Obama to Abbott: get out of the way

Seriously? Tony Abbott has just taken climate change OFF the agenda at the G20, as if scrapping The Climate Department, The Climate Commission and yes, soon, the carbon price wasn’t enough. Now he’s literally getting in the way of OTHER countries taking action.

Our PM is meeting with Barack Obama next week in Washington and the President has just put his legacy on the line for climate, cleaning up America’s energy production even in the face of huge opposition. Obama will be busy selling his climate policies, so let’s ask him to give Abbott a copy of Congress’ climate report when they exchange gifts at the White House.

Climate tipping points are threatening to change the very world we live in irreversibly. There’s never been a more important time to act -- if President Obama’s subtle present doesn’t convince Abbott, then he can force him out of the way of other countries and put climate change back on the G20 agenda. Sign now!

Click below to sign the petition and forward to everyone:

https://preview.avaaz.org/en/petition/President_Barack_Obama_Obama_to_Abbott_out_of_the_way/

Huge people powered win:

It’s an historic day for our World Heritage Great Barrier Reef. I can’t thank you enough for what you’ve just helped achieve:

The Queensland Parliament has just voted to implement a ban on sea-dumping of industrial dredge spoil in the pristine waters of our iconic Reef.

Australians love our Reef. It holds a special place in the hearts of millions. It sustains life: turtles, dugongs and more than 600 species of coral - and livelihoods - the jobs of nearly 70,000 Aussies. So when dangerous industrialisation threatens it, we stand together to protect it.

Two years ago, we were facing the prospect of mass industrial expansion along the Reef coast. It would have meant continual degradation of the Reef, through dredging, dumping and port expansion, and, potentially, the loss of one of the world’s greatest natural assets.

But, on behalf of the people who love it, and the magnificent animals that call it home, we united and took a stand to protect it.

Millions of people, from the Reef coast, to Australia’s capital cities and towns, and right around the world signed up and said we need to protect the Reef from dumping, dredging and industrialisation.

Then, at the World Heritage Committee meeting in Germany this year, the world heard us and insisted that the Australian and Queensland Government be put on probation until they deliver on their promises return the Reef to good health.

Earlier this year, the Federal Government implemented a ban on industrial sea-dumping in the Reef Marine Park, and now the Queensland Government has extended that to the rest of the World Heritage Area, where 80% of the dumping was happening.

These bans are a huge step in delivering the plan to heal the Reef.

This is an enormous achievement and it happened because thousands of supporters just like you, told the government we wanted to see change to protect the places we love.

I’ve recorded a short video to share this good news with the community, you can see it, and help share it on social media by clicking here.

Today is important, and we should celebrate this great day for the Reef. But today isn’t the end of our campaign.

Now it’s time to turn our energy to the other steps in the plan to protect the Reef.

We know that early next year the Reef could face a bleaching event that will leave huge tracts of coral savaged.

Coral bleaching is caused by underwater heat waves, driven by global warming, and our Reef’s ability to recover from events like these is hampered by chemical pollution and fertiliser that runs from farmland into the Reef’s waters, fueling outbreaks of coral-eating Crown of Thorns starfish.

So we need to do 3 things:

1. Move Australia to clean energy – like solar and wind – that doesn’t pollute our skies

2. Keep up the fight against reckless plans to industrialise our Reef, and

3. Make our Reef’s waters clear again, by ensuring farmers adopt practices which are safe for the Reef.

We need our leaders to be doing everything they can to keep our coral colourful. And we know that when people work together, we can deliver these outcomes - today’s result proves that.

On behalf of all of the people who’ve worked to deliver this historic result, thank you for everything you’ve done so far. Now, let’s stand together to keep our coral colourful, and our Barrier Reef great.

Thanks for your support,

Dermot O’Gorman

CEO

WWF-Australia

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/updates/articles/a008-el-nino-and-australia.shtml

What is El Niño and what might it mean for Australia?

Australia's weather is influenced by many climate drivers. El Niño and La Niña have perhaps the strongest influence on year-to-year climate variability in Australia. They are a part of a natural cycle known as the El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and are associated with a sustained period (many months) of warming (El Niño) or cooling (La Niña) in the central and eastern tropical Pacific.

