hi...

As the IPCC, full of its serious scientists and massive computer models tell us that WE are cooking the planet, The Heartland Institute is organising a gamblingfest on global cooling in Las Vegas. 

And one of the foremost entertainer there with a rendition of "If My Pants were on Fire, I would be the Last One to Know*" is Lord Monckton himself. There will be also the same gamut of blabbers as well, a bit older though but none the wiser. The good lord is also incensed that one his young protégée, Naomi Seibt, the anti-Greta fashionista, needs your financial support now because she has had her funding frozen ("As a result of [an] arbitrary and capricious prosecution and conviction without trial, Naomi has had her earnings cut off", says the lord). Often wheeled out by denialists for the kiddies, Naomi Seibt's arguments are even more pissy than those of the good lord (which is a hard thing to do), but she looks better than him. 

Meanwhile, back to seriousity...

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Climate scientist Dr. Ronan Connolly, Dr. Willie Soon and 21 other scientists claim the conclusions of the latest “code red” IPCC climate report, and the certainty with which those conclusions are expressed, are dependent on the IPCC authors’ narrow choice of datasets. The scientists assert that the inclusion of additional credible data sets would have led to very different conclusions about the alleged threat of anthropogenic global warming.

Challenging UN, Study Finds Sun—not CO2—May Be Behind Global Warming

New peer-reviewed paper finds evidence of systemic bias in UN data selection to support climate-change narrativeBy Alex Newman August 16, 2021 Updated: August 16, 2021

The sun and not human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) may be the main cause of warmer temperatures in recent decades, according to a new study with findings that sharply contradict the conclusions of the United Nations (UN) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The peer-reviewed paper, produced by a team of almost two dozen scientists from around the world, concluded that previous studies did not adequately consider the role of solar energy in explaining increased temperature

oh sorry! SOooooo SORRY! I went to the wrong tab... These denialists are everywhere pushing their barrow of crap. 

The "peer-reviewed" (as mentioned before, the cleaning lady ticked off the manuscript into the dust-bin) paper, produced by a team of almost two dozen (!) scientists (PhDs from local pubs and church halls) from around the world (!), concluded that previous studies [of the IPCC] did not adequately consider the role of solar energy in explaining increased temperature... Yes, we know that the last sun cycle was WEAK and according to these diplomed idiots, hence the temperature of the earth should go up. This only make sense to illiterate farting polar bears, but they persist in providing upside-down graphs and out-of-date sauce to bamboozle old balding men and empty chairs.

See Heartland Institute there.

Now, the seriousness of the problem is explained here:

The recent IPCC report on the latest climate science, the first since 2013, has received lots of coverage and commentary across all forms of media. I’ll restrict my contribution to a synopsis of three organisations’ (here, here and here) ‘five takeaway messages’:

1. Human activities are ‘unequivocally’ causing global warming – previously the IPCC had regarded the link as only ‘very likely’.
2. Global warming is producing rapid changes to Earth’s climate systems now. The changes are occurring more quickly than recently predicted and are unprecedented in the last several hundred thousand years. Changes of this magnitude and rapidity have certainly not seen during the climatically stable, most recent 12,000 years when complex human civilisations have developed.
3. No matter how deeply we cut emissions in the near future, temperatures will keep increasing till at least mid-century and it is now unlikely that warming will be kept below 1.5o It’s likely that we will reach average global warming of 1.5oC in the early 2030s.
4. Without immediate and deep emissions cuts, global warming will exceed 2o
5. Extreme weather events (land and marine heatwaves, floods, droughts, bushfires, cyclones) will become more frequent and more extreme. Since the last report, the evidence has become much clearer that extreme weather events are linked to climate change. Even after emissions start to fall, climate systems will continue to be affected and sea levels will continue to rise for centuries.
6. The consequences of climate change are affecting, and will get worse for, all people in all parts of the globe. Poor and disadvantaged individuals, communities and countries are the worst affected.
7. Crossing irreversible climate tipping points (e.g., melting of polar ice sheets, dieback of the Amazon Forest, changes to ocean currents) cannot be ruled out and could lead to runaway global warming. This is the first time an IPCC report has considered tipping points.
8. The window for effective action is closing rapidly but the climate future is still in our hands. Decisive, large-scale, effective and immediate action by the global community can still limit warming to well below 2oC, as agreed in Paris. This must involve cutting greenhouse gas emissions drastically in the next decade and reaching net-zero globally by 2050.
9. Regardless of whether warming stays below or exceeds 1.5oC or 2oC, every fraction of a degree of additional warming results in more frequent and more serious extreme weather events, makes crossing tipping points more likely and leads to more dangerous and more costly impacts. So, 1.9oC will be better than 2oC and 2.9oC will be better than 3o There’s no excuse for giving up.

