Mar
ABC science presenter Robyn Williams seeks more truth, like seas could rise 100 meters
We credit the great Andrew Bolt down under for putting together these two quotes from ABC science presenter Robyn Williams. Hilarious.
Robyn Williams in 2007:
Andrew Bolt: I’m telling you, there’s a lot of fear out there. So what I do is, when I see an outlandish claim being made…so Tim Flannery suggesting rising seas this next century eight stories high, Professor Mike Archer, dean of engineering at the University of NSW…
Robyn Williams: Dean of science.
Andrew Bolt: Dean of science…suggesting rising seas this next century of up to 100 metres, or Al Gore six metres. When I see things like that I know these are false. You mentioned the IPCC report; that suggests, at worst on best scenarios, 59 centimetres.
Robyn Williams: Well, whether you take the surge or whether you take the actual average rise are different things.
Andrew Bolt: I ask you, Robyn, 100 metres in the next century…do you really think that?
Robyn Williams: It is possible, yes.
Robyn Williams in 2010:
The issue has been bombarded with misinformation… And after Climategate – too much mea culpa. It’s time for (scientists) to get their skates on. To be aggressive in the cause of truth.
Thanks to: Andrew Bolt
Possibly related posts:
Surely, even God suddenly turned on a massive blowtorch and pointed it at the earth, that’s still impossible? I mean, where is all the water going to come from? That guy must be totally nuts — or lying through his teeth.
Yes, actually this is completely impossible, even if everything melted.
Green fuels cause more harm than fossil fuels, according to report
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7044708.ece
From May 2008
With the world teetering on the edge of a full-blown food crisis, it may be time to cut back on biofuel, said Barack Obama yesterday.
In an interview on NBC’s Meet the Press, the Democratic presidential candidate said “there’s no doubt that biofuels may be contributing” to falling food supplies and rising prices.
During the last year, global food prices have spiked, with food riots breaking out in more than 30 countries. The emerging crisis captured global attention after rice prices rose 50 percent in just two weeks in March, setting off protests in Indonesia, riots in Haiti and worldwide panic.
Some experts say that food is a more pressing problem than climate change — and with dinner-table crops now headed to refineries, the booming popularity of biofuels is partly to blame. About 100 million tons of grain — enough to feed 450 million people at a subsistence level — were turned into fuel last year.
In the United States, where corn is king, corn-based ethanol is the centerpiece of a federal mandate to meet one-quarter of the nation’s gasoline demand with renewable fuels.
———————————
Bio-fuel is little more than a novelty. In a heavily populated country like the UK with a scarcity of land for food cultivation, let alone forestry, it will only ever be a minor contribution to energy and the level of support required to make it economic is too great. The danger is that we then import bio-mass and end up merely creating more de-forestation. I was a amazed at the amount of wood even a small bio-fuel plant uses annually. I doubt that industrial forests will plant slow growing native species either. They are factories – not habitat.
It suddenly struck me that AGW alarmists might be genuinely suffering from FEAR. Irrational, to be sure, but they feel it as real Either that or they were weaned too soon after birth….
and here’s a copy of my comment
Well I read Mr Williams’ rather hysterical piece and what struck me is how he referred to denialists as ‘the voices of the extreme’ when I would say the opposite is the case; the ‘voices of the extreme’ are the warmists and they are the ones who still have the privilege of having the main stream on side; just look at the ABC tv science interviews; the one I recall the most was Kerry O’Brien’s interview of Prof Oppenheimer in the 7.30 report of 4 February 2010. Kerry O’Brien asked how does the IPCC undo the damage to its credibility from the recent embarrassing revelations on issues like the Himalaya glaciers and the Amazon rainforests. Prof Oppenheimer agreed the Himalaya issue was the one that carries with it some embarrassment. A mistake was clearly made. But the fact that other (mistakes) haven’t turned up, should lend a strong note of faith. There was a bit said in the interview about the very strong review process in the IPCC’s reports. He said ‘But it’s good, because in all – again, all the hundreds of thousands of facts, we only see one, maybe there’s two, errors that anybody’s been able to turn up with in the last assessment.’
Now at this time there had been numerous scandals involving the IPCC’s processes and reports including Climategate: Leaked Emails Inspired Data Analyses Show Claimed Warming Greatly Exaggerated, the Admission by IPCC that the glaciergate figures were known to be wrong at the time, but that the report was included to persuade Asian governments to sign up to the IPCC’s agenda on climate change action; the IPCC concocted false evidence on the increased likelihood of bad weather events as the planet has warmed, Evidence that the IPCC ignored critical comments from reviewers, and that the review process is not open and transparent; numerous non scientific citations in lieu of scientific studies including WWF; Greenpeace; Hitch hikers Guide; Newspaper reports and unpublished theses from Students. Then there was the error concerning the Netherlands. The IPCC also claimed rising sea levels endanger the 55 percent of the Netherlands it says is below sea level. The portion of the Netherlands below sea level actually is 20 percent. Then there was the refusal to comply with freedom of information requests; manipulation of weather data and tree ring data from Russia; AlaskaGate – Geologists for Space Studies in Geophysics and Oceanography and their U.S. and Canadian colleagues say previous studies largely overestimated by 40 percent Alaskan glacier loss for 40 years. This flawed data are fed into those computers to predict future warming. Plus ChinaGate – An investigation by the U.K.’s left-leaning Guardian newspaper found evidence that Chinese weather station measurements not only were seriously flawed, but couldn’t be located. I might have missed a few but they’re the ones that come immediately to mind and there are far more mistakes than ‘maybe two.’ Kerry O’Brien failed to ask any follow up questions about that assertion.
All those scandals show errors erring on the side of alarmism. The ‘rising seas’ claim itself was seriously alarmist. And this was a claim which was disputed in 2007 by the sea level specialist Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner – here’s the link http://www.climatechangefacts.info/ClimateChangeDocuments/NilsAxelMornerinterview.pdf. And he has a bit to say about the IPCC process as well. An endless amount of money has been given to the side which agrees with the IPCC. And which side looks extremist to me is not the denialists but the warmists; the warmists have the use of powerful use of lobby groups including the IPCC.
So when Mr Williams says extremists (he means denialists) seem to now dominate has been the powerful use of lobby groups I say where has the money been spent on this apocalyptic scare campaign; it certainly hasn’t been on the denialists. Check out Jo Nova at http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2835581.htm. When Mr Williams says We go by published research results, in top journals and commentators with a reputation for probity … well when the IPCC latest report became the focus I say look at the errors. Peer Review in the IPCC means review by colleagues. So where’s the truth Mr Williams; from where I’m standing it doesn’t look to be on your side.
[...] The other point of view is not allowed, Christine Milne says no to free speech, Air vent censored in China, CSIRO goes into fortress mentality as the scourge of skeptics attach, Climate wars continue, ABC science presented famished for propaganda. [...]
HOW CARBON GASES ‘HAVE SAVED US FROM A NEW ICE AGE’
http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/162506/How-carbon-gases-have-saved-us-from-a-new-ice-age-
MAN-MADE carbon emissions are staving off a new ice age, says a leading environmental scientist.
“Thomas Crowley, professor of geoscience at Edinburgh University, responded: “People have thought about the possibility of an ice age but it wouldn’t be for many thousands of years.”
Climate scientist Thomas Crowley admits an ice age can happen but it mightn’t be fo thousands of years, what makes him so sure, is it another computer model that predicts this. Climate Astrology is new science.
more from the un new green order hear is the link
http://bnp.org.uk/2010/03/the-un-appoints-an-independent-arbitrator-but-just-how-independent-is-it/