Month: July 2008

Four good reasons not to believe in human induced global warming

Posted by Chief Blogger – 31 July, 2008

An excellent article from David Evans, a prominent green house defector to skepticism. A quick bio:

Dr David Evans worked for the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005, building the carbon accounting model that Australia uses to track carbon in its biosphere for the purposes of the Kyoto Protocol. He is a mathematician and engineer, with six university degrees including a PhD from Stanford University.

Those credentials are good enough for me. Evans notes in the following article that the science of climate change has, well, changed since the UN IPCC first touted human induced global warming back in 1998.

First, the new ice cores shows that in the past six global warmings over the past half a million years, the temperature rises occurred on average 800 years before the accompanying rise in atmospheric carbon. Which says that the carbon rises could not have either started or ended the temperature rises, and that there are more powerful forces on global temperatures than atmospheric carbon levels.

Second, there is now no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None. There is plenty of evidence that global warming has occurred, and theory suggests that carbon emissions should raise temperatures (though by how much is hotly disputed), but there are no observations by anyone that implicate carbon emissions as a significant cause of the recent global warming.

Third, the satellites that measure the world’s temperature all say that the warming trend ended in 2001, that 1998 was the warmest recent year, and that the temperature has dropped about 0.6C in the last year (to the temperature of 1980).

Fourth, we looked for the greenhouse signature and could not find it. Each possible cause of global warming has a different pattern of where in the atmosphere the warming occurs first. The signature of increased greenhouse warming is a hotspot 10 km up in the atmosphere over the tropics.

The hotspot is central to our understanding – if there is no hotspot then either there is no significant increased greenhouse warming, or we don’t understand greenhouse and all our climate models are rubbish anyway.

We have been measuring the atmosphere for decades using radiosondes—weather balloons with thermometers that radio back the temperature as the balloon ascends through the atmosphere. They show no hotspot whatsoever.

Maybe its time the politicians and their socialist and activist mates caught up with the latest findings.

Who to pick?

Posted by Chief Blogger – 31 July, 2008

For those following the US elections, here is a good article about the problems facing voters, by popular US radio host Glenn Beck:

One thing that I have decided is that Democratic contender Sen. Barack Obama isn’t the guy for me. If you watch my show on Headline News, you may have picked that up already. Don’t get me wrong, I want hope and change just as much as the next guy, but I think Barack and I are hoping for different kinds of change. To me, his vision for America appears to be somewhere between Sen. Hillary Clinton and Karl Marx. Being a conservative, that’s definitely not what I’m looking for.

While I like Republican candidate Sen. John McCain on certain issues, he’s not really a conservative. He’s put his name on too many pieces of legislation that are downright antagonistic to the right. McCain-Kennedy on illegal immigration. McCain-Feingold on campaign finance reform. McCain-Lieberman on global warming. He’s massively frustrating on far too many things to make voting for him anything other than an excruciating-eating-a-spider-Fear-Factor type of experience. You close your eyes, you pull the lever and you cringe when you think back about it.

Some of my friends say that McCain is simply the lesser of two evils. He’s not great, but he’s all we’ve got. And when you’re up against Barack Obama, not so bad looks really good. While, by my standards, I don’t doubt McCain would be less damaging for the next four years, he might be worse for the next four decades.

The scenario that keeps running through my head goes like this: John McCainsomehow wins; the major problems we’re likely going to face regardless of who is elected kick in; McCain gets blamed; and conservative ideals take the fall for McCain’s decidedly nonconservative policies. Plus, it’s always been my theory that you should be voting for something, not against something. Trying to win an election by just being against something is usually fruitless; see John Kerry.

I think voters here would be facing a similar problem if Turnbull become opposition leader.

An Aboriginal Constitution

Posted by Chief Blogger – 23 July, 2008

Looks like Rudd is seeking special rights for Aboriginals in the Australian constitution. As if there are rights that Aboriginals deserve but the rest of the nation doesn’t. Another case of reverse apartheid.

Costello will he stay or will he go?

Posted by Chief Blogger – 20 July, 2008

On Insiders Andrew Bolt made the following observation about Costello: “The less he says the more popular he is.” Well maybe, certainly he does have a range of redeeming qualities, although he is a republican but not in the same vain as Kevin Rudd with all the associated symbolism. As I have written before, Nelson has until the end of the year to turn things round for the opposition, so Costello maybe waiting too see what happens in the polls.

Algore: get ready to fry

Posted by Chief Blogger – 17 July, 2008

According to Algore we are all going to die in ten years time, again:

The survival of the United States of America as we know it is at risk. And even more – if more should be required – the future of human civilization is at stake.

