Errors in IPCC climate science

• Home
• A Critical Examination of Climate Change
• About the authors

14 Responses

1. Beachgirl Says:
   July 8th, 2011 at 6:38 pm

   Everybody could boycott the Prime Ministers address this Sunday – just change channels – put on a DVD – do some gardening. We will all hear the news soon enough.

2. cementafriend Says:
   July 9th, 2011 at 11:52 am

   Agree Beachgirl, I will turn on something else. Also I will not watch Q&A on Monday. Questions will be set up, any hard questions will be censored. The ABC could not let her look stupid although she might do that anyway.

3. Dave N Says:
   July 9th, 2011 at 2:45 pm

   Re Q&A: my question would be: how much difference to the climate, in degrees, will the carbon tax make?

   I wouldn’t accept anything other than an answer specific to the question. If they started down the “Australia’s doing the right thing” (or similar) path, I’d stop them and tell them not to bother answering if they can’t give one that is serious. Australians have a right to know what they’re paying for.

4. TonyfromOz Says:
   July 9th, 2011 at 3:17 pm

   Q and A with Julia will be structured so that Tony Jones will see that only careful pre arranged questions will be asked to make her look good. There won’t be any tough, or embarrassing questions.
   I went and looked at their site, and the average person can submit questions in advance.
   You are limited to 80 words, so any hope of asking a structured question is, well, out of the question.
   On the off chance, I thought if I could see if I could say something as succinctly as possible in those 80 words.
   It took a while and a bit of juggling, but I came up with this:

   A large coal fired power plant like Bayswater has a generator weighing 1350 tons rotating at 50 times a second, driven by a huge turbine requiring immense amounts of steam made by burning coal in a critical furnace at the rate of one ton every 4 seconds. Each ton of coal produces 2.86 tons of CO2. The generator is either turning and producing power or not turning. How is placing a cost on CO2 emissions supposed to lower those emissions?

   There is zero hope that this question will be asked, so I was cunning. Hidden in the text is something that those who select the questions will think is so ridiculous, it might just get asked, the thinking being that it will severely embarrass the person asking the question, (me).
   If it does get up the hope is that the responder, Julia, might actually embarrass herself in the process of attempting to answer it.

   I’m not holding my breath.

   Tony.

5. Graeme Inkster Says:
   July 9th, 2011 at 5:51 pm

   Dave N- do you mean degrees Celsius or “Climatology” degrees?

   Did you see the bit in Icecap? July 5 Political column.
   A draft study produced by researchers at Yale University and four other research institutions has arrived at a surprising (to them) finding: “The more that people are scientifically literate, and the more that they’re numerate, the likelier that they’ll be climate change skeptics.
   Teaching science in a neutral way, without understanding the students’ political orientation, can backfire, in that their knowledge may make them more skeptical”.

   So obviously the Government will soon want more compliant Scientists to bolster their case.

6. val majkus Says:
   July 9th, 2011 at 6:27 pm

   I don’t watch the PM any more; she’s lost all credibility with me
   Whatever she says I take as ‘subject to credibility testing’
   I commented on Catallaxy files today
   catallaxyfiles.com/2011/07/09/not-prime-ministerial/#comments
   in the Post
   Not Prime Ministerial

   It’s not a good look, a disgrace to women for the first Aust female PM
   and a disgrace to lawyers, this is not how a professional lawyer behaves to the other side in Court
   Worthless as a PM and for turning (unlike Margaret Thatcher)

   have a look at the photo; the PM has her back turned to Abbott in Parliament; I also recall that Rudd used to do that but I don’t recall any other PM’s showing such disrespect to Parliament and the people

   But maybe others of you have different recollections

7. val majkus Says:
   July 9th, 2011 at 6:31 pm

   and for laughs have a look at this
   blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100095506/there-has-been-no-global-warming-since-1998/
   Damm the warming’s stopped but that shows it’s worrying very worrying!
   a bit of cut and paste:

   indeed might you and I be. For years the Warmists have been telling us that they’re so sure of their computer models that they know, they just know, that CO2 has a forcing effect on global temperatures and that combined with positive feedbacks this is going to cause catastrophic warming. And now they’re saying, without a blush, “Well all right, some of those feedbacks might actually be negative and, er, completely cancel out the terrifying thing we were telling you to worry about. But don’t stop worrying, for God’s sake. Whatever is happening is still worrying, very worrying. And if you give us a bit more time we’ll come up with a paper explaining just why it’s worrying.”

