Feb
The lies of Aussie Climate Minister, Penny ‘Wrong’
We're not sure if Ms. Wong is telling us how little man-made climate change there really is, or something about her boss, Kevin Rudd's, anatomy.
Our Australian skeptic friend, Val Majkus, has sent me a link to a speech made yesterday by Australian nutjob, Penny Wong, who is the Aussie Federal Minister for Climate Change and Water.
Wong somehow kept a straight face when she told the crowd: “Climate change [is] happening more quickly than we previously thought.”
Wong was addressing the first national forum on coasts and climate change in Adelaide and promulgating all the usual doomsaying myths for her dwindling band of climate cult followers that global temperatures are fast rising and sea levels, as a consequence, will rise by a meter this century.
Then, the self-serving climate minister showed no remorse for going on to smear tens of millions of concerned citizens that form the grassroots movement of climate skeptics by implying they are under the sway of the tobacco lobby! Wong will come to rue her ludicrous statements. Projecting herself as some kind of high priestess. She is, in fact, no more than another gray-suited peddler of snake oil patter.
Here in Britain the mainstream media has remembered what it means to do objective journalism. Sadly, the Aussie press hasn’t yet woken up to Wong’s wonky word spin–but they will. The days of her ilk are numbered. So I need only proffer a couple of simple facts to debunk Wong’s ‘catastrophic’ global warming myth. But the minister won’t want her audience to hear such basic truths:
First, as widely reported, Professor Phil Jones, one of the world’s key alarmist climate scientists, admitted to the BBC last week that there has been no statistically significant rise in global temps for 15 years.
and;
Second, scientists from 50 research and operational agencies from 26 countries have proved that world sea levels have fallen for the past six years.
Possibly related posts:
Check out Joannenova.com.au for more on this story. While you wait for the connection, consider why Steve Fielder is still, still waiting for the answers to the simple scientific questions he asked almost 12 months ago to justify the basis of the Rudd government’s policy?
Penny? You there Penny? Still waiting Penny….
I wish Fielding had not wavered from those questions and allowed communist conspiracy theories to get on his web site. It is not that they are not worth consideration but give KRudd and Wrong ammunition to discredit him in this very political fight.
We have a girl like that here in Holland as well, Mrs Kramer, just a robot you can program anyway you like. When she makes the swing, and she will, it will be sudden, simply a new program.
“Aussie Federal Minister for Climate Change”
Sooo what you are saying is she would not have a job if Climate Change did not exist. Conflict of interest?
I would not say climate change doesn’t exist, it always has and always will, I’m sure you’d agree.
Great blog, I agree there is a lot to do to prevent the ETS passing the Senate. Back in May 2008 I sent this open letter to Minister Wong pointing out specific ways she should improve the Govts water policies.
http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=166
just saw you letter, WH. Nice job! Especially loved the point about water “allocations” needing to be addressed. They have no answer to how ridiculous it is that Govts are allocating water that won’t exist in some years.
UK Green targets scuppered by power station coal plan,
Britain’s biggest power station has suspended its plan to replace coal with greener fuel, leaving the Government little chance of meeting its target for renewable energy.
Drax, in North Yorkshire, which produces enough electricity for six million homes, is withdrawing a pledge to cut CO2 emissions by 3.5 million tonnes a year, or 17.5 per cent.
The power station, which is the country’s largest single source of CO2, has invested £80 million in a processing unit for wood, straw and other plant-based fuels, known as biomass. The unit is designed to produce more renewable electricity than 600 wind turbines, but will operate at only a fraction of its capacity because Drax says it is cheaper to continue to burn coal.
OOPS, is this another lost wheel.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7032738.ece
This is impossible; as Samuel Johnson said, “Such stupidity, sir, is not in nature.” Three months past Climategate, high-velocity exposes of irrefutable IPCC and other institutional fraud (see GISS/NASA, Penn State’s ESSC, Hadley CRU, etc.), it is simply unacceptable for a sitting goobernut official to mouth such mindless drivel. At what point do adult supervisors intervene in Warmists’ playground to call a halt to their ongoing recess-from-reality?
