An informal group blog featuring posts on a wide variety of subjects by a crew of authors in several different countries. Just sit back, have some fun, and maybe learn something.
If you've got any tips or suggestions, feel free to email us at TizonasWeblog at gmail.com, and one of us will get back to you.
Caught this chap on the ABC this morning (no link or transcript on the local radio), and it was a tragic example of what happens when an interviewer prepares for the wrong interview.
It was fairly plain the interviewer was expecting an Al Gore acolyte, instead he ended up with a calm, rational, qualified man telling him AGW was doubtful at the best. Yes climate change is real, but it has always changed…
The interviewee,Dr Geoff Deacon, Manager Simpson Collection, Earth & Planetary Sciences had a number of points to make.
a: Ocean level rises are lower than they historically have been.
b: Carbon dioxide levels increase after temperature rises.
c: Carbon levels have been much, much higher before with no linked rise in temperatures.
His whole point was basically that AGW proponents are looking at a 200 year trend in cycles which have been going on for thousands of years.
Ill give a little report on the presentation, probably tomorrow, if Bolt and the other “denyalists” havent had this bloke on their shows they are doing themselves a disservice, hes great on radio.
Heres a link to his lecture from the museum site. Dont know if tonight’s is exactly the same or not..
He is at least as qualified as Tim Flannery, and even works in a strongly related field, yet has drawn a different conclusion from his studies. A non alarmist one.
Copenhagen has not seen the end of the insanity that is the global warming scam, not by a long shot. The stakes are to high, the money to be made to large, and to many “professional activists” and spoilt brats of the west need their cause to fill the hollow void in their lives.
Copenhagen failed, but the date is already set on the next attempt to ram a global tax down our throats. Mexico is to hold the next conference next year, the date is still to be set.
“Do not rejoice in his defeat, you men. For though the world has stood up and stopped the bastard, the bitch that bore him is in heat again.”
Now for a small post to look at the economic and moral depravity which our “betters” tried so hard to sign us up to at Copenhagen, and will try again in Mexico.
A small stink was made in Copenhagen at how Australia used a bit of accounting sleight of hand to decrease our emissions, to wit, one particular grievance was our refusal to count the carbon emissions from bushfires and droughts while simultaneously claiming some credits for revegitation.
Lets have a look at what they are claiming we should be “fined” for.
Now thats the effects of major bushfires in ONE STATE OF AUSTRALIA. Add in some of the controlled burns and bushfires in the other states and territories and it quickly becomes obvious that “natural” burning in Australia far dwarfs the 5% target proposed by our wax muncher in chief as our greenhouse target.
In work for the Bushfire Co-operative Research Centre, he estimated the 2003 and 2006-07 bushfires could have put 20-30million tonnes of carbon (70-105 million tonnes of carbon dioxide) into the atmosphere.
“That is far, far more than we’re ever going to be able to sequester from planting trees or promoting carbon capture,” he said.
Carbon emissions from forest fires are not counted under the Kyoto Protocol. But he said he thought it likely they would be in future agreements.
“All informed scientific opinion suggests that whatever new protocol is signed (at the UN summit) in Copenhagen or elsewhere will include forest carbon, simply because to not do so would be to ignore one of the biggest threats to the global atmospheric pool of carbon dioxide, the release of carbon in fires.”
Ok lets look at the lower part of the estimate, 70 million tonnes of CO2.
Then lets look at the trading price of CO2 credits today. (note that the price of carbon credits plunged hugely after Copenhagen went belly up). According to the European Climate exchange the spot price for carbon is 12.74 euros per tonne. Times that by the exchange rate of 1.63 Australain dollars to the Euro and you get a price of $20.76 (rounding down).
So 70,000,000 tonnes times $20.76 and you end up with $1,453,200,000.00 in carbon “costs” from the CO2 emitted in 2 bad bushfire seasons IN ONE STATE!
congratulations, you survived, but lost everything, now about the $1,453,200,000.00 you owe for the emissions??
This sort of figure should be thrown at KRudd and Co every time they open their mouths. Either Rudd is a committed UN man, and will fall into line with whatever scheme they bring in or hes a political weasel who talks big and is secretly happy to see negotiations fail.
Rudds ETS scheme he wanted to take to Copenhagenwas effectively a blank cheque, for Australia to be fined for bushfires is morally rank.
In addition the Guardian has an article by the father of the AGW scam James Hansen, Im not going to touch on the article itself, but get a look at his graph of emitters…
As reliable as any hockey stick!!!
Just how intentionally deceptive is fobbing off “and shipping/air” onto developing nations side of the emissions table? What has Ethiopian airlines suddenly overtaken Quantas or BA as a major airline? Has sub Saharan Africa suddenly launched a fleet of supertankers/container vessels while I wasnt watching??
Many people, including myself, often say that irony is lost on a leftard. Eco-events routinely generate real, actual mountains of trash, and Hopenchangen is no different in that regard.
