Climate Conversation Group

It has been discovered that Australian coal has a magical property – it is one of a small group of coals which produce an invisible gas with supernatural properties.

This magic gas, carbon dioxide, first became famous for its claimed ability to warm the whole world, thus removing the threat of a new ice age. The British academic who reported this magic power claimed that winter snow would become “a very rare and exciting event.”

Then an Australian guru predicted that just a tiny addition of magic gas to the atmosphere would abolish floods, and billions of dollars were spent constructing water desalination plants to combat his forecast of never-ending droughts. Read more… »

Abandoned houses (in Detroit). To be useful — even for only a few measly decades — houses need maintenance. That is the principle. Extend the principle, if you have the imagination, to all man-made things: moving (such as engines, pumps and vehicles) and unmoving (such as books, drains and bridges). The larger and more complex the “artificial” thing is (such as a park or an oil tanker), the more frequent maintenance it needs. That principle, which in previous ages was common knowledge, in this disconnected age strikes like a blunderbuss.

We voice some counter-arguments to the mythical and ideological “pristine state” nonsense advanced by extreme environmentalists to prevent exploitation of natural resources. Then we show how much we agree with the environmental Taleban.

Nuts!

They compare every change to imagined past conditions of “perfection” and their policy proposals are aimed at returning to that pristine state.

It’s nuts, really. Just a moment’s reflection shows how idiotic it is, for the welfare of our children, to avoid changing the world, and instead attempt to pass on to them a world unchanged, still pristine — a fragile wilderness in all its untouched splendour. How wonderful. How sentimental. How useless.

For that is precisely what the Inuit, the Bushmen, the Maori and the Korowai, of New Guinea, along with all other primitive peoples, actively practised for thousands of years until more advanced races happened along. Read more… »

Here’s the mainstream media strongly reproaching a pillar of the global warming myth with apparently nary a second thought. Yay! It’s great to see. People serving in public bodies of any country are much improved when publicly expected to justify what they say. It inevitably hatches humility or at least trims their hubris. This is the modern equivalent of the stocks whereby citizens get to hurl herbage at miscreants — only difference now is we fling verbiage, but millions, not dozens, witness their humiliation. Modern times are good. The Daily Mail raises sharp questions about some long-standing and troubling behaviour by the Met Office, whose apologists around the world should themselves pay heed to these questions and how they reflect on the science behind the predictions of global warming. One of the lessons here is that warmists are deceitful in claiming that the debate is over, for there is much to debate — every month there is more doubt over the future course of the climate. But more and more people are voicing questions about the predictions of warming — and what a wonderful thing that they are no longer ashamed to do so, for never in the field of scientific inquiry have so many been silenced for so long by so few. Perhaps the end is beginning.

Editorial, Daily Mail, 10 Jan 2013

To put it mildly, it is a matter of enormous public interest that the Met Office has revised its predictions of global warming, whispering that new data suggest there will be none for the next five years.

After all, the projection implies that by 2017, despite a colossal increase in carbon emissions, there will have been no rise in the planet’s surface temperature for almost two decades.

Why, then, did the Met Office choose to sneak out this intriguing information on Christmas Eve, knowing there would be no newspapers the next day? Read more… »

It’s widely agreed that burning petroleum and other hydrocarbons is steadily increasing the atmospheric level of carbon dioxide. There are suspicions there could be other causes, because the rise in CO2 doesn’t reflect the hydrocarbon usage curve, which shows a lot more variability. But, still, the conventional opinion deprecates the use of “fossil” fuels because increased CO2 will cause dangerous climatic changes (global warming). However one also reads that more CO2 is making the Earth greener — more CO2 means plants are growing faster and larger. This article by Matt Ridley in the WSJ a week ago (rerun at GWPF) mentions two further reasons to thank the use of hydrocarbons — it saves trees and gentle warming boosts plant growth. — Richard Treadgold

How Fossil Fuels Have Greened The Planet

Matt Ridley

This is an adopted article.

