quintal

14 August 2014 9:06am

Recommend12

Of course it's cooling.

The fact is that the earth is flat and the underside, not being exposed to the sun, is cooler than the top and the coolness is migrating.

Any fool knows that

 

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/aug/14/tony-abbott-adviser-warns-of-threat-of-global-cooling

 

 

Tony Abbott’s top business adviser, Maurice Newman, has been invited to meet climate scientists following his assertion that the world is in fact in danger of cooling, rather than warming.

Newman used an opinion piece in the Australian newspaper on Thursday to say the world was “ill prepared” for a period of global cooling, accusing governments of being hostage to “warming propaganda” from climate scientists.

On Friday Tim Flannery, head of the Climate Council, told Guardian Australia he was keen for Newman to meet him and other scientists.

“I’d be happy to meet with him to explain the facts, we’ve made the offer and we await with baited breath,” he said.

“But there are deeper issues to this. Maurice Newman is a business adviser to the prime minister; you’d expect him to be representing the interests of the business community.

“But what he’s saying fundamentally misrepresents the interests of business, which faces a huge risk, along with the rest of us, from climate change. He’s using his position for a personal crusade in what, I think, is a serious dereliction of duty.”

Newman, who does not have a scientific background, has written a number of articles on climate change, as well as appearing on the ABC to discuss the topic, since his appointment as chairman of the prime minister’s business advisory council.

He has said that Australia has become “hostage to climate-change madness” and has also attacked the renewable energy industry.

Climate scientists have roundly rejected Newman’s theory that a drop in solar activity will see the world dramatically cool, pointing out that the influence of warming greenhouse gases is far greater than solar cycles.

Flannery said: “[Newman] is just demonstrably wrong. This is a fundamental problem for the prime minister, who needs to make him do his job. Anyone would be deeply embarrassed by this kind of performance. I have no idea where this idea of global cooling has come from.”

Gerry Hueston, former head of BP Australasia and member of the Climate Council, said: “Newman holds views that are out of step with those held by serious energy businesses globally and mainstream business in general.

“His views are scientifically wrong and completely ignore the economic and business risks that climate change presents. It is worrying that he is providing this sort of ill-informed advice on energy policy and climate risk to the highest levels of government.”

read more: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/aug/15/global-cooling-climate-scientists-keen-to-meet-tony-abbotts-business-adviser

 

Let's be clear here, Newman was specifically chosen by Tony Abbott to provide his desire of an ill-informed advice on energy policy and climate risk to the highest levels of government.

Newman and Abbott should be sacked.

The ongoing global glacier retreat is affecting human societies by causing sea-level rise, changing seasonal water availability, and increasing geohazards. Melting glaciers are an icon of anthropogenic climate change. However, glacier response times are typically decades or longer, which implies that the present-day glacier retreat is a mixed response to past and current natural climate variability and current anthropogenic forcing. Here, we show that only 25 ± 35% of the global glacier mass loss during the period from 1851 to 2010 is attributable to anthropogenic causes. Nevertheless, the anthropogenic signal is detectable with high confidence in glacier mass balance observations during 1991 to 2010, and the anthropogenic fraction of global glacier mass loss during that period has increased to 69 ± 24%.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2014/08/13/science.1254702.abstract?sid=96e14f69-8918-41d6-9275-e7e6fc932e63

Note that these figures are "conservative" and the feedback mechanism from anthropogenic activity is still a hard one to measure with fine accuracy though IT IS HAPPENING. It would take a massive computing analysis to even describe the melt of ice in a glass of whisky, thus doing such on a planetary scale demands massive computation, though the derivative process simplifies the calculation to some extend.

All this computation is akin to a RAW picture file being extrapolated as a tiff then compressed as a JPEG, in which simplification of parameters still show the picture with a high degree of accuracy. Of course there are choices of "resolution" and "size" of file, but the message is still there until the picture might be too extrapolated and becomes unclear.

This is not the case with Global Warming Models. Despite some algorithms and extrapolation through derivatives, the models are mostly accurate and describe the warming in no uncertain terms. 

Global warming is real and by the end of this century, the extra energy added by human activity burning carbon would have added 2 degrees Celsius MINIMUM in the atmosphere alone (Acidification of the seas and warming of the sea compounding the problem) with sea level rise between 45 centimetres MINIMUM up to 6 metres, should the warming accelerate as shown in some models, including mine, from 2032. 

note that the most conservative average sea level rise since 1851 is 13.3 centimetres. As we know this rise is not uniform and some places like in seas bordering northern Australia the rise has been more. See also:

http://www.yourdemocracy.net.au/drupal/node/8789

...