The ENSO cycle loosely operates over timescales from one to eight years.

Potential effects of El Niño on Australia include:

• Reduced rainfall
• Warmer temperatures
• Shift in temperature extremes
• Increased frost risk
• Reduced tropical cyclone numbers
• Later monsoon onset
• Increased fire danger in southeast Australia
• Decreased alpine snow depths

What causes an El Niño?

An El Niño occurs when sea surface temperatures in the central and eastern tropical Pacific Ocean become substantially warmer than average, and this causes a shift in atmospheric circulation.

Typically, the equatorial trade winds blow from east to west across the Pacific Ocean.

El Niño events are associated with a weakening, or even reversal, of the prevailing trade winds.

Warming of ocean temperatures in the central and eastern Pacific causes this area to become more favourable for tropical rainfall and cloud development.

As a result, the heavy rainfall that usually occurs to the north of Australia moves to the central and eastern parts of the Pacific basin.

also > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Ni%C3%B1o

Somehow I think Climate Change is off the front page of the G20 agenda. Where it belongs.

Somehow I think Climate Change is off the front page of the G20 agenda. Where it belongs.

There's nothing you won't stoop to, is there?

There's nothing you won't stoop to, is there?

The events in Paris are nothing but tragic. I probably should have been clearer in my post. The G20 agenda should be about real world problems and following the tragic events it will be.

Somehow I think Climate Change is off the front page of the G20 agenda. Where it belongs.

You are saying it does belong on the front page then?

Somehow I think Climate Change is off the front page of the G20 agenda. Where it belongs.

Somehow you think...

Just like somehow you think that without any scientific credentials, you are suited to make a judgement on the legitimacy of climate change.

The two week climate talks in Paris will go ahead as scheduled on 30 November. Very disappointing news I'm sure.

In good news however, the "truth squad" could always use a second member: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/inhofe-paris-climate-talks

Be sure to bring a snowball.

Somehow you think...

Just like somehow you think that without any scientific credentials, you are suited to make a judgement on the legitimacy of climate change.

The two week climate talks in Paris will go ahead as scheduled on 30 November. Very disappointing news I'm sure.

In good news however, the "truth squad" could always use a second member: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/inhofe-paris-climate-talks

Be sure to bring a snowball.

So do you have scientific credentials in climate change? If not by your own reasoning you shouldn't have an opinion on it.

I'll admit I haven't read your link unlike some of the links I have previously provided that you commented on without even reading.

So do you have scientific credentials in climate change? If not by your own reasoning you shouldn't have an opinion on it.

I'll admit I haven't read your link unlike some of the links I have previously provided that you commented on without even reading.

For a second time, I skim read the article as I was multi-tasking at the time and missed a couple of inconsequential points. I apologised. Good to see it left you with some pretty pointless ammunition though.

.I'm not a scientist. Therefore I listen to overwhelming majority expert opinion. What I don't listen to are old timers who are essentially too afraid to face the reality of what's happening.

Just thought I'd let you know about the position available in the truth squad. Do carry on.

I'll admit I haven't read your link unlike some of the links I have previously provided that you commented on without even reading.

Ok I have read the article now and it is 30 seconds of my life I will never get back.

Is that the quality of link I can expect from the alarmists on this site? When I post links to satellite data showing no statistic warming I get a link back to some bloke I have never heard of bringing a snowball into the American senate?

Ok I have read the article now and it is 30 seconds of my life I will never get back.

Is that the quality of link I can expect from the alarmists on this site? When I post links to satellite data showing no statistic warming I get a link back to some bloke I have never heard of bringing a snowball into the American senate?

Just a little humour fella. Plus you should be aware of the calibre of individual you are aligned with.

Incidentally, using the incidents in Paris as an offering to continue spouting your "alarmist" dribble is in horrible taste and if you have a shred of decency you'll retract it entirely.

The two week climate talks in Paris will go ahead as scheduled on 30 November. Very disappointing news I'm sure.

is that the one with 20,000 attendees jetting there?

For a second time, I skim read the article as I was multi-tasking at the time and missed a couple of inconsequential points. I apologised. Good to see it left you with some pretty pointless ammunition though.