Did you know that the Earth is getting greener, quite literally? Satellites are now confirming that the amount of green vegetation on the planet has been increasing for three decades. This will be news to those accustomed to alarming tales about deforestation, over-development and ecosystem destruction.

This possibility was first suspected in 1985 by Charles Keeling, the scientist whose meticulous record of the content of the air atop Mauna Loa in Hawaii first alerted the world to the increasing concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Read more… »

The unique and enchanting Maori method of making friends with you. Much as I love them, they don’t deserve, they haven’t established a right to and should not claim special political privileges. The IPCC is deeply misguided to allege that Maoris suffer under “inequalities in political representation,” for the exact opposite is true. Maoris and their supporters should be consistent, and acknowledge for others the same democratic rights they claim for themselves. Granting rights to representation on the basis of race only leads us down the same obnoxious path as South Africa’s apartheid.

Our friend Warwick Hughes draws our attention to a section of the AR5 which features the Maoris. Not New Zealanders, note, but Maoris.

In it, the IPCC expresses particular concern for Maoris, who, they predict, will be disadvantaged by the progressively worsening effects of anthropogenic global warming. They claim that Maoris’ “choices and actions continue to be constrained by … inequalities in political representation.”

Warwick raises his eyebrows at this and asks whether climate change is a hot topic in Maori society. But the allegation of inequality is so far from true that we can only jeer. Read more… »

Here’s an interesting reflection on the climate system which at a stroke highlights the complexity of climate and puts to one side (at least for a moment) the belief that it must have a single controller, such as a minor atmospheric gas.

Dr Vincent Gray explained today:

The idea that the Earth has a “radiation budget” is inherently wrong.

The climate is a heat engine. The energy comes in from the sun. The exhaust goes out to space.

The exhaust must be less than the input because in between some work must be done. This would include maintenance of all living creatures plus erosion and other changes in the surface.

A scientist comments that the concept of a budget is both sound and useful, even if not strictly applicable all of the time. The energy budget approach is at the heart of modern climatology and is not controversial.

I wonder if any papers have addressed the total work done by the climate system? Read more… »

A homestead burns in Tasmania. Would the Greens seriously sacrifice this home for crayfish?

Australia endures regular bushfires. They destroy property and kill people and wildlife, but they’re necessary for the survival of various plants and trees.

The most important tool in managing bushfires to help ensure they don’t become monster conflagrations is controlled burnoffs in the cooler months — it’s really the only tool, since burning is the only practical way to destroy undergrowth and dead timber. That way, when the fires arise in the hot season they are not so large and damaging.

Burnoffs have a fascinating history. They’ve been practised since Europeans arrived in Australia, and of course the Aborigines, who started the burnoffs thousands of years ago, taught them how to do it. Since then the application of Western science has improved our understanding of the bush.

This week, on the Tasmanian Greens web site, in response to “a few queries about the Greens’ policy on fuel reduction burns,” somebody signing himself “Greens staff” claimed that the Party supports “fuel reduction burns as a vital tool in protecting lives and property in all land tenures including National Parks.”

But it’s only two years ago that they wanted to shut them down. Read more… »

Miranda Devine Blog, Daily Telegraph.

Tuesday, January 08, 2013
h/t Andy Scrase

First

It’s nothing to do with the climate.

WHEN Julia Gillard toured fire ravaged parts of Tasmania on Monday she couldn’t resist opportunism – using the calamity to push a climate change agenda.

“As a result of climate change we are going to see more extreme weather events,” she said.

But the fact is Australia gets hot in summer – sometimes very hot – and if there is fuel on the ground it will burn. The more fuel, the wilder the fire.

Greens are environmentally disconnected

Green activists are mostly city dwellers with little understanding of the natural environment — regardless of how much they talk about it. How else could they put so much bush ecosystem, human property and human life at risk? Why did they go out of their way to meddle with well-tested systems of fire management that were working? Why do we listen to them? Read more… »