Climate Change IV - Rise of the Eco-Fascists

Arts & Sciences Science & Nature
61

An independent review of the BBC’s science coverage has indicated that the news agency gives far too much credence to fringe views that border on opinion rather than fact. Global Warming: BBC Too Patient With Lord Monckton-Esque Climate Change Deniers

A couple of good quotes from the review.

science impartiality

I left out much of the discussion on the evidence deniers are justifiably called deniers and the evidence the vast majority of scientits’s view should be considered with more weight as that’s been discussed many times. I thought the discussion on how media is reporting and how in efforts to be impartial, they in fact misrepresent the actual truth was interesting.

62

A good resource for countering the global warming deniers:

skepticalscience.com

63

But this is about fascists. Nice way to go off topic.

64

I was looking at the Yahoo News this morning and one of their headlines under science was about how Global Warming had been disproven. So naturally, I looked at it. It seemed suspicious for several reasons; (1) it was from a business journal (although originally from Remote Sensing), and (2) the author used the word ‘alarmist’ more than a dozen times.
When I went back to look at it again Yahoo had already pulled it from their news page. And now they have this story:
Climate Change Debunked? Not So Fast
But I think that Exxon and all the members of the Chamber got what they wanted. The bogus story stayed up long enough to get copied onto enough right-wing echo blogs to spread the lies further.

65

I don’t know what’s wrong with me, but I’ve been talking to the Fox Nation people on Facebook. I totally PWND them

Polar Bear Scientist Suspended for Management, Not Quality of Research
After Fox put out their bogus Global Warming is a Lie story.
Global Warming Theory Faces Sudden Collapse
What a bunch of ignorant hillbillies. (with guns)

66

What is the latest status on the sinking Pacific Islands?

67

You know… let me answer that question myself:

[quote]Tuvalu and many other South Pacific Islands are not sinking, claims they are due to global warming driven sea level rise are opportunistic
Posted on June 2, 2010 by Anthony Watts

Nils Axel Morner and Don Easterbrook told them so. So did Willis, who had some very similar ideas.

We’ve mentioned several times here on WUWT that the claims about sea level rise and sinking islands are overblown. For example, this idiotic publicity stunt by the Maldivian government, signing a legal declaration underwater, demonstrates just how far some people are willing to prostitute their victimhood for financial gain. The MO: You other countries warmed the earth, raising sea level which threatens our island. Pay up sucka!

Yeah, well, that scam is now going the way of Nigerian email.

From TV New Zealand:

An Auckland University researcher has offered new hope to the myriad small island nations in the Pacific which have loudly complained their low-lying atolls will drown as global warming boosts sea levels.

Geographer Associate Professor Paul Kench has measured 27 islands where local sea levels have risen 120mm – an average of 2mm a year – over the past 60 years, and found that just four had diminished in size.

Working with Arthur Webb at the Fiji-based South Pacific Applied Geoscience Commission, Kench used historical aerial photographs and high-resolution satellite images to study changes in the land area of the islands.

They found that the remaining 23 had either stayed the same or grown bigger, according to the research published in a scientific journal, Global and Planetary Change.

“It has been thought that as the sea level goes up, islands will sit there and drown,” Prof Kench told the New Scientist. “But they won’t.

“The sea level will go up and the island will start responding.

One of the highest profile islands – in a political sense – was Tuvalu, where politicians and climate change campaigners have repeatedly predicted it will be drowned by rising seas, as its highest point is 4.5 metres above sea level. But the researchers found seven islands had spread by more than 3 percent on average since the 1950s.

One island, Funamanu, gained 0.44 hectares or nearly 30 percent of its previous area.

And the research showed similar trends in the Republic of Kiribati, where the three main urbanised islands also “grew” – Betio by 30 percent (36ha), Bairiki by 16.3 percent (5.8ha) and Nanikai by 12.5 percent (0.8ha).

Webb, an expert on coastal processes, told the New Scientist the trend was explained by the fact the islands mostly comprised coral debris eroded from encircling reefs and pushed up onto the islands by winds and waves.

