Looks like I was wrong, climate change cannot be denied, we are all doomed unless we stop emitting carbon dioxide and I should take my share of the blame for putting future generations at risk. Why the suddden change of heart you ask? Well our mighty and noble climate commision led by the great Tim Flannery in its heroic crusade against that most evil of gases, carbon dioxide and the baby-eaters who emit them, has released its first report on climate change. As such I am turning greenie, I will cut carbon out of my life in every way, shape and form, and instead base my existence around nature and plants (whatever they’re made of).
Just for the record, that was sarcasm. The conclusion of this report states that “The atmosphere is warming, the ocean is warming, ice is being lost from glaciers and ice caps, and sea levels are rising.” It remains that the hottest year on record was 1998, and 2010 only came close as it too was an El Nino year, and otherwise we have seen no statistically significant warming since 1995. The oceans are not warming (Douglass and Knox 2009) and have been losing heat since 2003. Yes sea levels are rising, but the rate is reducing as noted by the Journal for Coastal Research and University of Colarado.
The most startling thing however is once again the lack of evidence to support the notion the man’s gasses are to blame and yet they make precisely that statement. They claim that the lack of change in solar activity cannot explain the recent warming, hence carbon dioxide must be reponsible (implied), but as I said previously, the earth has not warmed statistically significantly for 16 years and the recent warming can be explained by an El Nino event. No, the lack of evidence does not disprove the theory, but other evidence can. The lack of a hotspot where the rate of warming should be greatest in the upper troposphere of the tropics, suggests that the warming we have seen is not greenhouse warming.
The report also states that climate change cannot be denied. Wait, what? The climate is changing? Since when? Okay, fine, I will assume that it means anthropogenic climate change, in which case I will refer to the petition project while acknowledging that science is not done by consensus. It is however done by facts, evidence and rigorous scientific process which yet cannot reveal any evidence to account for an anthropogenic aspect.
The climate commission was established by the government as a supposedly independant body, but where does it get its funding? Tim Flannery gets $180 000 of our dollars a year as its head, based on the premise that there is a problem that requires a commission. It is a clear conflict of interest and as such the climate commission cannot be considered an independant body. While some may say the courts are independant, no judge need fear losing their job if they don’t stick to a particular line.
Interestingly, the report made it clear that direct action policies would be largely ineffective, the same policies advocated by the opposition. How convenient for the government to have the climate commission which they pay for, have a go at their political opponents.