But there’s still more to go at here. Newman quotes a University of Pennsylvania professor of psychology Philip Tetlock as saying: “When journal reviewers, editors and funding agencies feel the same way about a course, they are less likely to detect and correct potential logical or methodological bias.”

The quote is actually a decade old and comes from an article published in the journal Political Psychology.

Newman probably got it trawling the blogs of climate sceptics (an article discussing the paper was reposted on the UK’s Global Warming Policy Foundation website earlier this month), which is where, in my view, he probably gets most of his ideas about climate science.

You might think, given the context of the article, that Tetlock was talking about environmental science or climate change.

But no. The Tetlock article was discussing his concerns about the preservation of the discipline of “political psychology”. Most of the article is discussing issues around war and peace and racism.

Fair and balanced?

Earlier this month, the Australian Press Council updated its overarching principles to “ensure that factual material” is accurate and not misleading. The change extended the principles reach from just “news reports” to material “elsewhere” which has been taken to mean opinion columns.

In principle three on fairness and balance, the APC says even when a writer expresses an opinion, it should not be done “based on significantly inaccurate factual material or omission of key facts”.

The Australian has been hostile to the changes.

You have to wonder if Newman’s latest is a bit of a test run?

read all: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2014/aug/15/fact-check-how-maurice-newman-misrepresents-science-to-claim-future-global-cooling

 

Waterspout targets Zeebrugge beach cabins

16/08/14 - Amateur footage has been released showing how a waterspout at the Belgian coastal resort of Zeebrugge causes havoc on the beach and the seaside walk. The phenomenon is a rare one for Belgium, but this year the sea water is exceptionally warm for Belgian standards.

 

http://deredactie.be/cm/vrtnieuws.english/videozone_ENG/eng.140816_waterspout 

 

 

Not as big as the waterspout seen a few years ago (1938) in Jervis Bay, NSW

 

http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/27981778

 

and far more recently (2012) in Batemans Bay, NSW Australia... But a WATERSPOUT IN BELGIUM?

Our research shows power companies would reap billions if the Renewable Energy Target was wound back, but would me or you gain from the move? Not likely, writes Olivia Kember.

Power companies have learnt they have two options for making money. One is the widely complained about but generally accepted method of charging people to use their electricity. The other is less obvious but should cause even greater outrage: lobbying governments to tilt the playing field in their favour.

Right now, for companies heavily invested in coal and gas stations, option two is looking like the good bet. It has worked well several times before, back at least as far as the set-up of the National Electricity Market (NEM), when policymakers were persuaded to exclude managing environmental impacts from the market's objectives.

Now the power companies are hoping to pull the same move again with the Renewable Energy Target.

The stakes are high. The Renewable Energy Target, a bipartisan policy dating back to prime minister John Howard's era, aims to reduce carbon pollution from the electricity sector and develop Australia's renewable energy industry. According to our calculations, since it was expanded five years ago, wind and solar power has tripled and the carbon intensity of the NEM has fallen by about 9 per cent (helped in the last couple of years by the carbon price).

Jobs in renewable energy grew to 21,000 last year.

But, since more renewables mean less reliance on fossil fuels, the owners of coal and gas stations have spent the last couple of years pushing for the target to be weakened or abolished completely.

read more: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-08-18/kember-trashing-energy-targets-in-pursuit-of-profits/5677564

 

The company behind one of Australia's largest solar power plants has abandoned the project, in part due to uncertainty over the Renewable Energy Target.

There is speculation in Canberra that the Prime Minister has called for the Government's review of the RET to include not just a scaling back but a complete removal of the target.

The 100-megawatt Silex Mildura solar power station would have provided electricity to 40,000 homes, but after years of work the project has been shelved.

"There's a number of factors, including low wholesale electricity prices and the uncertainty surrounding the Renewable Energy Target. They're the two main factors," said Michael Goldsworthy, the CEO of Silex Systems.

He says the RET had offered an attractive price for renewable energy, but this advantage had been eroded due to uncertainty over the future of the policy.

