In Melbourne: Big Al, Small Protest
Posted by jennifer, July 13th, 2009 - under Good Causes, News, Opinion.
Tags: Carbon Trading, Climate & Climate Change, People
ANYONE who denies global warming is in the pay of big oil. Remember that is what the big man, Al Gore, said in his movie ‘An Inconvenient Truth’. But like so much that Mr Gore says, it just isn’t true.
Consider the 30-odd protesters who held placards outside the breakfast he spoke at this morning in Melbourne. The scruffy-lot, lead by a farmer Leon Ashby, were not there because someone paid them, but because they are outraged by Al Gore and what he has thrust on the world. In particular, his belief that we already have a climate crisis and that the only solution is carbon trading.
It might all sound well meaning. But it is going to be expensive. Indeed, quoting Ronald Bailey from Reason magazine, cap and trade in the US will be the largest corporate welfare program ever enacted in the history of the United States. And the corporations hope government is just as generous to them here in Australia.
Indeed if there were any in the pay of big oil at Dockland Peninsula this morning, they would have been inside applauding the big man.
Has the big end of town ever taken to holding placards? I don’t think so.
A protest like the one in Melbourne this morning was about the seemingly disempowered and disenfranchised attempting to be heard. Of course history is replete with stories of such groups finding their voice and a crowd – eventually.
****************
Links and Notes
Leon Ashby heads a new political party called ‘The Climate Sceptics’ http://www.climatesceptics.com.au/
The above photograph, via Leon Ashby, shows demonstrators at Dockland Peninsula this morning.
There have been other protests in the US:
I LIKE IT-will Al Gore to comment on
MODERN EPOCH AIR TRADING: The WILL for TRIUMPH
http://www.articlesbase.com/politics-articles/modern-epoch-air-trading-the-will-for-triumph-1033657.html ?
Of course, its non-Nobel-prize author Michael Kerjman hardly supposes for such a privilege.
Cohenite,
Oh very good – and coupled with the disconnect from backward modeling to the PETM event, CO2 and Temperature assumptions are wrong. rising CO2 is an effect from rising temperature, and the cause of that rise in temperature? The only force not ever considered is electricity, and its operation in the plasma of space. If not electricity, what other natural physical process could explain it, I wonder.
I wonder when the veritable spark of recognition occurs (we can’t use and Edison light bulb anymore as these seem to have disappeared off the shelves).
A couple of typos above and sloppy grammar :-) Any Edison and the second sentence should have not been a sentence, but another phrase tacked to the end and separated with an “and”.
Sod
Global temp anomalies for June 2009 (Hadley not out yet).
GISS .63C
RSS .075
UAH .001
Wow, what a difference. And we rely on these groups to give us reliable information.
Anthropogenic global warming or global warming? The two are quite different. One is a nonsense, the other scientific fact.
whether the reason of the higher temperature during the 2009 fires was anthropogenic warming or natural one is unimportant.
First, there is incomplete CO2 mixing, where complete mixing has been assumed in the GCM’s used by the IPCC.
the incomplete mixing you are talking about is in a range of 5-10 ppm over the majority of the planet. that is about the range of the annual “wiggle” that we all know from the Mauna Loa chart. this is well mixed.
your claims about the oceans being the source of CO2 are simply false.
Sod
Global temp anomalies for June 2009 (Hadley not out yet).
GISS .63C
RSS .075
UAH .001
we have all read the wattsup article and comments. multiple people there have pointed out good reasons for this discrepancy. please read the comments. (especially the woodfortrees ones..)
Sod
Sigh, yes we have (satellites measure slightly higher up, satellite drift, GISS takes in the Arctic, etc, etc.) And all land-based weather stations are accurate and some have no UH effect out there at the airport.
But an O.63C difference – almost the entire warming for a century. Did you also note the GISS av temp graph and how it has changed after ‘corrections’.
And why has Hadley taken so long? Hedging bets? Manipulating takes longer? I await their report with baited breath.
Remember you were the one who posted that ‘I always wonder, why you “sceptics” are completely uncritical of such historic stories, while at the same time deny accurate modern measurements.’
So sod, which one is correct?
Also, have a look at NOAA’s attempt to tell Americans that June 2009 in the US was above average.
And you wonder why we are skeptical.
But an O.63C difference – almost the entire warming for a century. Did you also note the GISS av temp graph and how it has changed after ‘correctio
as has been pointed out over during the wattsup discussion on GISS june (notice how it is a really good idea to let some other opinions post..), several readers pointed out that UAH will most likely show a very warm July.
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps+001
and there are also some good ideas, about why and when satellite and surface data will diverge.
your ideas about “entire warming of the century” are false, and show a serious limited ndersatnding of the subject and statistics.
