It has to be stressed that the IPCC categorically states here 

"The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible."

Let me repeat this - "Long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible"

Do any of us have a problem with this statement? Do any of us actually understand what it means?

It means that all the computer models in climate cannot work - no one can write a computer program that can predict the behaviour of coupled non-linear chaotic systems. It isn't possible, and using probabilistic statistics isn't going to work either, since the foundation on which they are based, climate predictions, are fundamentally absent.

However contrary to this obvious fact the ABC in their 7.30 report, does believe in this miraculous junk science. in their 7.30 ABC of 19 November , 2004.

1. Climate scare mongering

Our ABC 7.30 Report summarised the latest global warming talk fest, The Climate Change Taskforce) in Sydney this last week (to check on the KPI of Bob Carr) and as usual makes the usual inaccurate comments. 

Take for example the Larsen B Ice Shelf, where they showed a satellite image from 1992 and followed up by another 5 years later, where the ice shelf is significantly reduced. While the ABC attributes is to global warming, we in the geosciences know what really caused it - a nearby undersea volcanic eruption. But no mention of this in the 7.30 Report of course.

And then we have the introduction of global temperature tipping point, such that if the arctic ice melts, for example, causing the gulf stream to slow or stop, plummeting Europe into colder temperatures, and we reach a temperature when all of a sudden many previous non CO2 emitters
become emitters, the doom and gloom is expected.

Scientifically this is called a threshold where up to the threshold nothing much happens, but once it is exceeded all sorts of things suddenly happen. Has it happened in the past and if it hasn't then on what scientific basis can anyone say it will happen in the future? Because the IPCC computer models, based on coupled, non-linear chaotic systems" say so probabistically.

We don't have any historical basis for a tipping point though there is plenty of evidence that the past has been warmer, (The famous Medieval warming period for example), but as there is a  hysterical basis for the temperature tipping point, it reminds me of the theological "Second Coming" prediction when if we don't change our ways now, Hanrahan will be right, and all sorts of scary scenarios are invoked to frighten us into falling into politically correct positions.

Isn't it amazing how the politically correct and secular amongst us retain an intense religiosity expressed as the new Green Religion?

And what the histrionics on the 7.30 Report did not tell you was that even if all the signatories of Kyoto met their targets, the biggest producers of CO2, India and China will simply negate it. Implementing Kyoto will not make one iota of a difference to the fallacy of anthropogenic warming. It will do nothing to CO2 levels.

Rather it seems that economic reality is appearing in Europe:

"Implementing the Kyoto protocol might hit the EU economy five times as hard as predicted by the European Commission, according to research presented by pan-industry lobby group Unice on Thursday. The group called for a radical change in the EU's climate change policy."

However I copy in full this article from the Financial Times (my emphasis included).

KYOTO'S SMOKE SCREEN IMPERILS US ALL

Financial Times, 15 November 2004

By Andrei Illarionov

Next year the Kyoto protocol will be an international treaty. For those who heavily lobbied Russia to ratify it, this is cause for celebration. But for most of the world, it is bad news. The Kyoto protocol is destructive for science and the environment, for public health and safety, for economic growth and for the international fight against hunger and poverty.

Kyoto is scientifically unsubstantiated. Climate change is an inalienable feature of Earth. But it is not proved that concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere causes changes in global temperature. Variations in energy flow from the sun determine our climate much more
than anything else, including emissions of greenhouse gases. Historically, global temperature has fluctuated more than the increase of 0.6° Celsius over the past 100 years cited by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

In the past, Earth's climate was warmer, the global temperature rose faster, sea level was higher, floods were more severe, droughts lasted longer and hurricanes were more devastating than they were in the 20th century. Even during Roman and medieval "climatic optimums", when virtually no fossil fuels were burned, temperatures were higher than today. Climate change is real, but it is caused by forces of nature, not of humankind.

Kyoto harms ecology and health. Propaganda wrongly equates greenhouse gases with air pollutants. Yet none of the six gases referred to in the Kyoto protocol is considered toxic. The protocol tackles none of the real air pollutants. What is more, modern environmental cleaning
processes are based on chemical reactions that create additional carbon dioxide as a by-product. Limiting such emissions means limiting implementation of the most efficient technologies.

A warm climate is better for human health. Hundreds of millions of people holiday in warmer, not colder, places. In any case, settlement in Siberia is a practical test of the sincerity of those concerned about "global warming".