"There's not as much pressure on the market to have renewable energy in their portfolio now simply because the RET is at least going to be wound back and possibly abolished," he added.

read more: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-08-18/silex-shelves-major-solar-power-station-on-ret-uncertainty/5679086

 

Hopefully the RET will be retained by PUP and co... see: the palmerisation of ridiculous politics with affable buffoonery on a splot of turdy abbottery...

The Earth’s climate is changing at the highest of predicted rates. Naomi Oreskes says scientists have given up on the much talked about 2 degree ceiling; we need to consider an average increase more like 4 or 5 degrees.

Yet despite what is being recorded and what everyone can see, some people still say it isn’t happening and there’s nothing to worry about. But the heat will change the Earth as we know it. Naomi Oreskes draws on scientific reports to describe the world four hundred years from now.

She offers analysis as to why denialism still exists, and why some are prepared to fund their campaigns of disinformation.

listen at: http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/the-collapse-of-western-civilization/5673714

 

let's throw turds at Maurice and SHAME on The Australian for publishing his stupidity as gospel... See article at top...

The fig-leaf for Abbott is his "direct action" policy, to pay polluters to reduce their carbon emissions. This is such a laughably inadequate policy, it could only be supported by a prime minister and political party that believes global warming to be a hoax.

Abbott has been described as a weather vane by his Liberal party colleagues in the past.

He has supported a carbon tax, then viciously opposed any price on carbon to appease a minority hard-core fringe. He has dismantled Australia's emissions trading scheme and internationally has allied with fossil-fuel addicted nations like Canada to block meaningful global action.

Yet while doing this, he boldly declares himself to be a conservationist and that he considers climate change to be a "significant problem".

There is no other conclusion to draw that on the issue of global warming, Abbott is a climate nihilist. He holds no conviction or moral position on this issue of international and intergenerational significance.

Only a climate nihilist could so viciously attack the measures introduced under the previous government that were designed to assist people on low incomes, prevent harm to peoples' livelihoods and the economy, and to (in some small way) mitigate the global climate catastrophe. On this issue, it appears that he believes in nothing and therefore cannot come to a moral judgement or sense any moral obligation to act.

The gesture of "direct action" is the most contemptible element of his nihilism.

read more: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/southern-crossroads/2014/aug/22/tony-abbott-climate-denial-weathervane-nihilism

 

Maurice Newman, the prime minister’s business adviser, has called for a government-funded review of the Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) to “dispel suspicions of a warming bias” in its temperature record-keeping.

Newman, who has repeatedly questioned the findings of mainstream climate science, wrote in an opinion piece for the Australian that the bureau needed to be investigated over allegations of “temperature manipulation.”

The Australian has run a series of articles questioning data “homogenisation” techniques used by the bureau when collating temperature records. The bureau measures temperatures at nearly 800 sites across Australia.

The newspaper has published the views of Jennifer Marohasy, a climate science sceptic, who has claimed the BoM has “corrupted the official temperature records” by adjusting data and moving the location of temperature monitors to make it appear that Australia is warming.

Climate scientists say that the standardisation of raw temperature data is important to remove rogue readings and has, in most cases, actually resulted in a reduction of the warming trend in Australia.

But Newman said questions over the bureau’s methods meant that “nothing short of a thorough government-funded review and audit, conducted by independent professionals, will do”.

 

read more: http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2014/oct/01/tony-abbott-adviser-bureau-meteorology-warming-inquiry

 

The only "independent professionals" that Maurice could find would be some amateur denialists who would not be able to read a thermometer if it was planted in their arse.

What we need really is an urgent investigation, no I mean a fully blown Royal Commission, into why so many imbeciles are used and paid to advised the prime minister (Tony Turdy) on what he wants to hear, but not about reality — on all subjects from global warming, war and economic matters.

The Abbott regime is a refuge for idiots who have one gift, god blessedth them, the gift of telling porkies while keeping a straight face — nothing else.

 

Climate change is a hoax led by the United Nations so that it can end democracy and impose authoritarian rule, according to Prime Minister Tony Abbott's chief business adviser.

Maurice Newman, the chairman of the Prime Minister's business advisory council, has written in The Australian that scientific modelling showing the link between humans and climate change is wrong and the real agenda is a world takeover for the UN.