Another classic passage from his recent speech:

Of course there are those who will tell us this can’t be done. Some of the voices we hear are the defenders of the status quo – the ones with a vested interest in perpetuating the current system, no matter how high a price the rest of us will have to pay. But even those who reap the profits of the carbon age have to recognize the inevitability of its demise. As one OPEC oil minister observed, “The Stone Age didn’t end because of a shortage of stones

Al Gore is not exactly what one would described as a disinterested party in these matters, thanks to a $500 million dollar ‘green’ investment fund he is a partner to. One might even say he has a financial vested interest in promoting a future system of carbon cap and trade as much as ‘carbon’ industry seemingly has interests in promoting the status quo. And for Algore, his business interests could do with a bit of a kick along:

And further from Algore:

To those who say 10 years is not enough time, I respectfully ask them to consider what the world’s scientists are telling us about the risks we face if we don’t act in 10 years. The leading experts predict that we have less than 10 years to make dramatic changes in our global warming pollution lest we lose our ability to ever recover from this environmental crisis. When the use of oil and coal goes up, pollution goes up. When the use of solar, wind and geothermal increases, pollution comes down.

Note the speech is devoid of primary sources and citations. Also note that Algore seems to like ten year moving deadlines. Back in January 2006 Algore also claimed we only had ten years left to save the planet otherwise we would all fry, from Rush Limbaugh (requires member log in):

He’s (Algore) attending parties and posing for pictures with his fans. He’s enjoying macaroni and cheese at the Discovery Channel’s soirée. He’s palling around with Laurie David of Curb Your Enthusiasm, who is the husband of Larry David, who drives the Prius and then flies the GV. Larry David says, “You know, Al is a funny guy, but he’s also a very serious guy who believes humans may have only 10 years left to save the planet from turning into a total frying pan.”

In serious need of a share price kick along more like it.

Back to the future economics

Posted by Chief Blogger – 14 July, 2008

In response to Cardinal Pell’s call for an increase in the Australian fertility rate, ‘your’ ABC recently reported:

…prominent economist Jeffrey Sachs says the global population is rising too dramatically.

“The planet, everyone can feel, is just right at the limits right now in terms of food, in terms of energy supply, in terms of land use,” he said.

Professor Sachs says population projections, which also take falling fertility rates into account, are already too high at around an extra 2.5 billion people by 2050.

“I do think that the world would be very wise on its own welfare and for saving the physical earth to be trying to stabilise through voluntary means the world’s population at around 8 billion, not the over 9 billion which is our current trajectory right now,” he said. “It’s a serious problem.”

Economic doom and gloom forecasts, how original. Thomas Malthus would be proud. People are always the problem for the left, never part of the solution. Can you feeeeel it? And you sure will if the fertility rate does not increase, with an increased tax burden to care for the elderly falling on a smaller group of workers. And speaking of Malthusian policies, study this article and then decide your feelings on the matter:

There is a little-known battle for survival going in some parts of the world. Those at risk are baby girls, and the casualties are in the millions each year. The weapons being used against them are prenatal sex selection, abortion and female infanticide — the systematic killing of girls soon after they are born.

According to a recent United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) State of the World Population Report, these practices, combined with neglect, have resulted in at least 60 million “missing” girls in Asia, creating gender imbalances and other serious problems that experts say will have far reaching consequences for years to come.

Mosher, the first American social scientist allowed into China, puts much of the blame on Beijing’s one-child policy, which took effect in 1979.

The policy encourages late marrying and late childbearing, and it limits the majority of urban couples to having one child and most of those living in rural areas to two. Female infanticide was the result, he said.

“Historically infanticide was something that was practiced in poor places in China,” Mosher said. “But when the one-child policy came into effect we began to see in the wealthy areas of China, what had never been done before in history — the killing of little girls.”

Have you felt it yet? The article goes on to deal with selective abortion and other gender selection practices.

However, China has pledged to keep its one-child policy in place until the year 2050, a policy which it admits is “related” to the large sex imbalances in the country.

“The implications are potentially disastrous,” Mosher said. “The answer is economic development, not restricting the number of people.”

More→

Medicare levy re-think ya think?

Posted by Chief Blogger – 14 July, 2008

From the Australian Medical Association on the government’s budget decision to increase the medicare levy threshold:

AMA national president Dr Rosanna Capolingua says the Treasury modelling which suggests that 500,000 people will drop private cover as a result of the changes falls far short of what the figure will actually be.

“The AMA’s modelling was much higher than half a million. It was more like 700,000 to a million people,” she said.

This comes on the back of complaints made by Catholic hospitals. They argue that increasing the levy will just disadvantage those that most need the public hospital system – the poor, disabled and elderly – by increasing waiting times for treatment. In other words, the public system should just be a safety net for those most in need, not for people that could afford private coverage.