.I'm not a scientist. Therefore I listen to overwhelming majority expert opinion. What I don't listen to are old timers who are essentially too afraid to face the reality of what's happening.

Just thought I'd let you know about the position available in the truth squad. Do carry on.

How do you pick one scientists findings over another? I'm guessing the ones that fit your narrative or the ones on the ABC that also fit your narrative.

Just a little humour fella. Plus you should be aware of the calibre of individual you are aligned with.

Incidentally, using the incidents in Paris as an offering to continue spouting your "alarmist" dribble is in horrible taste and if you have a shred of decency you'll retract it entirely.

I'm intrigued with your comment on the caliber of individual I am aligned with? If it is an ex-demonlander who no longer posts here I am happy to PM you (send me a PM). I know what happened but don't know the accused personally. Otherwise I am not sure what you are talking about.

Anytime I am writing about "alarmists" it is in relation to climate change and you will need to explain to me why that is in horrible taste.

is that the one with 20,000 attendees jetting there?

Talks last year had 15.000 delegates so that number sounds about right - http://www.cop21paris.org/about/cop21

How do you pick one scientists findings over another? I'm guessing the ones that fit your narrative or the ones on the ABC that also fit your narrative.

I "pick" them when they are joined by over 95% of their peers.

I'm not getting drawn into this idiotic time warp with you again. I'd rather invest energy into debating what we do about the issue. Not whether it exists.

No retraction I take it. Colour me stunned.

I'm intrigued with your comment on the caliber of individual I am aligned with? If it is an ex-demonlander who no longer posts here I am happy to PM you (send me a PM). I know what happened but don't know the accused personally. Otherwise I am not sure what you are talking about.

Anytime I am writing about "alarmists" it is in relation to climate change and you will need to explain to me why that is in horrible taste.

I'm talking about the plonk in the article leading the one man truth squad. I instantly thought of you hence why I posted it.

The horrible taste is using a massacre of nearly 200 people to make a comparative point about "real world problems" being on the G20 agenda. It you can't see why it's in bad taste, I can't be bothered explaining it.

Talks last year had 15.000 delegates so that number sounds about right - http://www.cop21paris.org/about/cop21

I "pick" them when they are joined by over 95% of their peers.

I'm not getting drawn into this idiotic time warp with you again. I'd rather invest energy into debating what we do about the issue. Not whether it exists.

No retraction I take it. Colour me stunned.

95% of their peers? Are we talking sea level rises, polar bear extincting, upper atmosphere warming or just the vibe?

I back up my statements with links. I'm guessing you will just say you can't be bothered arguing with me. Again...

The horrible taste is using a massacre of nearly 200 people to make a comparative point about "real world problems" being on the G20 agenda. It you can't see why it's in bad taste, I can't be bothered explaining it.

I'm sorry if the massacre of 200 people is a real world problem and I state the obvious. Je suis Charlie.

I hope you are as quick to jump on the people who blame climate change for the deaths of people after our next inevitable bushfire.

The events in Paris are nothing but tragic. I probably should have been clearer in my post. The G20 agenda should be about real world problems and following the tragic events it will be.

Clearer? You didn't need to be any clearer about your contemptible effort to exploit the Paris massacres to make some political point about climate change.

And no, you're not Charlie. Nothing could be clearer than that.

Clearer? You didn't need to be any clearer about your contemptible effort to exploit the Paris massacres to make some political point about climate change.

And no, you're not Charlie. Nothing could be clearer than that.

Because I haven't been slain for enraging a crazy bunch of Islamists? Or is it because you don't get the whole freedom of speech thing and believe your right to be offended outweighs my right to speech?

Because I haven't been slain for enraging a crazy bunch of Islamists? Or is it because you don't get the whole freedom of speech thing and believe your right to be offended outweighs my right to speech?

Standard tactic of the bleating right wing, of course, to start griping about freedom of speech when anyone with a different view starts exercising it (I'm not offended, by the way. Maybe you should check the meaning of contemptible sometime).

No, your ridiculous effort to try to justify yourself by proclaiming yourself to be Charlie is precisely that the time for that particular proclamation is past. The simple fact that you don't understand this demonstrates more than adequately that you're not Charlie and I doubt whether you ever were.