This is not about facts or logic. It's about a new world order under the control of the UN 

The column was written to coincide with an Australian visit by the head of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Christiana Figueres.

read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/climate-change-a-unled-ruse-says-tony-abbotts-business-adviser-maurice-newman-20150508-ggwuzt.html

 

 

Gus: the scientific analysis of GLOBAL WARMING is a ACCURATE. Newman is an idiot who never understood anything but cash — and one wonders about this as well. Note that the publisher of his rant is of course the merde-och press which is a denialist publication. Meanwhile, as if the TPP was not about demolishing democracy, either, in favour of multinationals and tobacco industry:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UsHHOCH4q8

 

see also: http://www.yourdemocracy.net.au/drupal/node/29801...

 

See toon at top. Please note global warming IS NOT A QUESTION OF OPINION. 

The former prime minister's controversial business adviser Maurice Newman will not advise Malcolm Turnbull, the Prime Minister's office has confirmed.

Mr Newman, who was appointed in 2013 to chair Tony Abbott's Business Advisory Council, will not continue in the role after his term expired last week.

Mr Newman, a former chairman of the ABC and the Australian Stock Exchange, made waves for his outspoken climate scepticism.

In May, he wrote in a column for The Australian that climate change was a hoax led by the United Nations, comments that were later described by the UN's top climate official, Christiana Figueres, as a joke.

Advertisement

In a piece in 2014, Mr Newman declared governments had been hijacked by "green gesture politics" and the world was not prepared for the problem of "global cooling".

A spokesman for Mr Turnbull confirmed Mr Newman's time with the council was up after a two-year term and he would not continue as an adviser.

He said it was unclear whether the Business Advisory Council would continue at all under Mr Turnbull.

The terms for the remaining members of the 12-person council expire at the end of the year.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/climate-sceptic-maurice-newman-dropped-as-prime-ministers-adviser-20150928-gjwfec.html#ixzz3n2OEe7tv
Follow us: @smh on Twitter | sydneymorningherald on Facebook

 

The former chairman of the Australian Stock Exchange and the ABC, Maurice Newman, has warned that Malcolm Turnbull's "left-leaning" leadership could lead to the rise of a new conservative party.

Mr Newman told Lateline that the Liberal party was becoming increasingly "Labor-like" under Mr Turnbull, comparing him to the former Labor prime minister, Kevin Rudd.

"If the people who support the Liberal party and the Liberal party values find that essentially it's a Labor-like party, then they'll clearly be attracted to whatever alternatives might be presented to them," Mr Newman said.

read more: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-08/former-abbott-advisor-maurice-newman-hits-out-at-turnbull/7310410

-----------------

Of course this is bullshit from Maurice. But a great tactic by Malcolm Turnip: Make the plebs, us, believe that he is "Labor leaning"... So the Liberals (CONservatives) will still vote for Turnip, no matter what while the unawares Labor mugs might feel that Turnip is not that bad. The "swinging voters" could get trapped with this deceitful "leaning-left" concept. Great plot from the Libs (CONservatives) to retain the margins.

Labor leaning? Are you nuts? Malcolm destroyed the CSIRO, is pushing the SAME agenda as Turdy Abbott and they expect us to believe that he a "Labor" saint?. Go away... You can smell the falsity of the argument 10 miles away (16.75 kilometres away).

 

 

For Tony Abbott’s economic adviser Maurice Newman, global warming was a “hook” used by the United Nations to impose a new world order in opposition to “capitalism and freedom”. To Donald Trump it is a “hoax” propagated by the Chinese to undermine the US while the rest of the world rolls around laughing.

The only skerrick of positive news from sceptics’ greatest victory yet – the US president’s decision to withdraw from the Paris climate accord – is that it seems to have galvanised politicians, scientists, business leaders and economists who have grown weary from all these years talking to the hand.

Because now it is clearer than ever that the economic interests Trump claims to defend can only be served by acting on global warming. It is way past time to speak some more loud, blunt truth to arguments this stupid.

To make the ridiculous case that abandoning Paris was good for the US economy, Trump didn’t just have to ignore science, but also the pleading of the US business community he was purporting to defend – the 630 business leaders who wrote to him in January demanding that he keep Barack Obama’s climate plan and stick with the Paris deal, and the long list of businesses and business leaders who have attacked his decision, including the chief executives of Tesla, Goldman Sachs and Disney and companies including Nike, BP, IBM, Apple, Google, Twitter, Amazon, Facebook, Microsoft, Adobe, Morgan Stanley, Unilever and Mars.