As Earth enters on a 20-year Dalton Minimum if not worse, perhaps an overdue end to the current Holocene Interglacial Epoch beginning c. BC 8800 (skewed 1,500 years by the Younger Dryas “cold shock”, absent which Ice Time would likely have recurred c. AD 500, coincident with the Fall of Rome), it boggles the mind that Executive Branch officialdom would willfully avoid even considering preventive measures when entire national populations seem at risk.
So far have death-eating Climate Cultists gone that, rather than admit defeat, they frankly would rather see you dead. Their Luddite sociopathic worldview, however, works both ways. Not everyone will plod like cattle down fructifying Warmists’ murderous Green Mile.
top notch comment, John
Considering the current solar activity, I wouldn’t be too sure about another Dalton. However, regarding Wong’s comments, never since Moses parted the red sea has a leader claimed such power.
You might like to look up ‘Bond event’(s). Last one started about 450AD, cyclic period is 1470+/-500 years. Caused the fall of the western Roman empire. Younger Dryas was one of them. Could be a good time to buy some warm woolies.
Penny Wong is seriously bright and seriously driven. I’m not frightened of much but she frightens me. The only other pollie which does the same is Vladimir Putin, fortunately he’s more pragmatic and is further away.
Ask her to prove it. Point to the science that validates her position; she can’t. Bha-ha-ha!
The death of the AGW hypothesis:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/the_agw_smoking_gun.html
An excerpt from the article:
The science behind the AGW hypothesis is that increased amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere (that humans produce by burning fossil fuels) will block more outgoing long-wave IR radiation (OLR) from exiting the atmosphere and thereby warm the surface. It is well-known that IR radiation causes CO2 molecules to vibrate, but only at very specific wavelengths (wavelengths are the distances between peaks of each wave), and that wavelength is 15µm. (Fifteen µm means that each wavelength crests at a distance of 15 millionths of a meter.) As was discussed above, this vibration of the molecule causes it to heat and then radiate IR radiation back toward the atmosphere and the surface of the Earth. If the solar activity is taken to remain constant, more CO2 in the atmosphere will trap more of the OLR, and thus cause a net heating of the planet.
So what type of experiment could be performed to test this AGW hypothesis? If there were satellites in orbit monitoring the emission of OLR over time at the same location, then OLR could be measured in a very controlled manner. If, over time, the emission of OLR in the wavelengths that CO2 absorbs decreases over time, then that would prove the AGW hypothesis (i.e., that OLR is being absorbed by CO2 and heating the planet instead of being emitted from the atmosphere). But what if, over time (say, over thirty years), the emissions of OLR wavelengths that CO2 absorb remained constant? That would disprove the hypothesis and put the AGW argument to bed.
As luck would have it, that experiment has actually been performed! Three journal papers report the data from three monitoring satellites that have measured the OLR of 1997 and 2006 and compared those measurements to 1970, and they are located here, here, and here.
There were three different experiments performed in space to measure OLR emissions. The Infrared Interferometer Spectrometer (IRIS) was performed in 1970, the Interferometer Monitor of Greenhouse Gases (IMG) was performed in 1997, and the Tropospheric Emission Spectrometer (TES) was performed in 2006. All of these experiments were performed over the Pacific Ocean and confined to the same three-month period (April through June), and the data were limited to cloudless days. The variable measured was brightness temperature, which is given in degrees Kelvin (K). Higher brightness temperatures correlate to higher emissions (meaning that more OLR is emitted to the atmosphere and less is absorbed by GHG).
The figure below (from the first link above) shows a comparison of OLR emission in 1997 vs. 1970. (Positive values indicate that more OLR emission was measured in 1997 vs. 1970, and negative values indicate that less OLR emission was measured in 1997 vs. 1970.) The top graph is taken over the East Pacific, and the bottom graph is taken over the West Pacific. The middle line is the actual measurements, and the other lines show the upper and lower uncertainty ranges. The x-axis of the graph is given in wave numbers per centimeter (cm), and the area that relates to CO2 is at the far left of the graph (700 wave numbers per cm). After analyzing this graph, the following conclusion can be drawn: There is actually an increase of OLR emissions in 1997 as compared to 1970!….
