> Even when someone draws attanetion to his nonsense, he just
reposts
> the same old pap.
>


By "nonsense", I presume you mean the gross exaggerations by you
and you fellow scaremongers, Fran baby!


Reason triumphs: Tribunal says warming doom-mongers are
exaggerating

Andrew Bolt
Friday, February 16, 2007 at 04:11pm


A brave - as in evidence-based - decision by a Queensland
tribunal has accused prominent global warming prophets of
exaggerating and distorting evidence.

Its devastating findings should give rationalists faith that -
glory be - reason is not yet dead in Australia.

As the ABC reports:



  ELEANOR HALL: While the industry's unions may be trying to
adjust to climate change, one of the world's biggest mining
companies has just won a case in Queensland in which the judge
questioned the science behind global warming concerns.

  The Queensland Conservation Council had taken action in the
Land and Resources Tribunal in an attempt to force mining giant
Xstrata to offset any greenhouse gas emissions involved in
expanding its Newlands coal mine in central Queensland.

  But in a win for the coal industry, the tribunal ruled the mine
expansion would not have an adverse environmental impact, and at
the same time it criticised the international report released by
the world's top climate scientists earlier this month.

Some notable doom-mongers get their come-uppance - like the
Australian Conservation Foundation's Ian Lowe:


  Professor Ian Lowe gave evidence on behalf of the Queensland
Conservation Council, saying the proposed mine would contribute
to the cumulative impacts of global warming and climate change.

  But the Tribunal criticised that evidence, saying he'd grossly
exaggerated likely emissions by comparing emissions over the
15-year life of the mine with annual global emissions.

Grossly exaggerated? Ian Lowe?

Ouch. And not just him, of course.



  The tribunal was also sceptical of two recent environmental
reports, including the Stern Review and the latest report from
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

  In its decision it said the Stern Review has been criticised on
scientific and economic grounds as biased, flawed and alarmist.

I can't imagine what give the judge that idea. Not if he's an ABC
listener or reader of Fairfax newspapers. But if, for instance,
he's read this, then everything becomes clearer.

And I gather the the tribunal president, Greg Koppenol, isn't
much of a fan of close-our-coal-exports extremists such as Tim
Flannery and Bob Brown, either.

  It also said that imposing conditions on the mine would drive
wealth and jobs overseas and have serious economic and social
impacts on the state.

More from The Australian:

  In an extraordinary decision handed down yesterday, tribunal
chairman Greg Koppenol lashed out at the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change and the Stern Review, which have in recent
months generated huge concern worldwide about global warming.

  Mr Koppenol accused prominent ecologist and Australian
Conservation Foundation president Ian Lowe of exaggerating the
facts by a factor of 218 in his evidence to the tribunal.

And this:



  Mr Koppenol said the intergovernmental panel's report, released
last month, had concluded that most of the observed increases in
temperatures since the mid-1900s were due to emissions.

  But a "close examination" of the global mean temperature chart,
which was said to support that view, revealed temperatures rose
by just 0.5 per cent from 1900 to last year.

  The largest temperature rise was 0.75 per cent between 1976 and
1998, but similar rises occurred in 1852-1878 and 1910-1944.

  Mr Koppenol said the chart showed average temperatures had
risen by 0.6C since 1951. As the panel had said "most" of the
rise was due to emissions, an increase of about 0.45 per cent
over 55 years seemed a "surprisingly low figure" upon which to
base concerns about global warming.

UPDATE

The tribunal finding is here.

And it hoes into other environmentalists and scientists for
exaggerating global warming and its effects, too.

There's Jon Norling, of Urban Economics:


  Mr Jon Norling spoke about the economic effects of climate
change. Like Professor Lowe, he placed great emphasis upon:
  . the British Government's 2006 Stern Review on the Economics
of Climate Change (the Stern Review),3 which concluded that there
would be very serious consequences for humanity because of global
warming-induced climate change if GHG emissions were not severely
cut; and
  . assessments by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC).
  Regrettably, Mr Norling grossly exaggerated references in the
Stern Review to sea level rises: for example, converting Stern's
"if" certain ice sheets melt over "centuries to millennia", to
"when" they melt over "the next several centuries" and suggesting
that sea levels could rise 5m to 12m over the next century-when
Stern predicted only 0.09m to 0.88m and IPCC only 0.18m to 0.59m.

