Linking the bushfire disaster in NSW to climate change is "an absolute nonsense" and reducing fuel loads in the Australian bush is urgently needed, a leading scientist says.
Retired Monash University researcher David Packham says global warming is a gradual process which doesn't explain major bushfires.
Greens deputy leader Adam Bandt has been accused of playing politics by linking the NSW bushfires to the new federal government's climate change policies.
But Mr Packham says there is no link.
Science doesn’t happen in a vacuum. Rupert Darwall’s “The Age of Global Warming: A History,” goes into great detail explaining the forces that shape the debate over climate change. Importantly, as the subtitle suggests, Mr. Darwall puts the issue into historical perspective, examining the roots of the environmental movement as well as the political machinations that drive the policy process. Mr. Darwall’s contribution to the discussion is timely, with the publication coinciding with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Fifth Assessment Report Summary for Policymakers. While the U.N. report claims new levels of certainty of a global warming crisis, Mr. Darwall’s history offers a palliative counterpoise to some of the more extreme assertions about global warming.
Mr. Darwall traces the climate change debate back to the intellectual tradition of two prominent English scholars, Thomas Malthus and William Stanley Jevons, who feared the demand for resources would ultimately outstrip supply. Malthus is well known for his views of population expanding exponentially while food supplies expand arithmetically, with the imbalance eventually dooming society.
The president is committed to the idea of anthropogenic global warming. Man-made carbon emissions, he believes (or pretends to believe), cause global temperatures to rise, and this temperature increase is destructive. By reducing man-made carbon emissions, temperatures can be made to fall.
Every part of this logic is flawed, if not utterly false. Do carbon emissions cause global warming? The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is largely composed of climate researchers with what would seem a strong vested interest in promoting the global warming agenda. Yet even the IPCC has a 5% doubt that human activities affect the climate.
Climate change has done more good than harm so far and is likely to continue doing so for most of this century. This is not some barmy, right-wing fantasy; it is the consensus of expert opinion. Yet almost nobody seems to know this. Whenever I make the point in public, I am told by those who are paid to insult anybody who departs from climate alarm that I have got it embarrassingly wrong, don’t know what I am talking about, must be referring to Britain only, rather than the world as a whole, and so forth.
At first, I thought this was just their usual bluster. But then I realised that they are genuinely unaware. Good news is no news, which is why the mainstream media largely ignores all studies showing net benefits of climate change. And academics have not exactly been keen to push such analysis forward. So here follows, for possibly the first time in history, an entire article in the national press on the net benefits of climate change.
Europe may see itself as the globe’s green paragon, but its energy policies are a mess bordering on a disaster. -- Walter Russell Mead, Via Meadia, 16 October 2013
It’s fine being very, very green, but not if you’re interested in manufacturing. The UK is already disadvantaged on the wholesale cost of energy, and then it puts taxes on it. Anybody who’s an energy user is just going to disappear. -- Jim Ratcliffe, chief executive of the chemical giant Ineos, Financial Times, 15 October 2013
All the signs are, when it comes to the fundamentally key national issue of energy security, that the world’s leading Western economies have forsaken the best interests of the people. --Peter Glover, Energy Tribune, 16 October 2013
The Supreme Court yesterday announced it will review the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals June 2012 decision in Coalition for Responsible Regulation v. EPA, which upheld the agency’s four main greenhouse gas rulemakings.
In the new case, Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, the Court will limit its review to one question: “Whether EPA permissibly determined that greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles triggered permitting requirements under the Clean Air Act for stationary sources that emit greenhouse gases.” In other words, the Court will review the agency’s April 2010 Timing Rule.
Pioneers of science like Pythagoras, Galileo, Copernicus, and Newton had beliefs that were mystical in nature. The Christian God was very much on the minds of 18th- and 19th-century scientists. Now it is a faux pas to mention God, but the religious impulse is still present in the human personality.
The scientific mind has not changed just because intellectual fashions have changed. Galileo practiced astrology. Scientists today are simply consumed by new mysticisms, like environmentalism and apocalyptic predictions of doom. The current new mysticism is global warming.
Environmentalists hoped the latest study from the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) would finally end the increasingly acrimonious debate over the causes and consequences of climate change. It has had the opposite effect.
MIT physicist Richard Lindzen called the IPCC report "hilarious incoherence." British historian Rupert Darwall labeled it "nonsense" and "the manipulation of science for political ends." Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology says the IPCC suffers from "paradigm paralysis" and should be "put down."
The most precise criticism of the IPCC's report came from the editors of Nature, one of the world's most distinguished science journals: "Scientists cannot say with any certainty what rate of warming might be expected, or what effects humanity might want to prepare for, hedge against or avoid at all costs."
Despite decades of research funded by taxpayers to the tune of billions of dollars, we are no more certain about the impact of man-made greenhouse gases than we were in 1990, or even in 1979 when the National Academy of Sciences estimated the effect of a doubling of carbon dioxide to be "near 3 degrees C with a probable error of plus or minus 1.5 degrees C."
What do America’s college students want? They want to be oppressed. More precisely, a surprising number of students at America’s finest colleges and universities wish to appear as victims — to themselves, as well as to others — without the discomfort of actually experiencing victimization. Here is where global warming comes in. The secret appeal of campus climate activism lies in its ability to turn otherwise happy, healthy, and prosperous young people into an oppressed class, at least in their own imaginings. Climate activists say to the world, “I’ll save you.” Yet deep down they’re thinking, “Oppress me.”
In his important new book, The Fanaticism of the Apocalypse: Save the Earth, Punish Human Beings, French intellectual gadfly Pascal Bruckner does the most thorough job yet of explaining the climate movement as a secular religion, an odd combination of deformed Christianity and reconstructed Marxism. (You can find Bruckner’s excellent article based on the book here.) Bruckner describes a historical process wherein “the long list of emblematic victims — Jews, blacks, slaves, proletarians, colonized peoples — was replaced, little by little, with the Planet.” The planet, says Bruckner, “has become the new proletariat that must be saved from exploitation.”
Turns out the polar bears were
just off the coast and never in danger.What do General Electric, academics that embellish research, Al Gore, ethanol hoaxers, the Obama regime and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have in common? They all belong to the new age religion of global warming, whose membership drive has been nonstop in our schools and universities and all over our media. The global warming push is one of increased governmental control of us wee citizens and is driven by pseudoscience and plenty of scare tactics.
Remember the claim that global warming was causing polar bears to die by being stranded on ice blocks? This iconic moment in global warming hysteria came from two main sources. One was the Al Gore road show PowerPoint with a photograph of hapless bears stranded on a miniscule ice island.
A key piece of the Obama administration’s climate-change agenda is headed to the Supreme Court.
The high court on Tuesday agreed to hear a challenge to Environmental Protection Agency regulations limiting a number of harmful emissions from factories, power plants and other “stationary” facilities. The case was brought by a coalition of energy and business groups, along with officials from Republican-led states.