“Mountain of Waste at Copenhagen”
“Those are the messages coming from the United Nations climate conference in Copenhagen, but the environmental elite here may have a problem with saying one thing while doing another — at least when it comes to paper.
The green-conscious conference is utterly buried in it. Not just 8×11 white sheets, but the heavy cream-colored paper used in brochures and glossy red-and-yellow papers the United Nations uses to urge attendees to live a low-carbon lifestyle.
“It is so unnecessary,” said Anna, one of about 35 Friends of the Earth employees who flew in for the conference. “Could we use any more paper? I don’t think so.”
The paper-product gluttony begins in the morning, when attendees entering the Bella Center are offered a 302-page book about how to go vegetarian. Eating meat, particularly livestock, is responsible for about 50 percent of greenhouse gases, say the towering tomes.
Besides, the books say, Pamela Anderson, Ashley Judd and Michael Jackson were vegetarians.
Once inside the Bella Center, more than 100 exhibitors from every NGO, trade union, company and association that has anything to do with global warming are handing out literature.
“It’s appalling,” said a woman from the Costa Rican delegation.
Handouts from the Colombian rainforest exhibit, which appeared to be underwritten by the country’s Ministry of the Environment, were printed on paper that did not indicate that it was recycled. That exhibit also provided documents promoting palm oil, which environmentalists say is being produced plantation-style in former rainforests, creating massive amounts of carbon dioxide from deforestation.
An NGO called Tearfund, which sells carbon credits and works to reduce poverty, offers up a 32-page brochure called “The first cut is the deepest; reducing global emmissions.” Its handout comes printed on thick, high-quality paper that is not recycled.
While the official COP15 cultural guide is produced “completely CO2 neutral,” and handouts from the Rainforest Alliance come with the Responsible Forest seal of approval, they might be the exception. Even the World Wildlife Fund’s “Pocket Guide for a Living Planet” is not printed on recycled paper — although it did use “vegetable ink” during printing.
Then there is the “Daily Programme,” which comes in two parts every day. It tells you who is doing what, where and in which meeting room. Total pages on Tuesday: 56. The total Wednesday was 48, and everyone takes at least one. Do the math: 104 x 15,000 = 1.56 million sheets. And that’s in just two days.”
Added boldness by Beef.
Read the whole enchilada, and watch the short but hilarious video of stack after stack after stack of paper products. Weyerhaeuser and Georgia-Pacific must have made a fortune.
This is a very simple but highly effective video presentation that demonstrates just how silly the – fake, manufactured, bogus, bullshit: pick a pejorative adjective – “hockey stick” really is. In a nutshell, even if the “hockey stick” wasn’t a lie concocted by climate pseudo-scientists hiding political and financial agendas, it doesn’t even amount to a significant statistical blip when viewed in the context of the earth’s climate history, which had many much warmer periods before the advent of human civilization.
I don’t call the warm-mongers “climo-tards” for nothing: They are utterly ignorant and vacuous tools, lead by a lying shyster who has a larger personal “carbon footprint” than many undeveloped nations, and who has made himself nearly a billionaire peddling these lies to the gullible brainless. Global warming isn’t a religion – I hate it when people say it is – rather, it is a superstition akin to believing, “if you step on a crack, you’ll break your mother’s back.”
Well, not surprising the skeptics aren’t getting a good hearing at COP15. After all, this is more a gathering of the faithful than an honest discussion, especially in light of Climategate. At least (and whoulda thunkit?) CNN is finally, belatedly asking some questions.
Yet Oppenheimer’s distortions are jaw dropping in that interview. Nowhere near all glaciers have been studied, sea levels are barely rising, the Arctic ice isn’t melting but has been increasing the past few years, there aren’t 2500 scientists all agreeing, but rather a handful as Climategate proves. Yes, take out CRU and there are other institutions. Hmm, that would include hockey stick Mann at Penn State, who’s stick has been debunked (Mann is being investigated by PSU), and NASAs Goddard Institute whose director James Hansen can’t be trusted. And for any worries about the oceans, just take a look at the observed data compared to the models.
And as for Earth being a closed system and our piddly amount of CO2 (5% of a gas that takes up less than 0.4% of the atmosphere) not letting heat escape from the planet? Bullshit. Again with those models. The red lines are the models, the green lines are the observed data. Anyway, it probably doesn’t stay in the atmosphere for long anyway.
Preaching to the converted here (pardon the pun), but those links are for any folks, and there’s many, still duped by this climate change scam.
NewsBusters has a pretty good piece on that interview and CNN’s coverage.
But back to Copenhagen, and despite a very critical opening few paragraphs, The Financial Times, finally sensing a whiff, gives Monckton et. al. a run.
It was not all political bombast. Several serious scientists, with long paper trails of academic work behind them, delivered power point presentations filled with data and diagrams attempting to show why the mainstream consensus was wrong.
Not really much good or bad news to report so far. Tom Wilson has a short clip covering the rabble that was day two.
If being a sceptic means not being friends with those nutjobs at the start of that video… good.