The process was continuous, because the corals were alive, he said.

In effect the islands respond to changes in weather patterns and climate – Cyclone Bebe deposited 140ha of sediment on the eastern reef of Tuvalu in 1972, increasing the main island’s area by 10 percent.

But the two men warned that while the islands were coping for now, any acceleration in the rate of sea level rise could re-instate the earlier gloomy predictions.

No one knows how fast the islands can grow, and calculating sea level rise is an inexact science.

Climate experts have generally raised estimates for sea level rise – the United Nations spoke in late 2009 of a maximum 2 metre rise by 2100, up from 18-59cm estimated in 2007.

Full story here. Even their source, the New Scientist was forced to admit the “good news” but says “sea level rise warnings stand”. Yeah, sure, whatever.[/quote]

wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/02/t … rtunistic/

68

And perhaps as in the earlier story, the sea levels are not rising but tectonics are at play? Maybe? Read on…

[quote]Our national broadcaster, the ABC, has struck again with a new low in responsible journalism.
In ‘PNG - That Sinking Feeling’, broadcast last night as part of the ‘Foreign Correspondent’ program, reporter Steve Marshall has trashed any credibility the ABC had left on environmental reporting. The unambiguous message in the documentary and all the introductory material was that here was firm “evidence” of rising sea levels producing climate refugees.

The most powerful scene was of one islander and the reporter standing waist deep in water where the islanders father had once had his veggie patch. The implication being that sea levels had risen by close to two metres over recent decades. The only problem with this is that the Carteret Islands are only a short distance from Bougainville where no such sea level rise has been reported. Moreover, the area is only 500km from some very serious recent volcanic activity at Rabaul and form part of an active volcanic chain through the Solomon Islands. The Islanders appear to have been convinced that they are the victims of rising sea levels and global warming, no doubt from a procession of publicly funded planet ponces.

But if Marshall and the program managers at ‘Foreign Correspondent’ had been able to deal with more than one variable at a time they would have drawn the inescapable conclusion that the islands are sinking. Instead they appear to have manufactured a piece of green propaganda that neatly dovetails with Al Gore’s thoroughly discredited claim that Pacific Islanders are already being displaced by rising sea levels?

What I find most offensive is the way a group of islanders who are confronted by a serious problem appear to have been exploited.

If the ABC can get something this simple completely wrong, then what does that tell us about the veracity of their reporting on much more complex issues elsewhere?

This is what Wikipedia has to say .

"It has also been suggested that the movement of tectonic plates could be responsible. The islands lie in one of the most complex tectonic areas of the earth. They sit next to a plate convergence zone at the boundary of the Pacific Plate, Indo-Australian Plate, and South Bismark Plate on a subduction zone next to the New Hebrides Trench (Bougainville Trench), where the earth’s crust is disappearing. There is an active volcano on Bougainville Island, 86km away.

It should be noted, that the Carteret islands are built entirely on a base of coral that sits atop of an extinct volcanic mount. In the usual course of events, such islands eventually subside simply due to the underlying volcanic rock being worn away and not replenished. The Carteret islands are a classic example of such coral islands in their final stage of existence. Interestingly, Charles Darwin was the first to propose such a system of creation and submergence". See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carteret_Islands

It is also quite informative to simply google “Carteret Islands” where the range of reporting angles and biases are plain to see.

The ABC had been there before abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s866600.htm reporting that the same story was taking place on Takuu (or Mortlock) Islands, the home of “a Samoan-American woman, known locally as ‘Queen’ Emma Coe, bought the island for four axes and 4.5 kg of tobacco. Under Imperial German protection, she had all the trees chopped down and replaced with coconuts, and she imported Papua New Guineans from New Ireland to work the plantations”.

The fact that this is occuring in two places would tend to suggest that the dynamiting of coral explanation at Wikipedia is less credible. But the really interesting issue to arise out of this is the question of how many other pacific atolls are actually subsiding for the same reasons put forward by Charles Darwin but collectively being misreported as rising sea levels?