Factoid of the day...

MYTH 1: Global temperatures are rising at a rapid, unprecedented rate.

FACT: Accurate satellite, balloon and mountain top observations made over the last three decades have not shown any significant change in the long term rate of increase in global temperatures. Average ground station readings do show a mild warming of 0.6 to 0.8C over the last 100 years, which is well within the natural variations recorded in the last millennium. However, the ground station network suffers from an uneven distribution across the globe; the stations are preferentially located in growing urban and industrial areas ("heat islands"), which show substantially higher readings than adjacent rural areas ("land use effects") i.e. local heat retention due to urban sprawl, not global warming…and it is these, 'false high' ground readings which are then programmed into the disreputable climate models used by your favourite enviro groups such as Greenpeace, which live up to the GIGO acronym — Garbage In, Garbage Out.

Looking at it from the long term, the planet has been gradually recovering from the Little Ice Age which ended in 1850. Our temps are in fact right where they should be. From a short term perspective, satellite measurements (which are far more accurate than land-based stations) are now showing a gradual decrease in global temperatures, and it is currently well accepted that temperatures have been slowly falling for over a decade now and cold records are being set far more often than warm records.

In summary, there has been no catastrophic warming recorded from either method whatsoever.

Factoid of the day...

MYTH 1: Global temperatures are rising at a rapid, unprecedented rate.

FACT: Accurate satellite, balloon and mountain top observations made over the last three decades have not shown any significant change in the long term rate of increase in global temperatures. Average ground station readings do show a mild warming of 0.6 to 0.8C over the last 100 years, which is well within the natural variations recorded in the last millennium. However, the ground station network suffers from an uneven distribution across the globe; the stations are preferentially located in growing urban and industrial areas ("heat islands"), which show substantially higher readings than adjacent rural areas ("land use effects") i.e. local heat retention due to urban sprawl, not global warming…and it is these, 'false high' ground readings which are then programmed into the disreputable climate models used by your favourite enviro groups such as Greenpeace, which live up to the GIGO acronym — Garbage In, Garbage Out.

Looking at it from the long term, the planet has been gradually recovering from the Little Ice Age which ended in 1850. Our temps are in fact right where they should be. From a short term perspective, satellite measurements (which are far more accurate than land-based stations) are now showing a gradual decrease in global temperatures, and it is currently well accepted that temperatures have been slowly falling for over a decade now and cold records are being set far more often than warm records.

In summary, there has been no catastrophic warming recorded from either method whatsoever.

Congrats on showing restraint up until now.

To save time in future, you may as well just post the link you're grabbing this stuff from, or at least acknowledge it: http://www.iloveco2.com/2009/01/top-15-climate-myths.html

My favourite two quotes would have to be either the gob smacking irony of this statement: "It is better to trust scientists than politicians. Do not let fear ruin your day."

Or this: "Foreign countries are lying to us (by means of the IPCC) because they wish to throw a monkey wrench into the inner workings of western economies, which are the strongest in the world. If our economy slows down, the economic standing of other countries improves because we will no longer dominate the markets."

So essentially, the two largest economies in the world are being duped. They are spending billions upon billions of dollars on research and development while making transformative changes in the way they buy, sell and generate energy, all because the foreigners are duping them via the IPCC based on some dodgy readings...in kahootz with Greenpeace.

While we're playing the game of "I'm no scientist but I have access to the internet", the urban heat island effect has been demonstrated repeatedly to have no signficant influence on the surface temperature record. Here's a paper that debunks the influence of the UHI effect on global temperature trends using the case studies of London and Vienna to establish that urban areas show near identical trends as surrounding rural areas: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008JD009916/full

Summarised here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Does-Urban-Heat-Island-effect-add-to-the-global-warming-trend.html

Criticisms of the records were also addressed in detail through the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project: http://www.skepticalscience.com/WattsandBEST.html

Ideology has no place in discussions such as this. When that is the starting point, it leads to reckless conclusions and outcomes. Same with positions generated out of fear, or arrogance. When there is a 97% scientific consensus based on a vast body of evidence that human caused global warming is occurring, that will always override any stay at home researcher's opinion on the matter. The scientific community must be respected, and they have been talking almost in total unison for some time now.