The truth is, he has clear evidence that renewable energy jobs in the US are booming and that his campaign promises on coal industry jobs will be impossible to keep. The contentious job figures he advanced to make his case for abandoning Paris came from a study which made some highly questionable assumptions to reach its conclusions, including that it would “not take into account potential benefits from avoided emissions”.

The real-world evidence is very different. As the director of Climate Analytics, Bill Hare, points out in the Conversation: “The increase in employment in solar energy alone over the past three years is more than twice the total number of jobs in the coalmining industry in the United States (which are declining).”

Meanwhile in Australia, the mind-numbing years of climate “war” have ground us to a policy paralysis.

read more:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jun/03/its-way-past-time-to...

read from top

See also :

 

modern pestilence and kicking the rightful owners in the nuts...

and

 

What is global warming?

 

 

It is possible that Donald's trick is to sell one thing for the price of two. He could basically stick to the deeds of the "Paris Agreement" in terms of emission reduction while keeping his coal/oil buddies in the illusion of not doing anything contrariant... He could be sneaky this way... Our Orstralyan mob is more rabid than Donald on this subject...

WASHINGTON — As a businessman, President Trump was a frequent and scornful critic of the concept of climate change. In the years before running for president, he called it “nonexistent,” “mythical” and a “a total con job.” Whenever snow fell in New York, it seemed, he would mock the idea ofglobal warming.

“Global warming has been proven to be a canard repeatedly over and over again,” he wrote on Twitter in 2012. In another post later that year, he said, “The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.” A year later, he wrote that “global warming is a total, and very expensive, hoax!”

But on Friday, a day after Mr. Trump withdrew the United States from the Paris climate change accord, the White House refused to say whether the president still considers climate change a hoax. As other leaders around the world vowed to confront climate change without the United States, Mr. Trump’s advisers fanned out to defend his decision and, when pressed, said they did not know his view of the science underlying the debate.

“I have not had an opportunity to have that discussion,” said Sean Spicer, the White House press secretary.

Continue reading the main story

Advertisement

Continue reading the main story

“I do not speak for the president,” said Ryan Zinke, the interior secretary.

“You should ask him that,” said Kellyanne Conway, the White House counselor.

read more:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/02/us/politics/climate-change-trump-hoax-scott-pruitt.html

 

“The US will meet our Paris commitment and through a partnership among American cities, states, and businesses, we will seek to remain part of the Paris Agreement process,” he [Bloomberg] said.

“The American government may have pulled out of the agreement, but the American people remain committed to it – and we will meet our targets.

“Americans don’t need Washington to meet our Paris commitment and Americans are not going to let Washington stand in the way of fulfilling it.

“That’s the message mayors, governors, and business leaders all across the US have been sending.”

The Paris accord commits countries to holding global temperature rises to “well below” 2C above pre-industrial levels, which will require global emissions to be cut to net zero by the second half of the century.

Scientists have warned that a failure to curb dangerous climate change will lead to sea level rises, more intense storms and flooding, more extreme droughts, water shortages and heatwaves as well as massive loss of wildlife and reduction in crop yields, potentially sparking conflict and mass migration.

Despite the decision by the US, the second biggest polluter after China, to pull out of the deal, many analysts suggest the shift to a low-carbon economy is now unstoppable, with renewable prices tumbling and new clean technology being developed and deployed.

Trump’s decision prompted criticism from many US business leaders, including clean-tech entrepreneur and Tesla chief executive Elon Musk and Robert Iger, chief executive of the Walt Disney company, who said they had resigned from the president’s advisory council over the issue.

Announcing his decision on Thursday, Trump claimed the Paris deal allows countries such as China and India to carry on polluting at the expense of the US economy and jobs.

He said the US would stop implementing measures to meet its commitments under the agreement to cut emissions by 26-28% on 2005 levels by 2025, and end funding for poor countries to cope with climate change.

read more:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jun/03/michael-bloomberg-us-states-and-businesses-will-still-meet-paris-targets

Read two comments above: Trump is smarter than us, the average loony. What he says and does is no more than a small fart in a huge pond, and he knows it... But Trump wants us to believe it's an important fart that will change the pond. It won't. Trump would like us to believe he is doing something very naughty when he is mostly talking about doing something naughty-ish, not even a fraction as naughty as he is letting along. This boisterous duplicitous attitude is not directed at us so much, as to make his coal mining buddies believe that he is on their side...