It also appears that the program was also screened on ITV, with the first report in the Sydney Morning Herald on March 30 2002. Other conspicuous turkeys feeding on this bit of journalistic offal include newswire, the Ebono Institute (with two articles), Science & Nature, some sort of Jeremy Sutton-Hibbert with his own photos, while The Independent Online was in there boots and all with a similar story in the indian ocean.

But it seems the ABC just can’t get enough of it with Lateline on 5/02/2007 abc.net.au/lateline/content/ … 840956.htm

Transcript TONY JONES: “The reality of global warming now appears to be accepted by the vast majority of international scientists. This weekend’s report from an international governmental panel on climate change painted a grim picture for thousands of Pacific islanders, a warning that the sea levels could rise dramatically over the next century. And on Papua New Guinea’s Carteret Islands it’s already happening. The entire population is preparing to leave their homeland, forced out by the rising sea. Lateline’s John Stewart has this exclusive report”.

The same “exclusive” story was run on Life Matters on 1 November 2006 and the list goes on and on. Clearly, Climate Central has called for “evidence” of rising sea levels and the Climate Cadres have gone right out there and manufactured it.[/quote]

ianmott.blogspot.com/2007/03/ris … nking.html

69

So, here is the area where climate change was creating its first refugees and … er the islands are growing? so would that make the refugees (people are leaving) then economic refugees searching for better employment/educational opportunities like every where else in the world? Can one of the avid espousers of alarmist theory please clarify so that we all can understand what is now happening? Inquiring minds want to know.

70

Your article is from some blog by someone who apparently has no standing in anything remotely related to climatology, citing as its source quotes from Wikipedia, which are no longer there.

Help me out as I know you are such a cunning linguist, whats the word for someone who will believe anything some random bloke tells them, without using any critical thinking of their own, just so long as it conforms to the ideals that corporations they serve blindly would like people to think?

The first one about Nils Axel Morner, we have had a good chat on him and see levels before. [url=http://tw.forumosa.com/t/global-warming-real-or-fallacy-science-vs-pseudo-science/56625/231 guys a nut job[/url] or if anyone who missed your riveting revelations and casual dismissal of all evidence that contradicts your position and would like to read up a little on our teacher of dowsing methods, here you go. Nils-Axel Mörner

71

The islands in question are not shrinking but growing. Tectonics is a key issue. Bougainville is not shrinking or losing territory. It is growing as the areas where mangroves are permanent EXPAND into the sea. This happened following a major earthquake four years ago when the ground was thrust UP. A French scientific team came to Cateret Islands five years ago and its findings (not online or I am unable to find the link for the same) found that rising sealevels were NOT the issue with the Caterets. Bougainville next door is not sinking. This is not about rising seas. Let’s face it Mick… for these islands, you and your argument of rising seas do “not hold water.” I have seen this for myself personally. Coastal erosion in many areas of the New Guinea Islands is caused by FALLING sealevels (tectonics again) and cutting of mangroves NOT rising sealevels. Back to you.

72

“Global Warming/Climate Change”…are some people still kicking that dead dog hoping to bring it back to life?

What maroons!

“Recent satellite images of Greenland make it clear that there are in fact still numerous glaciers and permanent ice cover where the new Times Atlas shows ice-free conditions and the emergence of new lands,” they say in a letter that has been sent to the Times. "We do not know why this error has occurred, but it is regrettable that the claimed drastic reduction in the extent of ice in Greenland has created headline news around the world. “There is to our knowledge no support for this claim in the published scientific literature.”

“Thousands have signed the Oregon Petition, the Leipzig Declaration and the Statement by Atmospheric Scientists on Greenhouse Warming, three efforts that challenge the claim of a scientific consensus on global warming. Not every signature on those appeals to reason is that of a scientist able to make a sound scientific assessment of the man-made global warming claim. But then, the reports the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are not what they appear to be. Reports have been doctored by political insiders to make global warming look like an imminent threat over the objections of the scientists who actually participated in the writing of the reports.”

