Recent Events in Climate Land

Headstone at the grave of Australia's carbon tax

(Image via derhonigmannsagt.wordpress.com)

We recently read that the BBC has decided to henceforth censor the views of so-called 'climate skeptics' (the term for people who dare to question the 'warmist' consensus because they haven't completely relinquished the ability to use their heads), in spite of the fact that there exist at least 1,350 peer-reviewed papers critical of climate alarmism, and more than 1,000 scientists worldwide signed a “dissent over the consensus claims”. Here is by the way a very interesting, brief article on how the consensus claims were arrived at by means of some interpretative creativity regarding the information contained in scientific papers.

For a brief moment we were taken aback though. How was this news? The BBC has always censored skeptical views on the climate orthodoxy after all. However, as Sean Long informs us, it probably means that it wants to silence them completely:

“According to The Washington Post, the BBC issued a statement on July 7, saying “across our programs the number of scientists and academics who support the mainstream view far outweighs those who disagree with it.” Clearly, the BBC already largely ignores climate skeptics, so this recent push indicates that they will simply move towards eliminating all dissent from the debate.”

Well, that's one way of being able to claim that the “debate is over” – simply stop inviting any potential dissenters. Anyway, we keep shaking our head at the obstinacy of the warmist circus. If we didn't know that 10s of billions in subsidies, grants and other monies extorted from tax payers and fed to the giant vested warmist interests are at stake, we would have to conclude that the world has simply gone completely crazy. As to why, consider this chart again, which depicts the global warming situation as of June:

In another two months time, there will have been zero global warming for 18 years running – via wattsupwiththat

The alarmists are in the meantime coming up with all sorts of absurd excuses for the fact that the predictions of their “climate models” are so utterly wrong they make even the predictions of economists look good. One of those (which we find especially funny) is a variation of “the dog ate my homework”, namely the “ocean ate all the heat”. It is allegedly hiding in the seas, waiting for a convenient moment to burst forth and rescue the reputations of the alarmist fortune tellers. One wonders of course why has it decided to do so now? Why not “hide” there at some other point in time already? Why do it exactly in a time period when the atmospheric CO2 content has risen by a full third, from one irrelevantly tiny percentage to another irrelevantly tiny percentage?

Apparently mother nature is out to get someone, and it's not the recently gagged skeptics. :)

Other recent excuses: “The data are lousy”. Of course, the data wouldn't be considered “lousy” if they were to confirm the warmist predictions. In fact, some of the data are lousy. They show far more warming than there has actually been. For one thing, land-based temperature measuring devices have been placed at spots that get especially hot for reasons that have nothing to do with the climate in general, and as has recently tuned out, many of these devices have actually stopped working, and their “data” have been replaced with completely fabricated “guesses” (the chart above shows satellite measurements, which are a lot more accurate).

And the latest one, which is even more funny than the eat-devouring ocean dog: “It's not unusual, just some natural variability”. Well, yes, that is actually true. As was the warming period preceding the pause, and the cooling period preceding the last warming period: it's all “just some natural variability”, at least most of it is.

The human contribution is almost certainly not zero, but is likely negligible and there is definitely no cause for alarm. It is certainly not a good reason to ban incandescent light bulbs (which was officially done to save the planet, and unofficially to boost the profits of Osram), charge carbon taxes or embark on completely uneconomic “green energy” schemes that only serve to enrich political cronies.

Rest in Pieces!

However, there is finally some good news: Australia's new government has just scrapped the “hated carbon tax”, sending the world's watermelons (i.e., green on the outside, red on the inside, and authoritarian etatistes through and through) into paroxysms of indignant screeching and wailing. Maybe this will in retrospect be seen as the moment when the alarmist mania finally reversed:

“Australia's government has repealed a controversial carbon tax on the nation's worst greenhouse gas polluters, ending years of contention over a measure that became political poison for those who imposed it.

The senate voted 39 to 32 to axe the 24.15-Australian dollar (£13.30) tax per metric tonne of carbon dioxide that was introduced by the centre-left Labor government in July 2012. Conservative MPs burst into applause as the vote tally was announced.

Prime minister Tony Abbott's conservative coalition government rose to power last year on the promise of getting rid of the tax, assuring voters that removing it would reduce household electricity bills.

He plans to replace the measure with a taxpayer-financed 2.55 billion-dollar fund to pay industry incentives to use cleaner energy.

Australia is one of the world's worst greenhouse gas emitters per capita, largely because of its heavy reliance on the nation's vast reserves of cheap coal for electricity. The carbon tax, charged to about 350 of Australia's biggest carbon polluters, was controversial from the start.

Former prime minister Julia Gillard had initially vowed not to introduce a tax on carbon emissions. But after her Labor Party was elected in 2010, she needed the support of the minor Greens party to form a government – and the Greens wanted a carbon tax.

Ms Gillard agreed, infuriating a public that viewed the measure's imposition as a broken promise. Labor's popularity plummeted, particularly when consumers saw their power bills soar.

[….]

In a fiery speech ahead the vote, Senator Christine Milne, leader of the Greens, called it an "appalling day for Australia".

"A vote for the abolition of the clean energy package is a vote for failure," she said.

"If this parliament votes to abandon the clean energy package, you are voting against the best interests of the nation."

Opposition leader Bill Shorten lashed out at Mr Abbott after the vote, dubbing him an "environmental vandal".

"Today Tony Abbott has made Australia the first country in the world to reverse action on climate change," Mr Shorten said in Canberra.

"History will judge Tony Abbott very harshly for refusing to believe in genuine action on climate change. Tony Abbott is sleepwalking Australia to an environmental and economic disaster."

Truly a moment to savor. We believe of course that history's judgment of Mr. Abbott's decision will be quite different from what the watermelons believe it will be. If anything, Abbott has rescued Australia from what was already an “economic disaster”. The climate will always change – regardless of what “we” do or don't do.

As far as we can tell, governments all over the world merely see this story as a convenient way to impose fresh burdens on the citizenry (hence the IPCC's alarmist claims were all vastly exaggerated on the insistence of government bureaucrats).

Conclusion:

The BBC may well ban all dissent, but it can no longer alter the fact that people are beginning to wake up. The fact that even a government has finally stepped off the alarmist train and voluntarily relinquishes carbon tax revenues is especially noteworthy.