the effect of human activity on the global climate is hotly debated, physical signs of environmental change are all around us. Some scientists say an increase in the rate of melting of the world’s glaciers is evidence of global warming. Argentina’s Upsala Glacier was once the biggest in South America, but it is now disappearing at a rate of 200 metres per year. Other scientists say its reduction is due to complicated shifts in glacial dynamics and local geology.

In fact, those ‘other scientists’ say that the Upsala Glacier is what’s referred to as a fast-flowing calving glacier. From its name you can divine that more activity takes place in this glacier than other, slow-flowing ones. From the conclusion of this analysis:

Comparison with velocity measurements obtained by tracking surface features 30 years ago suggests that UWT was subject to strong acceleration after the release of backstress, coincident with a large glacier thinning rate which may in turn be responsible for the drastic recession affecting UWT from 1978 to 1999.

According to NASA this glacier retreated more than 4 km northward between 1968 and 1995, but appears to have stabilized in recent years. The variation between 1944/5 and 1985/6 is just -1.37% (against an overall -3.7% of the Southern Patagonian Ice Fields). Not only that but it’s been pointed out recently that the pictures and captions are being wrongly used as evidence of global warming.

Kerplunk and the climate Skeptics: 1
BBC and the Climate Brown Shirts: 0



American photographer Gary Braasch has been documenting images of environmental change since 1999. The image on the left is from an 1859 etching of the Rhone glacier in Valais, Switzerland, and shows ice filling the valley. In 2001, the glacier had shrunk by some 2.5km, and its ‘snout’ had shifted about 450 metres higher up.

If you want to understand glaciers who should you be talking to? Al Gore? Leonardo Di Caprio? Meteorologists? Greenpeace? How about the people whose job it is to understand this stuff – geoscientists?

From the European Geosciences Union comes a piece, in 2005, called Evidence for repeated advances and retreats of the Rhône glacier during the last glaciation in lake Geneva, from 2d and 3d seismic imaging. ‘…repeated advances and retreats of the Rhone glacier…’ Oops. That’s a bit inconvenient.

There, basement is covered by a thin layer of subglacial till overlain by markedly laminated glaciolacustrine sediments. Within this glaciolacustrine unit another till is present. We interpret these deposits as witnesses of advances and retreats of the Rhone glacier during deglaciation. Along the southern edge of the glacier, a periglacial lake formed where sediments accumulated. When the glacier expanded, the glaciolacustrine body was overridden by ice. As a result, subglacial deposits are observed above glaciolacustrine sediments. The high elevation of this series differentiates it from other glaciolacustrine sediments observed elsewhere in the lake that are associated with proglacial lakes. Sedimentary sequences from on land boreholes located near our seismic lines show striking similarities with our data. According to age dating on plant remains, the glaciolacustrine sequence is older than 32 000 years BP.

As shown, the clear evidence for the Rhone glacier to be repeatedly advancing and retreating is overwhelming. Furthermore, the first picture is from 1859 – right at the end of the Little Ice Age – so you’d expect glaciers to be significantly advanced.

Kerplunk and the climate Skeptics: 2
BBC and the Climate Brown Shirts: 0



Some scientists predict that a warmer climate will trigger more violent storms, which will cause increased rates of coastal erosion. This is a section of shoreline at Cape Hatteras in North Carolina in the USA, pictured in 1999 and 2004. The southern United States and Caribbean region were battered by a series of powerful hurricanes last year. Rising sea levels are also expected to speed up coastal erosion.

There’s those unnamed ‘some scientists’ again, making predictions as wildly inaccurate as the climate models they’re based on. If you want to know about storms then ask good old Bill Gray, who knows a thing or two about storm activity. He’ll tell you point blank that there’s been no discernible change in hurricane activity in the 50 years he’s worked in the field. Furthermore, warmer oceans create fewer storms, not more. Here’s the NOAA’s history of US hurricane activity:



The record is pretty clear. Hurricane activity is lower now than it has been since records began. You can bet your bottom dollar that Climate Brown Shirts will use the recent past as the baseline for future hurricane activity to show that global warming is responsible for an increase. However, the facts are unequivocal – there is no evidence to link storm activity to global warming.