The next figure (from the second link above) shows the actual measurements of OLR emission in 1997 vs. 1970. The dark line is the IMG data (from 1997), and the gray line is the IRIS line (from (1970). After analyzing this graph, the following conclusion can be drawn: The 1997 OLR associated with CO2 is identical to that in 1970.
….
The last two graphs can be placed on top of each other, and the black lines (actual measured data) are basically copies of each other. That means that there was no difference in OLR between 1970 and 2006.
All three of the links referenced here devote the latter sections of the papers to removing the impact of surface temperatures and water vapor and graphing the OLR that is associated only with trace GHGs. The authors perform this trick (there is that word again…) based on the climate models and not through actual measurements, and surprise, surprise — these simulated results show a reduction in OLR emission with wavelengths that are absorbed by CO2. Computer-simulated results based on climate models are never a replacement for actual measured data, and they should never be used to draw conclusions when actual measured data contradicts those models.
[...] Reality check Penny, Wrong Wong lies [...]
Our climate change council has produced Preliminary Conclusions
5 February 2010 (coastal) check out here http://www.climatechange.gov.au/en/media/whats-new/~/media/publications/coastline/coasts-climate-report-pdf.ashx
(its a 5 page document) and its Adapting to Climate Change paper
http://www.climatechange.gov.au/government/adapt.aspx
visit the website for the latest spin from Aust; there’s a science facts and figures tab; after you read that you might want to contact them and the CSIRO
In Australia we have a website for Business Spectator and online news service. You can join it is free. Yesterday they published this http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Mode-of-attack-pd20100219-2SRC4?OpenDocument&src=amm seems to me this is major and the death of the USA emissions initiative. As usual our ABC has not reported it but as yet not found anything elsewhere. Check it out is it all true?
Val,
This whole government climate change department is a leviathan which has a momentum which is going to be hard to stop, let alone turn around.
ALP people in the know told me years ago that the AGW thing wasn’t the science, but the means by which we will be forced to live a more sustainable lifestyle.
So it does not matter how much you show the science to be wrong, that’s only the smokescreen to divert us. The actual battle is about the ideology underlying the AGW agenda – and the Fabian link, while tenuous, is there. It is this link which unites the US Democrats, the UK labour party and the ALP – almost all of Rudd’s cabinet are Australian Fabians, as are the top climate academics like Will Steffen etc.
A couple of months ago I came across a web page on the Australian Fabian site which listed all the ALP Fabians in the Rudd government – eye opening but I mentioned it on a blog some where and now it has disappeared.
Wong is up to her ears in it. Remember that she and Rudd must have known of the precise wording of the draft Copenhagen Treaty before Soon and Monckton identified it for what it was.
She is not a silly politician but a committed socialist as is Rudd and his team, and the game in play is not shoddy science, which it is whenever the intellectual class gets involved in it, but the misuse of science for a political agenda.
The problem is so few seem to “get it”, thinking that any reference to Fabianism etc is nothing other than silly conspiracy theories. The Copenhagen Draft treaty should have disabused us of that fallacy.
Louis, I’d love to have seen that web page on the Australian Fabian site listing the ALP Fabians in Rudd’s government- a good resource for an article if someone could re-locate it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Fabian_Society
This should help it gets you al notable ALP members.
Just do some Googling and toy get whole heap of stuff along the same line.
Louis is right
Dr Who,
That was one link I found, I think – but my list also had Greg Combet and Faulkner on it on it as well. Perhaps a combination of name and Fabian might be successful.
John,
http://www.fabian.org.au/1025.asp
Reports a conference with most of the attendees quite familiar to all of us. One just needs to focus the search. The crucial link it to the US and the http://www.keynesatharvard.org site summarises that quite well.