[i]“Nobel prize winner for physics in 1973 Dr. Ivar Giaever resigned as a Fellow from the American Physical Society (APS) on September 13, 2011 in disgust over the group’s promotion of man-made global warming fears. Dr. Giaever wrote to Kirby of APS: “Thank you for your letter inquiring about my membership.I did not renew it because I cannot live with the (APS) statement below (on global warming): APS: ‘The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.’ On May 1, 2009, the American Physical Society (APS) Council decided to review its current climate statement via a high-level subcommittee of respected senior scientists. The decision was prompted after a group of over 80 prominent physicists petitioned the APS revise its global warming position and more than 250 scientists urged a change in the group’s climate statement in 2010. The physicists wrote to APS governing board: “Measured or reconstructed temperature records indicate that 20th - 21st century changes are neither exceptional nor persistent, and the historical and geological records show many periods warmer than today.” An American Physical Society editor conceded that a “considerable presence” of scientific skeptics exists. In October 2010, the APS suffered more scientific woes when another one of its prominent physicists resigned. The late Physicist Hal Lewis, who died in May of 2011, excoriated the APS leadership for its strict dogmatic like adherence to man-made global warming beliefs. See: Prominent Physicist Resigns: ‘Climategate was a fraud on a scale I have never seen…Effect on APS position: None. None at all. This is not science’ & See: Prominent Physicist Resigns From American Physical Society: ‘Global warming is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life’ – APS President Curtis Callan ‘seems to have abandoned most ethical principles…APS has become a corrupt organization’ & see: APS responds to resignation of Dr. Hal Lewis – AND Dr. Lewis Responds Back To APS!”

the fraud has clearly been shown …stop believing the fraud.

73

If a particular island sinks, which happens. This hardly disproves the theory of global warming. It doesn’t even disprove that sea levels are rising. In fact, what you are saying or the point you are making is as usual clear as mud. Most likely you are trying to say sea levels are not rising, which goes against even the most elementary logic and facts which no one is disputing.

Are you claiming there has been no warming, I think its currently about 6 tenths of a degree over a century and since water expands as it gets hotter. One would expect increases in sea levels. Which is in line with satellite observations and tidal measurements, although you’ll probably claim satellites are on decaying orbits, tectonics are responsible for sea rise, tidal gauges have gaps in data.

Fact is, you haven’t a clue, haven’t done even a basic critical thinking assessment for yourself. Then reject all scientific evidence that supports sea level rises in place of industry funded think tank political lobbyists disinformation. Look forward to your response if you’re not too busy genuflecting to the top 1% who treat the rest of the population as peasants.

TC posted something on sea ice extent. July was the least ice extent on satellite records, last month second lowest on record. Whats his point? A Rupert Murdoch owned publication made an error in their atlas and proves what exactly? Is Rupert Murdock now in on the so called conspiracy? Would be news to me.

74

Sorry but was it I who pointed to the Cateret Islands as “proof” of global warming causing rising seas? And given the previous exchange on “rising” sealevels and “rising” temperatures given the placement of certain heat measuring stations and the statistical “loading” that occurs, I think that the onus of responsibility is back in your court. No rising sealevels in South Pacific? none in Maldives either? and the atolls that are supposed to be most “affected” are growing. Back to you.

75

Its ok, Im sure its confusing.

Water expands when warmed, so we should expect an increase in level of water, since there has been an increase of temperature.

76

Thanks for explaining what water does when heated. Most useful. I suppose that given enough global warming, that it will not only expand but turn to steam and thus reduce the amount of ocean water/sea levels by evaporating so even more global warming should be a good thing not a bad one right?

We have been subjected to a litany of dire forecasts regarding the effects of global warming. None of these effects are currently visible in the Pacific. This is an area that was to have been affected in particular with dire forecasts of disappearing islands. Yet, these atolls are growing and tectonics is clearly more of an issue with erosion often the result of mangrove cutting. So? We appear to be finding that global warming is not the big issue that it was forecast to be. I am stifling a yawn here but back to you. What are we supposed to be worried about again? changing climate?