Kerplunk and the climate Skeptics: 3
BBC and the Climate Brown Shirts: 0



Other parts of the world could face even more drastic change. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a consortium of several thousand independent scientists, predicts that sea levels could rise by between 9 and 88cm in the next century. This would threaten low-lying islands such as Tuvalu in the Pacific. These images, taken this year, show the effects of a higher than usual tide.

The hooha about Tuvalu being affected by rising sea levels has been so profoundly debunked that it’s unusual to still find references to it. And how hilarious is the claim that the IPCC is ‘…a consortium of several thousand independent scientists’? Independent thought has not hitherto been a feature of the IPCC climate brigade.

Let’s take a close look at the photos above. The bottom one shows waves crashing over the road, depositing mud and sand in the process.

Now have a close look at the top one:



I’ve marked the areas showing clearly that the sea deposits mud and sand on the road regularly. Thus, the before and after photos are a set up. Looks like they just waited for the tide to come in to get the more dramatic shot.

Kerplunk and the climate Skeptics: 4
BBC and the Climate Brown Shirts: 0



As the climate warms up, mountainous regions may experience lower levels of snowfall. This image shows Mount Hood in Oregon at the same time in late summer in 1985 and 2002.

Mount Hood is a much more interesting case than the rest presented here. Of course, Climate Brown Shirts pick an extreme year – 1985 – to use as their baseline in order to demonstrate change. 1985/6 was an extreme coastal year with increased snow cover.

The situation for Mount Hood, Oregon in 1985-86 demonstrates extreme coastal climate characteristics. The relatively deep snowpack, and warm and low diurnal ranges of temperatures are evident.

From a paper Glacier Change on Mount Hood, Oregon comes the following:

Since initial measurements in 1940, the glacier has retreated and thinned. The lower (A) profile, which once spanned the glacier, now spans the valley floor (possibly stagnant ice) 350 m down-valley of the terminus. If stagnant ice exists it is covered by > 2 m of debris as we discovered when attempting to dig to the ice surface. Unfortunately, this area was not included in our GPR survey. At the (B) profile, we estimate the 1901 surface elevation from historic photographs (H.F. Reid) at about 2053 m suggesting local ice thickness was ~105 m. The current glacier elevation at (B) is ~2000 m and is remarkably close to that in 1940, suggesting a local ice thickness of 52 m. From 1982 to 2004 the glacier thinned 15-30 m (average rate = 1.0 m yr-1), returning to its 1940 elevation.

So the current glacier cover has simply returned to its pre-global warming 1940 level? Hardly seems much of a cause for concern. While doing research on Mount Hood I came across umpteen articles talking about what a fantastic place it is to ski in summer. No mention in any of them about shortened seasons.

Kerplunk and the climate Skeptics: 5
BBC and the Climate Brown Shirts: 0



Tree-eating wood beetles are likely to benefit from a warmer climate and reproduce in ever-increasing numbers. These images show damage to White Spruce trees in Alaska caused by the pests.

If this is not the most stupid example of the potential impact of anthropogenic global warming then I don’t know what is. If tree-eating wood beetles increase in number due to warming then that same warming will cause the growth of more trees for the erstwhile tree-eating beetles to munch on. Furthermore, any species that reproduces in ever-increasing numbers eventually overburdens its environment and numbers stabilise. These people are lunatics.

Kerplunk and the climate Skeptics: 6
BBC and the Climate Brown Shirts: 0

Notice that in the examples cited by the BBC the base years used to demonstrate change are 1859, 1928, 1985 and 1999. If anyone on the pro side of the argument was being truly honest then they’d pick data for all of the above from the one year and compare to current conditions. Obviously, this wouldn’t support their thesis so they have to cherry-pick the data. It’s no different to using 1850 as the base year for the start of man made climate change, as it happens to coincide with the minimum of the Little Ice Age.

When the whole climate change hooey is done and dusted there are going to be a lot of people with a lot of explaining to do. Unfortunately, there’ll be fewer people to explain it to, as the misanthropic policies of environmentalists take effect, but that probably suits them just fine.

Categories: Climate Change, Media