To be honest, I had more fun today replying to a few brain dead commenters over at Unleashed who were in support of Clive Hamilton, in what has to be one of the most rubbish, condescending, puerile posts ever read.
UPDATE
With thanks to lucanas in comments in another post, some Copenhagen piccies.
“Pretending the climate email leak isn’t a crisis won’t make it go away
Climate sceptics have lied, obscured and cheated for years. That’s why we climate rationalists must uphold the highest standards of science”
This is unexpected, because I thought Moonbat was a global warming climate change true-believing dead-ender (And he still has time to prove himself thus).
“I have seldom felt so alone. Confronted with crisis, most of the environmentalists I know have gone into denial. The emails hacked from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, they say, are a storm in a tea cup, no big deal, exaggerated out of all recognition. It is true that climate change deniers have made wild claims which the material can’t possibly support (the end of global warming, the death of climate science). But it is also true that the emails are very damaging.”
See what I mean? I’d call that a, “modified limited hangout” bordering on a, “fake but accurate” stance. If you read the comments, it’s clear that the warm-mongers are mostly in denial. I love the rich irony of that, because they call me a, “denialist” of course.
“It is true that much of what has been revealed could be explained as the usual cut and thrust of the peer review process, exacerbated by the extraordinary pressure the scientists were facing from a denial industry determined to crush them. One of the most damaging emails was sent by the head of the climatic research unit, Phil Jones. He wrote “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”
One of these papers which was published in the journal Climate Research turned out to be so badly flawed that the scandal resulted in the resignation of the editor-in-chief. Jones knew that any incorrect papers by sceptical scientists would be picked up and amplified by climate change deniers funded by the fossil fuel industry, who often – as I documented in my book Heat – use all sorts of dirty tricks to advance their cause.”
See what I mean? Moonbat wants so badly to revert to type, that he can hardly contain himself. Lack of self-discipline seems to be a lefty trait. This article may have been written before the liars at New Zealand’s NIWA were exposed.
“The New Zealand Government’s chief climate advisory unit NIWA is under fire for allegedly massaging raw climate data to show a global warming trend that wasn’t there.
The scandal breaks as fears grow worldwide that corruption of climate science is not confined to just Britain’s CRU climate research centre.
In New Zealand’s case, the figures published on NIWA’s [the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric research] website suggest a strong warming trend in New Zealand over the past century:”
“The caption to the photo on the NiWA site reads:
From NIWA’s web site — Figure 7: Mean annual temperature over New Zealand, from 1853 to 2008 inclusive, based on between 2 (from 1853) and 7 (from 1908) long-term station records. The blue and red bars show annual differences from the 1971 – 2000 average, the solid black line is a smoothed time series, and the dotted [straight] line is the linear trend over 1909 to 2008 (0.92°C/100 years).
But analysis of the raw climate data from the same temperature stations has just turned up a very different result:”
The, “very different result” is a +0.06 degree per century warming of N-Zed – a virtual goose-egg – versus the artificial and intentionally alarming lie concocted of +0.92 degrees per century.
Back to Mr. Moonbat:
“Some people say that I am romanticising science, that it is never as open and honest as the Popperian ideal. Perhaps. But I know that opaqueness and secrecy are the enemies of science. There is a word for the apparent repeated attempts to prevent disclosure revealed in these emails: unscientific.
The crisis has been exacerbated by the university’s handling of it, which has been a total trainwreck: a textbook example of how not to respond. RealClimate reports that “We were made aware of the existence of this archive last Tuesday morning when the hackers attempted to upload it to RealClimate, and we notified CRU of their possible security breach later that day.” In other words, the university knew what was coming three days before the story broke. As far as I can tell, it sat like a rabbit in the headlights, waiting for disaster to strike.”
That’s the second time he’s deployed, “exacerbated” in this article. It must be his weekly vocabulary word. Well, Georgie Porgy (My name’s George too, so I can call him that if I want), I’d say your disappointment is exacerbated by the depth of your desire for global warming climate change AGW all of this bullshit to be true. These fabrications of data are not a failure to meet the Popperian ideal of noble and objective science, they are an out-and-out rejection of it. Predisposing an outcome and manufacturing data to support it is what was done during the Spanish Inquisition, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the scientific method. They’re liars, Georgie, liars!
Just replace, “a fanatical dedication to the Pope and a nice red uniform” with, “a fanatical dedication to the idea of AGW and a while lab coat.” These assmaggots are equally pathetic, but not nearly as funny.
Basically, Steve McIntyre over at Climate Audit checked some more comprehensive data and discovered that basically, they hadn’t used enough samples to get that infamous “hockey stick”. Below, the red line is the infamous stick, and the black line is the more comprehensive data, not cherry-picked as the hockey stick has proven to be.
If you can overlook the sometimes shaky automatic translation from the original Danish, here’s a welcome study supporting what so many of us have been saying for years about the infamous Mann Hockey Stick.
The Tizona Group 