On a GetUp webinar during this week, Will Steffen made clear what this all means for Australia:

• No (none, zero, not any) new coal, gas or oil developments. Forget the gas led recovery ‘crap’. Stop exporting coal;
• 75% reduction in emissions (compared with 2005) by 2030. Australia’s emissions have changed little between 2005 and now;
• Net zero emissions by 2035;
• This is the last chance for global leaders to take effective action. It will be too late by the time the next IPCC report is produced.

Not all Liberal politicians are in denial about the existence of and/or the urgent need to do anything about climate change. Matt Kean, NSW Minister for Energy and Environment, recently sent a very clear message to his Liberal-National colleagues: ‘When we decide who we bank with, and when we decide how to vote at the ballot box, we need to send a message to all leaders in every part of our society, that failing to deliver on the promise of what we can be, is not an option. Complaining that it is all too hard is not a solution. Saying that it is up to others to come up with a plan is a complete cop out. The community expects our leaders to get on with it, or to get out of the way.’ That’s the sort of language one might expect from one of P&I’s regular contributors on climate change, not a Liberal cabinet minister. Don’t expect a Christmas card from Scomo, Matt.

Writing in The Guardian, Adam Morton and Lisa Cox identified four environmental battlegrounds in the current session of parliament:

1. A second attempt by the government to allow the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (Arena) to fund the development of (the most-definitely-not-renewable) energy technologies of carbon capture and storage (CCS) and hydrogen power sourced from gas (blue hydrogen). The government has already been successful in this quest;
2. Government plans to let the Clean Energy Finance Corporation (CEFC or ‘green bank’) fund (the most-definitely-not-clean) gas-fired power plants and remove the  requirement on the CEFC to deliver a financial return on all its investments (which doesn’t sound like very bank-like behaviour);
3. The wish of the government to provide grants to private companies to encourage the development of the Beetaloo Basin gas field in the NT (see next item for more details);
4. Continuing efforts by the government to weaken the nation’s already failing Environmental Protection and Biodiversity (EPBC) Act by cherry-picking recommendations from Graeme Samuel’s recent comprehensive 10-year review of the Act.

Parliament being parliament, no doubt these four battlegrounds will consume considerable time and effort of the denizens of Capital Hill. What strikes me as remarkable, however, is that only one of them – the future of the EPBC Act – is of any real significance for the environment. The first three are little more than political Brownian motion.

The Morrison government has by word and deed (sports rorts, car park rorts, etc.) made it clear that it believes that ‘Ministerial discretion’ is all that is required to justify the allocation of funds to pet projects that will benefit its mates or its election prospects. A recent example is the grant of $21 million by the Minister for Resources and Water to Imperial Oil and Gas to expedite gas exploration activities in the Beetaloo Basin in the NT – the Minister conveniently ignoring the fact that no additional fossil fuel reserves should be explored and mined if global warming is to be contained at a manageable level. Governments, however, are not exempt from laws and regulations and the Environment Centre Northern Territory (ECNT), represented by the Environmental Defenders Office, has challenged the lawfulness of the Minister’s decision in the Federal Court. Grants under the relevant program are subject to the Commonwealth government’s own Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act which requires that the Minister must make reasonable enquiries to be satisfied that the expenditure would be a proper (that is efficient, effective, economical and ethical) use of public money. The ECNT alleges that the Minister committed an error in law by failing to make necessary enquiries regarding the climate change and economic risks associated with the development of the Beetaloo Basin and therefore the Minister’s decision is invalid. We await with interest the Court’s decision but regardless of the outcome it’s good to see the increasing trend for organisations with the necessary commitment and skills using the law to challenge ministers’ idiosyncratic decision-making processes.

Read more:

https://johnmenadue.com/sunday-environmental-round-up-18/

Note* Don't you know the song?

Free Julian Assange NOWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!!!