There's last year's much-hyped review of Sir Nicholas Stern, a
British public servant:

  However, the Stern Review has been severely criticised on both
scientific and economic grounds. Papers recently published by
Professor Robert Carter et al and Professor Sir Ian Byatt et al
concluded that Stern's claim that the scientific evidence for
GHG-induced serious global warming and climate change was
overwhelming was just an assertion and was wrong-and that the
Stern Review was:
  . biased, selective and unbalanced;
  . scientifically flawed;
  . a vehicle for speculative alarmism; and
  . not a basis for informed and responsible policies.

  Those authors also said that climate prediction is an uncertain
new area and not a mature science and that the rates of modern
temperature change observed fall well within the rates of minor
warmings and coolings inferred for the Holocene (the last 10,000
years of the Earth's history) in, eg, the GRIP ice core (a 3,029m
long ice core drilled in Greenland from 1989 to 1992).

There's the IPCC report:

  [17] Finally, the Fourth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Summary for
Policymakers was released on 2 February 2007. It relevantly
concluded that is very likely that human-induced GHGs are causing
global warming, and that most of the observed increases in
globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century are
very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic
(human-caused) GHG concentrations. ...

  But the fact that very similar rises have previously occurred
(1852-1878, 0.65°C and 1910-1944, 0.65°C) was not specifically
mentioned or causally explained in the Summary. Also not
mentioned or causally explained is the fact that temperatures
have actually fallen 0.05°C over the last 8 years
  -- 

  Regards

  Bonzo

  "Public broadcasters' coverage of the global warming issue
indicates their staff do not understand the difference between
sound empirical science and the virtual realities of speculative
computer modelling." Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology,
James Cook University, Townsville

"HangEveryRepubliKKKan"  wrote
>> 1998 14.57  *********************o*****
>> 1999 14.33  *****************>>>>o
>> 2000 14.33  *****************>>>>>o
>> 2001 14.48  ************************o
>> 2002 14.56  *************************o**
>> 2003 14.55  **************************o*
>> 2004 14.49  *************************>>o
>> 2005 14.63  *****************************o**
>> 2006 14.54  ***************************>>>o
>>
>>   Look at all those "o"'s lined up there.

"Bonzo"  wrote
> The "0"'s are NOT THE DATA!
> They have created a trend which does not exist in the data.
> Voodoo statistics!

  Ahahahahahahahahaha... Stupid KKKonservative KKKlown. A trendline skirts
across the top of the data leaving equal portions of the data above and
below.  In this instane 10 dots above, and 14 below as a result of the crude
nature of ascii graphics.  Nevertheless it represents the best line that can
be fitted to the data based on minimizing the square of the distance between
the line and the real data.  It's called a least squares curve fit.

  You are completely ignorant when it comes to statistics and mathematics in
general aren't you Bonzo.

  Ahahahahahaha.. You don't know what statistics are, where it comes from,
how it is used, or how to use it, and yet in your vast ignorance, you seem
to think that you know more about science than all of the worlds scientists.

  "Voodoo statistics"  Ahahahahahahahah...  You need to go back to public
school and take a refresher course in basic technical literacy.

  Stupid... Stupid.. KKKonservative KKKlown....


"Bonzo"  wrote
> Here is the data which shows NO TREND!
>
> 1998 366.50 2.5721     14.57
> 1999 368.14 2.6148     14.33
> 2000 369.41 2.6399     14.33
> 2001 371.07 2.6672     14.48
> 2002 373.16 2.7032     14.56
> 2003 375.80 2.7487     14.55
> 2004 377.55 NA            14.49
> 2005 379.75 NA            14.63
> 2006 381.90 NA            14.54

  No?  Lets plot the data and find out shall we?  Here it is along with the
best linear fit to the data shown as "o".

1998 14.57  *********************o*****
1999 14.33  *****************>>>>o
2000 14.33  *****************>>>>>o
2001 14.48  ************************o
2002 14.56  *************************o**
2003 14.55  **************************o*
2004 14.49  *************************>>o
2005 14.63  *****************************o**
2006 14.54  ***************************>>>o

Look at all those "o"'s lined up there. The trend is up, Up, UP.

So Bonzo, who is paying you to post lies to this newsgroup?