   I’m worried!

8. val majkus Says:
   July 10th, 2011 at 6:57 am

   here’s an article I highly recommend
   papundits.wordpress.com/2011/07/09/the-uns-climate-of-desperation/
   (a couple of paras)

   As the UN wrapped up its recent climate conference in Bonn, Germany, talks organizer Christiana Figueres proclaimed that climate change is the “the most important negotiation the world has ever faced.” Faced with real problems – financial meltdowns, unemployment, war and genuine human suffering – the world no longer agrees.

   It’s a good thing human productivity doesn’t threaten the global thermostat the way the UN would have us believe. If it were, we’d be cooked. Countries rich and poor are backing away from commitments they made years ago during rosier economic times, before the public became aware of Climategate, renewable energy costs and genuine debate.

   The Kyoto Protocol, the only binding international agreement signed since the global warming scare began, expires after 2012. Canada, Russia and Japan have publicly declared they will not renew; China and the United States never signed it; and the US has made it plain it is not about to. And poor countries are becoming less enamored about signing on, as they realize hard economic times mean there will be little climate “mitigation” and “restitution” money coming their way from (formerly) rich countries.

   As the authors say the ‘warmists are the establishment’.

   That’s why they sound so out of date

9. Ian George Says:
   July 10th, 2011 at 8:09 am

   If the power stations did what the Green Government wanted and began using renewable sources rather than fossil fuels, the cost for electricity would rise 3/4 times, less CO2 would be used and the carbon tax raised would decrease. This would mean higher electricity costs but diminishing compensation payments. So we can’t have that affecting what is really a redistribution of income.

   Thus they would need to keep the carbon tax low and this is why the Greens want this extra $3.2 billion for renewables ie Direct Action idea pinched from the Libs.

   I’ll take that as a comment.

10. val majkus Says:
    July 10th, 2011 at 3:13 pm

    Over to TonyfromOz
    papundits.wordpress.com/2011/07/10/co2-tax-australia-julia-gillard-absolutely-clueless/
    I totally agree with his sentiments, clueless, and I would add crazy and clinging to power

11. Romanoz Says:
    July 11th, 2011 at 10:45 am

    You should have waited for the announcement,its worse:

    The transformation to low-emissions technologies will be driven by a $10bn Clean Energy Finance Corporation, which will invest in businesses driving clean energy proposals. The new body will be in addition to $3.2bn Australian Renewable Energy Agency, which will drive existing low-emissions technology programs and comes despite the Productivity Commission finding that renewables had driven up abatement costs for little environmental gain.

12. TWAWKI » A tax based on a lie, brought in with a lie, and an outcome that is a lie Says:
    July 12th, 2011 at 3:45 pm

    [...] death ; $3.2 billion green disaster ; Are green origins in Nazi-ism? ; The Green dream Save as Text Save as HTML Save as Word Document [...]

13. Colin Davidson Says:
    July 12th, 2011 at 4:39 pm

    Our democracy is under threat.

    The Parliament, elected on the promise of no Carbon Tax, has decided to flout the people’s wishes which were very clearly expressed at the election. The opinion polls show that overwhelmingly the majority are still opposed to this tax.

    Nevertheless the Parliament is going to proceed. Let us suppose that the Bill succeeds and passes through both houses.

    Will the Governor General do her job, and ensure the primacy of the people over parliament? Or will she act as a political cipher?

    If she acts to uphold our democracy, she will refuse Royal Assent until the people ratify the Bill at an election.

    If she is part of this undemocratic process, she will do the easy thing, the thing which is best for her family and for the governing elite – sign the bill with a flourish. And drive a stake through the Australian Constitution.

14. JeffT Says:
    July 21st, 2011 at 12:56 pm

    @ val majkus #8

    “talks organizer Christiana Figueres,” Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC may be getting doubly frustrated.

    “She has been trained and authorized by Al Gore to deliver his presentation An Inconvenient Truth.” (from Wikipedia)

    Gives some idea of the mindset.

Leave a Comment