Higher CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is associated with stronger growth of plants, because the gas supplies carbon, one of their building blocks. Numerous studies have confirmed that CO2 is conducive to agricultural productivity, irrespective of temperature. Limiting CO2
emissions therefore impedes food production and the fight against famine.

Kyoto is devastating to economic growth. CO2 is a natural result of the use of fossil fuels that still account for more than 80 per cent of energy consumed globally. Since nuclear energy today is the only commercially viable alternative, Kyoto means more nuclear power stations. For green activists and Eurocrats, such an outcome looks desirable.

But even with nuclear energy, there are objective limits to how fast hydrocarbons can be replaced. Therefore, limiting emissions means limiting energy consumption, economic activity and technological progress.

Kyoto's followers are already paying a heavy price. Since 1997, slower emissions growth in 17 pro-Kyoto high-income countries (the 15 pre-enlargement members of the EU, Canada and Japan) than in 11 non-Kyoto countries (including the US, Australia and South Korea) has been associated with slower growth in gross domestic product (1.9 per cent annually against 3.3 per cent) and a slower reduction in carbon intensity - the amount of carbon emitted per unit of GDP. There is no way to cheat economic laws: those who grow faster invest more and implement more efficient technologies. Europeans must choose which of the Kyoto protocol and the Lisbon agenda is closer to their hearts and pockets. The aims of the two agreements are incompatible.

The Kyoto protocol requires a supranational bureaucratic monster in charge of rationing emissions and, therefore, economic activities. The Kyotoist system of quota allocation, mandatory restrictions and harsh penalties will be a sort of international Gosplan, a system to rival the former Soviet Union's.

The majority of humankind does not accept this system, despite claims of worldwide support. Even with Russia's ratification, 75 per cent of the world's CO2 is emitted by, 68 per cent of the world's GDP is produced in, and 89 per cent of the world's population live in countries that are not handcuffed by Kyoto's restrictions. Like fascism and communism, Kyotoism is an attack on basic human freedoms behind a smokescreen of propaganda. Like those ideologies of human hatred, it will be exposed and defeated.

The writer is adviser to the president of the Russian Federation. The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect the position of the Russian authorities.

Copyright 2004, FT

Kyoto is nothing more than Das Kapital in a new cover.

2.  Bob Carr is looking at a coal fired power station.

The Premier yesterday defended the possible construction of a new coal-fired power station in NSW before hosting a meeting of international experts to discuss ways to cut global greenhouse gas emissions. rest here

I have to admit this was a pretty good effort of Bob Carr slowly recognising reality and at the same time performing for his masters in the Climate Change Taskforce who came to Australia to check up on the progress of his KPI.

The problem is that as he is under the thrall of the Greens, the nuclear option is unavailable, so coal and gas are his only options.

Bob Carr is between a rock and a hard place.

 3. Atlantis hoax
 
 The world's media basically got our election wrong, the recent US Presidential election wrong, and now for the hat-trick got the announcement of the discovery of Atlantis wrong.

Whether anyone noticed it or not, but an American private explorer reckoned he had found the mythical Atlantis off the Mediterranean Island of Crete, some 1.5 km under the sea.

As Benny Pesier wrote in CCnet

"Less than 48 hours after the world's news agencies and major news outlets announced the discovery of the mythical island of Atlantis, the rug has been pulled out under the latest, bizarre media hype.

German geophysicists who have studied the Mediterranean ocean bottom for many years, have exposed the sensational 'discovery' of Atlantis for what it really is: meager delusions based on the misinterpretation of geological features that are more than 100,000 years old."

Benny further comments

"That none of the numerous stories and reports provided any scientific context, any serious reservations or consulted experts in the field about the outlandish claim is a sad reflection on the disturbing decline of 'science' reporting.  Not surprisingly, yesterday's headlines about the confirmation of Atlantis's demise have been replaced today by headlines that proclaim "Human extinction within 100 years warns scientist"

"Given current conditions, I doubt whether the news media that were duped by a shrewd con artist will retract yesterday's fairy tales or today's doomsday prophecies that are just as baloney."

4. Polar Bears becoming extinct.

John Ray writes in the Greenie Watch that rather than becoming extinct, polar bear numbers are becoming so high that culling is being considered - read it here on his Saturday 20 Nov blog. (You need to scroll down)

And of course John publlishes a lot more on some of the topics I haven 't covered here.

5. Global Cooling