What does a member of the public do when they need to vent against all the AGW goop? I figured shouting at television announcers was a waste of time, so I figured to write a letter, to the two politicians that were getting up my nose right this minute, and at the same time to send it to the Liberal Party in general and to the major Australian newspapers as well. ‘Spose I will not get a reply, but I felt just a tad better after I had hit the ‘send’ button. A few nice people have told me about using the original text instead of quoting from other sources – point taken… I am new to all of this…..
An Open Letter to:
The Hon Tony Abbott MP
Leader of the Opposition
Parliament House, Canberra
Tony.Abbott.MP@aph.gov.au
And
The Hon Greg Hunt MP
Shadow Minister for Climate Action,
Environment and Heritage
Email: Greg.Hunt.MP@aph.gov.au
Dear Sirs,
Re: Climate Change and your proposals for Australia in this regard.
It is our understanding that when discussing Climate Change, people are actually referring to the Theory of Man Made Climate change due to the (so called) excessive emissions of Carbon Dioxide released into the atmosphere, supposedly causing the temperature of the planet to warm, thereby endangering all life on Earth. If our understanding is incorrect, then there really is no point in continuing this letter. Assuming that our understanding is correct, we continue:
It seems that the Liberal Party is going to continue down the same, well worn but rocky road as that of the Labor Party, and push onto Australians the necessity to curb carbon emissions, to fall in line with other World Government proposals. Be it a 5% cut or a 25% cut, one must ask why? This letter is not discussing the Liberal Party’s Direct Action Plan versus the Labor Party’s Carbon Emissions Trading Scheme. Merely the fact that either Party (Once in power) will impose Carbon Cut’s in some way or another, because of so called (unproven) Man Made Climate Change
It has not been shown to be factual that human kind has caused or is causing any rise in global temperatures. Day after day, further information is coming to light proving that figures and data, used to infer the ‘theory’ of AGW (Man Made Global warming) is doubtful at best and falsified at worst. The latest scandal involves the selective cherry picking of temperature data and placement of weather stations around the world. We refer you to the Washington Times Editorial: More Errors in Temperature Data. http://washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/18/more-errors-in-temperature-data/?feat=home_editorials
What we would like you to explain to us is why the Liberal Party feels it is necessary to traverse the same path, by a different name, and enforce carbon cuts on the Australian Nation should it become the winner in the next Federal Election which is looming?
Surely it is better to get all the scientific facts, up on the table, and before the public view, so that the electorate can see for themselves why their Elected Representatives are leading them down an unnecessary path to Carbon Cutting measures.
Should however, the science be shown to be correct – in that we humans are responsible for Climate Change, we feel certain you will have much support for your plan as opposed to that of Kevin Rudd’s. Right now though there is no proof nor consensus, and many like ourselves are left wondering why we should vote for you, when your will only attempt the same thing under a different name.
Far too much is being done and dealt, behind closed doors. We have not seen you Mr. Abbott or your Minister Mr. Hunt, dealing with the scandals which are almost weekly emerging in the area of Climate Science. Yes we hear you debating the dangers of insulation and solar power installations; they are very topical issues, as are health and education. We would dearly like to see you debating the issues of fabricated or incorrect warming data and the possibility there being no need to deal with carbon emissions at all.
So this still leaves us questioning the semantics of Climate Change. Is it real? Is it happening? Are we humans causing the temperature to rise because of our increase in Carbon Dioxide Emissions? Is there any proof this is so? Professor Bob Carter has a couple of excellent short video’s showing just how the CO2 question, relating to Man Made Global Warming (Climate Change) does not stack up. We think it is worth you while viewing them. (part one), (part two)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFHZOYtAztU
You cause us great sadness in that you are merely traversing the same path as Mr. Rudd, and his path looks like it will lead to him gaining employment at the UN when his term as Prime Minister of Australia is over. We had dreamed of better things of him too.
We had hoped and prayed for a new leadership, taking us in a new direction, it seems we need to pray harder.