Remember you were the one who posted that ‘I always wonder, why you “sceptics” are completely uncritical of such historic stories, while at the same time deny accurate modern measurements.’
So sod, which one is correct?
modern measurement.
Also, have a look at NOAA’s attempt to tell Americans that June 2009 in the US was above average.
And you wonder why we are skeptical.
you are not sceptical, you are ignorant. “feeling” the temperature will often give a badly false impression. for example the wet weather we are experiencing here at the moment, is feeling like a horrible summer: no pool days, no barbecues. weather is completely unpredictable and people get a “cold” feeling of the weather.
but most of them neither experience nor measure night time minimum temperature, which will effect 50% of the calculated average.
in short, your feelings are wrong, NOAA is right.
sod
Read the comments at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/13/noaa-june-near-average-in-the-usa/
Not all of the observations are based on ‘feeling’ but on temperature records and observations.
We’re not all silly!
1910 – – 0.32 2008 – +0.43 Around 0.7C since 1910. (GISS)
Sod, it is quite clear who is ignorant!
Not all of the observations are based on ‘feeling’ but on temperature records and observations.
We’re not all silly!
1910 – – 0.32 2008 – +0.43 Around 0.7C since 1910. (GISS)
could you be a little bit more specific? what comments are you talking about? NY central park?
the question is a simple one: does NOAA have the better data or some random blokes posting their impression on a blog.
if you were a sceptic, this wouldn t be a hard choice to make…
Sod, it is quite clear who is ignorant!
i think this is a funny claim. why not contradict the “ignorant” things i said? about UHI and wind, for example?
or finally quote Al Gore on saying:
ANYONE who denies global warming is in the pay of big oil. Remember that is what the big man, Al Gore, said in his movie ‘An Inconvenient Truth’.
i am here to learn!
—————
ps: i respect Anthony and his moderators for their decision to not allow the fraud claims against NASA GISS. the majority of you would also be better off, with some more caution on the claims you make..
sod says NOAA is right;
http://landshape.org/enm/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/optical-depth-trend-1.png
Ergo no greenhouse effect for the last 50 years; well done sod; remind little will to pat you on the head at the next family reunion.
No wonder Anthony Watts uses the auto troll remover.
Something I read last night from the Mariner 2 data collected from Venus during the early 1960’s showed 15 miles of dense cloud covering it, Venus that is. So there goes the runaway greenhouse idea.
i nearly fell from my chair laughing a minute ago.
note this comment on the current spike in satellite temperature:
‘John Christy sends in this note:
“Roger:
Please note that the temps on our “real-time” website are not considered calibrated against the full record as they are derived from NOAA-15 (a drifting satellite) rather than AQUA (a non-drifting satellite). NOAA-15 has been drifting into a warmer part of the day, so its
anomalies will be slightly too warm – but on a daily basis it is not really possible to say what the error really is. Our calibrated daily values will be out after the end of the month.
John C.”
so the “uncalibrated data” is too warm. i wonder how you guys would react to a similar (but going the opposite direction) statement by GISS…
2nd attempt:
Just the basic science on CO2 is enough for me to spot the phoney greenie fascists aka Al Gore & crew.
My question was to Leon Assby as to why he is trying to reinvent the wheel, when the C.E.C. party of Australia have been blowing the lid on this fraud for the past twenty years!!!
sod
1910 – – 0.32 2008 – +0.43 Around 0.7C since 1910. (GISS)
That’s off the official temp graph at:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif
What’s the World Meterological Organisation Up To?
The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) on Thu Aug 21, 2008 reported: “The first half of 2008 was the coolest for at least five years. The whole year will almost certainly be cooler than recent years, although temperatures remain above the historical average.”
Yet on 5 December 2009 they reported at the Copenhagen Summit: “This decade is the warmest on record and 2009 is likely to rank as the fifth warmest year since the beginning of instrumental climate recordings in 1850.”
Vicky Pope, head of climate change advice at the Met Office, said the Office analysed land temperature data using a computer code developed by the University of East Anglia CRU (of Climategate infamy). She said CRU also supplied the Met Office with original data from some remote weather stations which had a significant impact on the global average.
This sudden backflip for the IPCC and Copenhagen Summit is making many wonder if the WMO are the latest to have adopted Michael Mann’s “trick” of massaging data to suit a preconceived agenda!
PS: See these sites re alleged corruption in WMO: http://screwtheun.blogspot.com/2007/02/audit-report-alleges-corruption-at-un.html
http://reformdesa.blogspot.com/
Go here for a temperature chart and more detail: http://www.biz-at-home.biz/climate/wmo.html
Cheers,
Denis Maclaine
Brisbane, Australia