jump to navigation

Emissions trading blow: Fielding rejects climate change June 24, 2009

Posted by honestclimate in Discussions.
Tags: , ,
add a comment

Emissions trading blow: Fielding rejects climate change

Via NEWS.com.au
June 24, 2009

FAMILY First senator Steve Fielding has made up his mind on global warming – there’s not enough evidence that it’s real.

After talks with the government and top scientists, Senator Fielding, whose vote could be crucial in passing the Federal Government’s plan to put a price on carbon emissions, has released a document setting out his position.

“Global temperature isn’t rising,” it says.

Senator Fielding says he would not risk job losses on “unconvincing green science” to set up a carbon emissions trading scheme (ETS).

The ETS has sparked raucous debate today in Parliament, with ministers breaking off from attacking Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull over the infamous utegate email to mock Coalition MPs who reject climate change science.

Not happening

Senator Fielding’s document was prepared with the help of some of the country’s most prominent climate-sceptic scientists.

It says it is a “fact” that the evidence does not support the notion that greenhouse gas emissions are causing dangerous global warming.

The Senate is due to debate emissions trading legislation this week. The Government is struggling to muster enough votes to pass the legislation ahead of a vote scheduled for tomorrow.

Senator Fielding’s stance appears to torpedo the chance of the scheme passing as the Government would need his support, as well as that of the Greens and independent Nick Xenophon.

The support of the Greens is not assured. The party is concerned that the Government’s model for emissions trading lets big polluters off too lightly and has an emissions reduction target which is too weak to do any good.

Senator Xenophon has asked for the vote to be delayed until August to allow senators to consider other models. Postponing the vote could technically give the Government a possible trigger for a double dissolution election, because it could be seen as a failure to pass.

The independent had previously said the scheme was deeply flawed and failed to address crucial environmental issues. He had said the Government would need to negotiate with him and other senators to get the legislation passed.

If all cross-bench senators reject the ETS, the Government would need the support of the Opposition to pass the scheme.

Fielding gets no answer June 16, 2009

Posted by honestclimate in Discussions.
Tags: , , ,

Fielding gets no answer

by Andrew Bolt
Herald Sun, June 16, 09

Steve Fielding confronts Climate Minister Penny Wong with his question: why has the world not warmed these past seven eight years when we’re pumping out more carbon dioxide than ever?

AUSTRALIA’S top scientists have met Family First senator Steve Fielding to try and convince him that climate change is real… It was a case of duelling scientists at the high-level meeting in Canberra today. Senator Fielding took along a team of sceptical scientists.

In Climate Change Minister Penny Wong’s corner were Australia’s chief scientist, Penny Sackett, and eminent climate scientist Will Steffen.

“Global warming quite clearly over the last decade hasn’t been actually occurring,” Senator Fielding said before the meeting… He took charts into today’s meeting to show that global temperatures had not increased since 1998…

Prof Steffen emerged from the 90-minute meeting to say that global warming was real. While 1998 was a particularly hot year, the decade since had remained warmer than average.

“The climate’s still pretty warm,” the Australian National University academic said….

A spokesman for Senator Fielding said the evidence put forward by his team had given Senator Wong food for thought. The Senator felt his key questions had not been answered in the meeting, but he was going to spend some time thinking it over.

It sounds indeed as if Fielding got no answer to his very interesting question.


Lucia’s The Blackboard tracks global temperatures since 2001, as measured against predictions of a warming of 2 degrees this century (brown line):


Conclusion? Global temperatures have fallen over the past eight years, despite increases in our emissions:

The trends for both UAH and RSS are negative since 2001 with RSS having the larger negative trend.

But Lucia notes that over a longer term, the temperature trend has gone slightly up, rather than down, and hazards this guess:

For what it’s worth: My bet is on the longer term trend being positive. Why? The past longer term trend was positive. I’m inclined to believe the longer term trend will be less than 2C/century. Why? The current data says it’s less than 2C/century and the longer term trend is less than 2C/century. Other than models, there is no evidence the climate trend has increased from historic levels to reach a rate of 2C/century.

This does not indicate any runaway warming, devastating warming or necessarily even man-made warming. And only time will tell if the world will actually resume warming.


Lucia notes that a third of the world’s main four measurements of global temperature confirms cooling since 2001.


Now the “proof” given by Penny Wong’s advisors is not the atmospheric temperatures they’ve used for so long, but the sea:

STEVE FIELDING: Now up until now, we have seen carbon emissions go up and global temperatures, the way the IPCC has been measuring them, not going up.Now if that is the case that is a real problem.Now yesterday, yesterday’s meeting with the chief scientist and Professor Steffen, they outlined that they are using a different temperature measure which is ocean temperature. Now that is something we are going to have to look at because that is something that the IPCC wasn’t using to prove that carbon emissions were driving up global temperatures.Previously they were using something from the Hadley Institute or the Hadley Centre and the University of East Anglia. That is the measurement that I have been given and it quite clearly shows that carbon emissions have been going up but global temperatures haven’t.Now yesterday they showed another figure which is ocean temperature.

So let’s now look at ocean temperatures, as plotted by Dr Craig Loehle in Energy & Environment from the profiling floats of the 3000 Argo buoys. A gradual rise in temperature ended – or paused – six years ago:


Ocean heat content data from 2003 to 2008 (4.5 years) were evaluated for trend. A trend plus periodic (annual cycle) model fit with R2 = 0.85. The linear component of the model showed a trend of -0.35 (~0.2) x 1022 Joules per year. The result is consistent with other data showing a lack of warming over the past few years

This confirms what Roger Pielke snr had noted.

What else they got?