Sincerely, C & K (name and address withheld for privacy reasons)
McHarris congratulations for your action; if you need e mail addresses of Coalition National and National MP’s please let me know or if you need Senators e mail addresses (I usually do group mailings) I have left a comment earlier on this site which lists the group mailing list I use; you can just copy it over onto your message; keep in mind the ETS bill is currently in the Senate and I intend to concentrate next on Senators Boyce and Troeth as they were the two Coalition Senators who crossed the floor the last time to vote with Labour; you might give some thought to amending your current letter a bit to urge those Senators or all Senators not to vote the ETS in; not too sure when the vote is but it is not this week
val majkus
I have a list of all ( in respective parties) members sitting on butts in Canberra and in my home State of Tasmania. I do group mailings too, plus the major newspapers and the local ones too.
Wish there were more ‘ordinary’ folk like myself getting their voices heard in the media… wish the media were listening. I read, I learn I write and Blog…….. I appreciate learning from more ‘advanced with knowledge’ people like on this and other blogs/lists…. The majority of folks I talk with don’t seem to have any faith in either political party right now…… they are a bunch of egotistical liars! Promise you the moon cause it is election time…… not worth much really tho…… all talk and no action…… Just want folks to see these liars and crooks for what they are – and at the same time save us all (what a big hope) from this crooked AGW agenda!
Cheer’s
I find this woman incomprehensible! How can she make such obvious false statements? I do not believe she doesn’t know the truth of the matter and therefore have to conclude that she’s a blatant liar AND someone’s puppet – which means she isn’t working for us and we are paying her!!
Now, we’re used to politicians lying through their teeth to get what they want, but this one really takes the cake because in this instance, we knew the truth BEFORE the statements were made – whereas usually we find the truth out down the path aways when it’s too damn late to do anything about it!
Like many here I have sent thousands of emails – given that each one I write goes to EVERY Representative and Senator. Rather than one long one, I send a short one EVERY DAY about a singular topic and when I can’t think any more – it gets that way sometimes
– I start at the beginning again.
I will not stop until the crunch comes, one way or another – and if Abbot insists on taking us down the same path, when it comes to the election I will vote INDEPENDANT!!
The biggest fear of voting in the INDEPENDENTS has always been that they won’t have the expertise of the major parties and the world won’t consider us ‘stable’ for a while. I ask you, what’s the difference and which would you prefer, P platers at the wheel for a while or the CPRS/ETS AND GLOBAL GOVERNMENT!?
I want an Australian Government for the Australian People without any interference from party politics, international governments and/or affiliations, international corporations or world wide non-governmental organisations pulling strings.
Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Lets give the less powerful a chance.
Well said – and a lot of people will agree with the sentiments you express. We are all fed up being treated like mushrooms – kept in the dark and fed sh.t!.
Congratulations on your persistance and endeavours to correct a dreadful situation.
[...] The lies of Aussie Climate Minister, Penny ‘Wrong’, John O’Sullivan, Climategate 18/2/2010 [...]
I remember one of the Labour Immigration Ministers back in the 60′s saying “Two Wongs do not make a white”
It could now be said that “One Wong do not make a Right”
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/
Through gritted teeth, climate scientists admit Wong tells porkies
Andrew Bolt – Wednesday, March 03, 10 (06:33 pm)
It really was time for scientists to call out Climate Change Minister Penny Wong for her outrageous deceits:
AUSTRALIA’S top climate scientist has contradicted Federal Government claims the drought in the Murray Darling Basin is due to global warming.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change lead author, Prof Neville Nicholls, said the claim was not backed by science.
“The current dry period (in the Murray Darling Basin) might still be just a fluke, or natural variability,” Prof Nicholls said.
“We cannot confidently attribute it to global warming.”
Yet Federal Climate Change and Water Minister Penny Wong has repeatedly claimed the basin’s drought is due to climate change.
“Research shows that this severe, extended drought is clearly linked with global warming,” Senator Wong said in November last year.
“There is nowhere that this challenge is more serious than the Murray Darling Basin.”
But while rainfall has dropped to record lows, other scientists say the statistics don’t back Senator Wong’s claim.
Prof Steven Sherwood, of the University of NSW Climate Change Research Centre, said the “sceptics here are (for once) technically correct, in that there is no proven link – yet – between Murray Darling drought and climate change”.