Barking mad, the lot of them.

LAKE MACQUARIE REPORTER

A SELF-FUNDED retiree has been told he cannot develop his land at Marks Point because rising sea levels will inundate his property by 2100.

Lake Macquarie City Council staff have recommended refusing Rob Antill’s plan for four two-level dwellings on a 1300-square-metre site.

A council staff report said the development site would have ‘‘a small area permanently inundated by 2050’’.

‘‘The entire site may be permanently inundated by 2100,’’ it said.

[...]

Mr Antill accepts the council must consider sea level rise, but believes the risk of being sued is among their main concerns.

‘‘I think the council has elevated opinion to the status of truth,’’ he said

[...]

The council was satisfied the plan included raising most floor levels to 2.85 metres, but was concerned rumpus rooms would be only 1.56metres high.

>>>>>>>>>

http://www.theherald.com.au/news/local/news/general/marks-point-property-owner-drowning-in-opinions/2323421.aspx

Steven Goddard has the Newcastle MMSL plot here:-

http://www.real-science.com/climate-liars-hurting-real-people

The science of climate change came to Oamaru, but a few people in an audience of about 50 gave it a hostile reception.

[...]

Mr Oram and Prof Saunders could not be at Monday’s symposium in the Oamaru Opera House, Dr Salinger instead making their presentations.

[...]

It was intended to have questions at the end of each presentation, but during Dr Salinger’s delivery, some members of the audience broke in, presenting alternative views and criticising the scientists, including attacks on the science behind climate modelling.

The criticism ranged from changes in predictions in the past two decades to satellite data on sea levels and ice melt contradicting what scientists were saying.

>>>>>>.

http://www.odt.co.nz/regions/north-otago/181830/hostile-response-oamaru-climate-change-talk

See – Financial houses
*******************************************************************************************************
Map: The Climate Change Scare Machine — the perpetual self-feeding cycle of alarm

Climate Change Scare Machine Cycle: see how your tax dollars are converted into alarming messages

http://joannenova.com.au/2011/10/map-the-climate-change-scare-machine-the-perpetual-self-feeding-cycle-of-alarm/

What is a threat to the energy sector though, has been an opportunity that has been taken up enthusiastically by the insurance sector. I’m convinced that as time goes on, major energy users and generators will rue not getting involved in hard science and going on the offensive when they realize they’ve been hoodwinked and there will be red faces in the insurance sector too.

A bit different in the USA. States, Republicans and the energy sector are fighting back, that fight is being followed under “USA” starting at this thread header “EPA CO2 regulation lawsuits”

http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/open-threads/climate/regions/usa/#comment-28162

The Sierra Club has been most effective, they’ve managed to stop about 80 planned coal-fired power stations. Corporate reaction to such is ignorant and gutless I think (and that includes NZ), they should be employing their strongest weapon and that’s counter-consensus climate science and presentation of key climate metrics showing how reality is not tracking IPCC projections.

I’m amazed that the energy sector in USA and AU (or anywhere) are not at the forefront of investigation of the validity of IPCC projections. Warmist folks are trying to create an impression that science sceptical of CAGW is funded by the energy sector but that’s a load of rubbish, the energy sector just seems to rely on delaying tactics in the courts by Lawyers and the likes of Sensenbrenner and Inhofe rather than go on the offensive themselves with hard science.

I’m curious of your view of “the accuracy of IPCC projections”. Do you think they are on track or not?

My view is that they are not and I’ve got a mountain of evidence to back that that I’ve put to the NZ MftE Climate Change Office and the Prime Ministers Science Advisory Committee (PMSAC).

http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2011/09/only-threat-to-christchurch-is-salingers-alarmism/#comment-67770

I have an anecdote re “skeptics around to point out where the IPCC are going wrong”. I contacted the NZ Greenhouse Policy Coalition (http://www.gpcnz.co.nz/) that represents NZ major energy users (a supposedly “well resourced sector of civilised society”) challenging them to look at the contrary science. The respondent David Venables, the Executive Director, said he did not have the time or other resources available to research and present a full examination of the science and that examining the pros and cons of the science is not really where GPC is in the debate. Also that successive governments have committed to doing something about climate change and it is GPC’s brief to make sure that what they do doesn’t ruin our economy and, in particular, major industrial employers. More on that here:-

http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2010/12/nz-ets-analytic-negligence/#comment-33696

Your suggestion: “should there not be new, enterprising insurance companies entering the market to exploit the advantage of better (skeptical) information?” has also crossed my mind. I think as time goes on and it becomes more and more apparent that the IPCC scenario is not happening that pragmatic corporates and other commercial operators (not just insurance) will review their strategies if they have based them on IPCC model projections. I suggest that wheat growing and trading operators for example, especially in the northern hemisphere are well aware of Hershel’s 200 yr old+ discovery of a correlation between sunspots and wheat prices and that they are more attuned to those cycles in their risk management than they are to the IPCC.

Bottom line though – don’t underestimate the power of group-think.

For those in the risk management business, simply denying climate change is not an option. Increasingly, the insurance industry is showing the way forward. It involves tough calls to protect the bottom line: dumping customers with properties on floodplains, or in hurricane-prone areas, while insuring “green” technologies that offer the best chance of slowing warming and protecting investments.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10734026

The IPCC AR4 position:

Tropical cyclones, hurricanes and typhoons exhibit large variability from year to year and limitations in the quality of data compromise evaluations of trends. Nonetheless, clear evidence exists for increases in category 4 and 5 storms globally since 1970 along with increases in the PDI due to increases in intensity and duration of storms

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch3s3-8-5.html

Peer-reviewed literature:
Pretty graph: http://coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/global_running_ace.jpg

In the pentad since 2006, Northern Hemisphere and global tropical cyclone ACE has decreased dramatically to the lowest levels since the late 1970s. Additionally, the global frequency of tropical cyclones has reached a historical low.

http://thegwpf.org/science-news/3306-global-hurricane-activity-at-historical-record-lows-new-paper.html

You say ‘By 2008, the insurance industry had swallowed the IPCC’s “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal” hook, line and sinker’.

But hang on, I thought the insurance system was market based. Wouldn’t it be difficult to hoodwink the whole insurance market – which is after all a well resourced sector of civilised society – especially when there are so many skeptics around to point out where the IPCC are going wrong?

And even if the IPCC has succeeded in hoodwinking the major insurance players, should there not be new, enterprising insurance companies entering the market to exploit the advantage of better (skeptical) information?