You have the right as an intelligent person to remain steadfast in your skepticism. But those in positions of power are listening to those whose opinion matters. Yours, mine, and the guy who loves CO2, do not.

Congrats on showing restraint up until now.

To save time in future, you may as well just post the link you're grabbing this stuff from, or at least acknowledge it: http://www.iloveco2.com/2009/01/top-15-climate-myths.html

My favourite two quotes would have to be either the gob smacking irony of this statement: "It is better to trust scientists than politicians. Do not let fear ruin your day."

Or this: "Foreign countries are lying to us (by means of the IPCC) because they wish to throw a monkey wrench into the inner workings of western economies, which are the strongest in the world. If our economy slows down, the economic standing of other countries improves because we will no longer dominate the markets."

So essentially, the two largest economies in the world are being duped. They are spending billions upon billions of dollars on research and development while making transformative changes in the way they buy, sell and generate energy, all because the foreigners are duping them via the IPCC based on some dodgy readings...in kahootz with Greenpeace.

While we're playing the game of "I'm no scientist but I have access to the internet", the urban heat island effect has been demonstrated repeatedly to have no signficant influence on the surface temperature record. Here's a paper that debunks the influence of the UHI effect on global temperature trends using the case studies of London and Vienna to establish that urban areas show near identical trends as surrounding rural areas: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008JD009916/full

Summarised here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Does-Urban-Heat-Island-effect-add-to-the-global-warming-trend.html

Criticisms of the records were also addressed in detail through the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project: http://www.skepticalscience.com/WattsandBEST.html

Ideology has no place in discussions such as this. When that is the starting point, it leads to reckless conclusions and outcomes. Same with positions generated out of fear, or arrogance. When there is a 97% scientific consensus based on a vast body of evidence that human caused global warming is occurring, that will always override any stay at home researcher's opinion on the matter. The scientific community must be respected, and they have been talking almost in total unison for some time now.

You have the right as an intelligent person to remain steadfast in your skepticism. But those in positions of power are listening to those whose opinion matters. Yours, mine, and the guy who loves CO2, do not.

You've ruined my fun.

He's not alone in exposing this diabolical hoax. There are plenty Jo Nova's out there.

I'll refrain from ongoing commentary, as it's a waste of time, but I'll post snippets from time to time.

I have zero doubt that those who want to believe won't be swayed by any argument. But there may be the odd open minded person. Doubtful.

Sent: Friday, 08 October 2010 17:19 Hal Lewis

From: Hal Lewis, University of California, Santa Barbara

To: Curtis G. Callan, Jr., Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society

6 October 2010

Dear Curt,

When I first joined the American Physical Society sixty-seven years ago it was much smaller, much gentler, and as yet uncorrupted by the money flood (a threat against which Dwight Eisenhower warned a half-century ago).

Indeed, the choice of physics as a profession was then a guarantor of a life of poverty and abstinence – it was World War II that changed all that. The prospect of worldly gain drove few physicists. As recently as thirty-five years ago, when I chaired the first APS study of a contentious social/scientific issue, The Reactor Safety Study, though there were zealots aplenty on the outside there was no hint of inordinate pressure on us as physicists. We were therefore able to produce what I believe was and is an honest appraisal of the situation at that time. We were further enabled by the presence of an oversight committee consisting of Pief Panofsky, Vicki Weisskopf, and Hans Bethe, all towering physicists beyond reproach. I was proud of what we did in a charged atmosphere. In the end the oversight committee, in its report to the APS President, noted the complete independence in which we did the job, and predicted that the report would be attacked from both sides. What greater tribute could there be?

How different it is now. The giants no longer walk the earth, and the money flood has become the raison d’être of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs. For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.

It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.

So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it…

I do feel the need to add one note, and this is conjecture, since it is always risky to discuss other people’s motives. This scheming at APS HQ is so bizarre that there cannot be a simple explanation for it. Some have held that the physicists of today are not as smart as they used to be, but I don’t think that is an issue. I think it is the money, exactly what Eisenhower warned about a half-century ago. There are indeed trillions of dollars involved, to say nothing of the fame and glory (and frequent trips to exotic islands) that go with being a member of the club.