Also, there will be benefits to much of the world to warming.

Most important, how exactly does the earth have a perfect temperature that needs to be maintained and what action plans do you have for maintaining that? I see lots of climate change funding going to fund regional conferences (with lots of air travel and stays at five-star hotels with all the attendent negatives to the environment) and monies to go to studies and research and more to pay for offices with staff to address the issue. How is all of that helping and why should the tax payer be asked to cough up for it?

77

You’re welcome, melting ice from places like the Greenland ice sheet wont help either.

Well, I dont think anyone said they would be under water by this time next Thursday and as to these Islands growing or rising to meet the light, more than likely you are referring (although unknowingly as you probably got your source from Lord Monckton or Watts up with that or some other skeptic site, who in turn used this as a source) Webb & Kench 2010

You will note in the introduction it states.

Irrelevant to those negatively effected. What do you say to those people?

78

Mick:

The Pacific Islands of Tuvalu, the Caterets and others are not sinking but growing. Any erosion is due to simple factors like cutting down mangroves or sucking out too much ground water (hello Venice?) and the monies that are being spent are going to fund useless conferences where discussions are held about the issue but nothing concrete is achieved. Why am I to worry about global warming? and where are the rising sea levels and even WHEN they are supposedly rising (doubtful) the corals seem to be more than up to the challenge. This is about income distribution and reminds me of nothing more than slave reparations which soon collapsed when the tech bubble crashed. Nothing more on that subject. I suspect that the climate change bubble will also collapse to be followed by a new and equally plausible issue that requires great sums of money to solve. Acid rain is gone? Hole in ozone layer is gone? Hmmmm maybe species diversity? Also gone? Hmm… Maybe something like excessive sand accumulation from tourists at beaches returning to distribute coral contagion that must be fought heroically?

Ironically, this opportunistic behavior is usually attributed more to greedy fat cat evil capitalists. Strange that you socialists with your “causes” should prove to be even more adept at fleecing the public of its hard earned gains. Bah. I have seen the effects of global warming or climate change or alternating weather patterns directly and I am more than ever convinced that the solution is MORE economic development through LOWER taxation and MORE investment. How is the air in Bangkok these days? Better than ever. What about prostitution and forced labor? less than ever due to ECONOMIC opportunities. Give us more economic development and we will see fewer evils. Give us more communism, socialism and crony capitalism and we will all suffer more. The solution is more development not less. The world will be better for it and so will millions if not billions and people like you claim to CARE more. Incredible! Of course, you and your ilk will have fewer economic opportunities to travel the world and spout your nonsense while living off the cheap prices of underexploited natives. Ultimately, the Thais, Vietnamese, Pacific Islanders and others will join the Chinese and Indians and Thais in having REAL jobs with REAL salaries that produce REAL benefits while the likes of you will end up on welfare programs because you contribute nothing and are really nothing. How’s that for harsh assessments?

79

I was bored and noticed this eco-fascist debate and wandered over to see what all the fuss was about.

TC, that video was brilliant, and it’s just as obvious that few of you understood the point. Here it is again:

There are two things that you should come away with after viewing the video:

  • The Left believe that censorship is a good thing.

  • If the choice is between you and THEIR views on the climate, you will always lose - even if it means your life.

Isn’t hypocrisy a beautiful thing?

But, let’s not stop there. If you act now, you can read the following:

These eco-fascist types are suppressing research - primary research. And, that is unforgivable. I’m an agnostic on AGW, but I am thoroughly disgusted with this kind of censorship.

If you can’t hold your own on the battlefield of ideas, stay home.

80

Actually, Fred’s point is a good one.

If the climate needs fixing (as I said above, I’m agnostic on the issue) it costs money, and a good economy is the only way that you are going to get the money. It takes money to do the research. It takes money to develop the technology. It takes money to do the education.