On the smearing of Steve Fielding June 11, 2009

Posted by honestclimate in Discussions.
Tags: , ,
add a comment

On the smearing of Steve Fielding

By Andrew Bolt
Herald Sun, June 11, 2009

How the Sydney Morning Herald reports – fairly and with balance – Senator Steve Fielding’s desire to know why the world isn’t warming, even though our emissions are increasing:

THE Family First senator Steve Fielding has challenged the work of thousands of the world’s top scientists, saying he is not convinced by the work done by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change…. Senator Fielding’s newfound scepticism is a result of his trip to the US to listen to the Heartland Institute of Chicago, an organisation that is funded by the fossil-fuel industry. The organisation also believes public health campaigns against smoking are based on “junk science”.

All smear, no science. And note the casual insertion by reporter Stephanie Peatling of falsehoods – such as the claim that the IPCC reports are the work of “thousands” of like-minded scientists, and her implication that there aren’t also ”thousands” of scientists who’d actually support Fielding, too.

Note also the sneaky insinuation that Fielding’s opinion is based not on scientific facts, whose meaning must be debated, but on lies peddled by a bribe-taking organisation that denies even that smoking kills.

Peatling here is either repeating a smear she hasn’t even bothered to check out, or deliberately deceiving her readers with a particularly rotten red herring. The Heartland Institute is not denying at all that smoking kills, but is challenging claims that smokers, despite indeed dying much earlier, don’t already pay for the extra health costs they incur through existing high cigarette taxes. It’s also not convinced by some of the extreme claims about the health risks of second-hand smoke.

This, too, is a debate that should be settled by a discussion of evidence, not buckets of slime – and is, in any event, utterly irrelevant to Fielding’s point about the climate, which Peatling could have learned is well-based had she bothered only to consult any measure of the world’s temperature, such as this:


It hardly needs pointing out that Peatling also misleads readers by implying that all the Heartland Institute’s funding comes from the “fossil-fuel industry” (and that the Institute is so corrupt that it will therefore say what is not true, as if it were Greenpeace). The fact is that prime villain ExxonMobil has not funded it for three years, and 95 per cent of the Institute’s funding comes from sources other than oil and coal interests. None of those interests funded the conference Fielding attended, using his own cash. But, once again, this is a red herring: what’s at issue is the science, not the funding, or else Peatling should never again believe a word said by Al Gore, who has become a multi-millionaire through peddling “green” investments, or by Tim Flannery, who charges as much as $50,000 a speech to beat the doomsday drum, or by Ove Hoegh-Gulberg, whose reef-is-doomed research has attracted millions of dollars of funding.

Conclusion: it seems to me that Peatling and her kind are more interesting in preaching than in reporting. And thus are their readers misled. But as long as Fielding’s question – why is the world not warming, when our gases are increasing? – is met by smears, not science, we must conclude that such warming alarmists actually have no answer to give.

How the ABC’s priests damn Fielding June 9, 2009

Posted by honestclimate in Discussions.
Tags: , , ,
add a comment

How the ABC’s priests damn Fielding

Andrew Bolt
Herald Sun, June 09, 2009


The ABC’s Jon Faine this morning gave Senator Steve Fielding a taste of the treatment he must expect from the ABC’s global warming faithful. None of Fielding’s questions on weaknesses in the man-warming warming theory were addressed – not one.

Instead, Faine asked whether we could take seriously a man who allegedly believed in “creation science” (which is not a question he puts to the many clerics who support warming theory).

He asked whether Fielding’s “religious approach” was interfering with his thinking.

He asked whether Field was “simply positioning” himself for more political clout.

He demanded to know why Fielding did not agree with Rupert Murdoch and give the planet “the benefit of the doubt”. (Mudoch, incidentally, is the one authority Faine cited.)

He insisted that “tens of thousands” of scientists backed man-made global warming theory, and that just a “handful” did not.

And the tone throughout was angry, hostile and even panicky. Faine then followed up with a much, much softer interview of a green alarmist from Environment Victoria prattling about “climate change”. First question:

Tell us about green jobs.

The alarmist was then invited to kick Fielding, which he did by sliming him, linking scepticism with denying that smoking kills. Again, the evidence was not addressed at all.

Yes, there were some hard questions of that alarmist, too. But they were of the “that’s not really green enough” kind.

Debate? We’re yet to be allowed a fair one.


Fran Kelly on ABC Radio National gives an equally soft interview to Chief Scientist Penny Sackett, not even asking her about Fielding’s main question – why the world hasn’t warned for at least seven years, even though CO2 emissions are rising. Nor is Sackett asked to respond to the criticism Dennis Jensen made in parliament of her critical misunderstanding of the response of temperature to carbon dioxide concentrations. She is not even picked up for her use of the loaded and misleading propaganda term: “carbon emissions.”


Jon Faine, in taking calls from listeners hoping to slime Fielding, let one caller accuse Professor Bob Carter, another sceptic, of having taking money to defend tobacco companies. So, suggested Faine, he’s just a “gun for hire”?

This libel – that Carter is so corrupt and unscientific that he would say something false for cash – is fiercely disputed by Carter, who adds that he has NEVER taken money from tobacco companies, and hasn’t accepted it from coal or petroleum ones, either. Faine’s caller claimed that this smear had been substantiated by Four Corners. I’ve checked the only two programs it’s made to specifically smear climate sceptics, and neither mentions Carter.

If the case for catastrophic man-made warming is so strong, why such vile smears of the sceptics? Surely a Faine need only point to, say, a chart measuring global temperature, as I’ve done. It’s the abuse and the refusal to argue in good faith that damns the believers most.