Treasury have also admitted, at Senate Estimates, that they have little idea as to the fiscal impact on the public system from the levy decision. That’s policy dudd 101 from Rudd. No wonder NSW Treasurer Costa is asking for Federal $$$ for the future budget impact.

Given the divide within the ALP on this issue, the opposition would be justified on blocking the policy in the Senate by explaining to people that it will not save them money, but increase the burden on public hopsitals, which invariably will require more tax $$$ to fix. Public health care is not free.

MSM MIA with Iraq

Posted by Chief Blogger – 13 July, 2008

Mark Steyn with Hugh Hewitt on the main stream media ignoring Iraq now that things are going well:

HH: The BBC this morning, a correspondent sort of recreating your jaunt into Fallujah after the war had concluded, the first phase, went with some Brits into Basra, and barely could conceal his surprise at how peaceful Basra has become in the last three months since the Maliki-ordered offensive. And he had a cup of tea, or he had some ice cream, they couldn’t get him any tea, in the middle of Basra. Do you think the world is quite aware of how extraordinary the changes in Iraq, Mark Steyn?

MS: No, because nobody wants to order up a script rewrite. Basically, the American networks, the big three plus CNN plus MSNBC, and then the rest of the world, BBC and Reuters and all the rest of it, decided that Iraq was a quagmire three or four years ago, and nothing is going to deflect them from that storyline. It’s like soap opera with no twists. And so the fact that the plot did change, the fact that essentially in three quarters of Iraq now, life is more pleasant than it has ever been, because of that, these guys have simply decided we’re not going to cover this story. There is no Iraq. Iraq is either a quagmire, or it’s no news at all. And it’s actually disgraceful. It does tell you a lot about the predisposition of what is meant to be a profession of inquiry, the predisposition of these so-called journalists to the store-bought storyline you warm up in the microwave every night, regardless of what’s actually happening on the ground.

The same could equally apply to the media in Australia.

More on UN tyrannical panderings

Posted by Chief Blogger – 13 July, 2008

From the UK Telegraph on why Russia, South Africa, China and a bunch of other nations voted against imposing sanctions on Mugabe:

China’s investment in Africa has increased hugely recently, but the real reason for both these vetoes isn’t economic: it is fear of the precedent that would be set if the UN explicitly authorises action against a country because it is governed by a tyrannical autocrat….there is a tacit pact between the world’s dictatorial regimes to ensure that they can continue to deny their people basic democratic rights: they know they themselves will become vulnerable if it is established as a principle of the UN that there is a limit beyond which governments are not entitled to oppress their own people.

Readers should also note that Indonesia, as a member of the Security Council, abstained from the vote. So to the solution:

John McCain, the Republican candidate in America’s presidential election, has suggested an alternative to a UN deadlocked by the vetoes of China and Russia.

He proposes a “league of democracies”, in which nations committed to what might be termed “the Western system” would come together and use their joint power to try to advance more enlightened forms of governance. It wouldn’t be an alternative to the UN. But it would tackle some of the problems which vetoes from the tyrannies on the security council ensure that the UN cannot.

There are many difficulties with turning McCain’s vision into reality. Yet the failure of the UN, like the impotence of the G8, which was also on display last week, requires serious debate on how to remedy the ineffectiveness of global institutions

A couple of reasons why the UN is a joke

Posted by Chief Blogger – 11 July, 2008

First, the UN Security Council failed to pass a resolution imposing sanctions on Mugabe and his cronies:

But although nine countries, including America, Britain and France, backed the proposals, five countries voted against, including Russia and China, which both enjoy powers of veto as permanent members of the Security Council.

South Africa, Libya and Vietnam also voted against the resolution while Indonesia abstained.

It is the latest example of South Africa failing to support action against repressive rulers, despite the ruling African National Congress’ own backing for sanctions when it was leading the struggle against apartheid.

Last year the country voted against a resolution calling for the Burmese junta to stop attacking ethnic minorities and engage in substantive dialogue with the democratic opposition

And second, the UN Human Rights Council recently ruled that:

From now on, all references to human rights violations related to Islamic Shar’ia law are prohibited in the chamber of the UN Human Rights Council. So ruled council president Doru Costea after a dramatic debate in the recently concluded June session.

It all started when the heroic David Littman, undaunted by malicious attempts to expel him from the UN, tried to deliver a speech on violence against women and what Islamic scholars can do to prevent it. The Egyptian representative interrupted repeatedly and challenged the council president. “Regardless of the result of the vote — I couldn’t care less if I will win or lose this vote — my point is that Islam will not be crucified in this council!”

The president gave in: “Statements should refrain from making judgments or evaluations of a particular religion. . . I can promise that at the next evaluation of a religious creed, law, or document, I will interrupt the speaker and we’ll go on to the next one.”