Excuse me Ms/Mr Green, can you explain this ?

...as CO2 levels continue to rise, temperature readings continue to fall. Did the computer models predict this cooling ? Sorry, speak up...can't hear you...what was that... ?

The graph has been cited by Senator Steve Fielding as justification for his wait and see policy over the Australian response to CO2 emissions. Senator Fielding has written to every Australian senator urging them to look at the graph and ask themselves the key question: What is driving climate change?
Senator Fielding has suggested if they can’t answer that simple question they shouldn’t be voting for the emissions trading scheme.
He has also suggested it’s the biggest economic decision in Australia's history, one which is too important to simply vote along party lines...more from Jennifer Marohasy here...

.....meanwhile..."We've got to ride this global warming issue.Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy." Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation

The weight of the world is on his shoulders...

...In the Australian Senate the vote of one senator, Steve Fielding, (left) may be important for the passage of the government’s cap and trade legislation, also known as the emission trading scheme.
On Monday Senator Fielding had a meeting with the Minister for Climate Change, Penny Wong, and asked the following questions so he can make an informed decision on whether or not an emissions trading scheme is the best course of action for Australia to take to deal with climate change and global warming.

Q1. Is it the case that CO2 increased by 5% since 1998 whilst global temperature cooled over the same period ?
If so, why did the temperature not increase; and how can human emissions be to blame for dangerous levels of warming?

Q2. Is it the case that the rate and magnitude of warming between 1979 and 1998 (the late 20th century phase of global warming) was not unusual in either rate or magnitude as compared with warmings that have occurred earlier in the Earth’s history ?
If the warming was not unusual, why is it perceived to have been caused by human CO2 emissions; and, in any event, why is warming a problem if the Earth has experienced similar warmings in the past?

Q3. Is it the case that all GCM computer models projected a steady increase in temperature for the period 1990-2008, whereas in fact there were only 8 years of warming were followed by 10 years of stasis and cooling ?
If so, why is it assumed that long-term climate projections by the same models are suitable as a basis for public policy making?

...and from Joanna Nova...Senator Fielding holds a crucial vote on the proposed Emissions Trading Legislation. Fielding and four independent scientists faced the Minister for the Climate Change and Water, Penny Wong, The Chief Scientist, Penny Sackett, and Professor Will Steffan, director of the Climate Change Institute at the Australian National University. Read what happened from someone who was there...excerpt...

...Ocean temperatures have only been measured in any detail or to any depth for five years, by the Argo buoys. And as that article says, “Josh Willis of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory has reported that the Argo system has shown no ocean warming since it started in 2003. “There has been a very slight cooling, but not anything really significant””. The Argo buoys have been recalibrated, and for a while they showed a slight warming trend. The latest result seems to be slight cooling: see the graphs on this Argo site.

The ocean temperature data is sufficient to prove that the IPCC are wrong about the climate (the rise would have to be over a certain amount to confirm the IPCC case)...more here...

An Aussie battler stands up to be counted...

...As a federal senator, I would be derelict in my duty to the Australian people if I did not even consider whether or not the scientific assumptions underpinning this debate were in fact correct. Unlike the Greens, who with alarmist rhetoric and extreme ideology have painted themselves into a corner, I am willing to engage in this debate so that the best outcome for all Australians can be achieved.

...As an engineer, I have been trained to listen to both sides of the debate in order to make an informed decision about any issue. Any scientist worth their salt will tell you that in order to form a conclusive view about any topic, you need to properly explore all available possibilities.
Until recently I, like most Australians, simply accepted without question the notion that global warming was a result of increased carbon emissions. However, after speaking to a cross-section of noted scientists, including Ian Plimer, a professor at the University of Adelaide and author of Heaven and Earth, I quickly began to understand that the science on this issue was by no means conclusive. At the conference I attended on Tuesday hosted by the Heartland Institute, I heard views that challenged the Rudd government’s set of “facts”. Views that could not be dismissed as mere conspiracy theories, but that were derived using proper scientific analysis. The idea that climate change is a result of the variation in solar activity and not related to the increase of CO2 into the atmosphere is not something I can remember ever being discussed in the media. The question of whether global warming is a new phenomenon or something that is just part of the naturally occurring 1500-year climate cycle was never raised in any of the discussions I have had with the Rudd government. Has the government considered these questions, or has it just accepted the one scientific explanation for climate change at face value?

...The "alarmist rhetoric and extreme idelogy" Steve Fielding talks about is a perfect summation of the red greens. I wonder if anyone apart from some of their deluded followers see them as uncomplicated idealists any more ?

Jennifer Marohasy writes that... "...the government, however, is likely to take the (Emissions Trading Scheme) legislation back to the Senate in late September or October and has threatened a double dissolution if it doesn’t get its way. This could mean an election with a focus on the issue of climate change. A few independents hold the balance of power in the Senate and the government has said it is keen to negotiate with them. Just last week one independent Senator, Steve Fielding, indicated that there had so far been no debate on the science of climate change in Australia...more here...

...and, in the UK, socialism takes a hammering...In the English local elections held last Thursday, the Conservatives won around 38% of the vote, the Liberal Democrats 28% and Labour 23%. That was poor enough for the ruling party.But Labour's share of the vote at the European elections has slumped to just 15.3 per cent – worse than that worst any Labour MP had hoped and prayed for. In fact, it was a worse collapse than the Conservatives ever endured, even at their lowest ebb. Across Scotland the SNP secured 29 per cent of the vote to Labour's 21 per cent. They also lost in Wales for the first time since 1918, and the Conservative Party came top in quite a magnificent achievement. Nationally, Gordon Brown has delivered Labour its worst post-war election result as the party was beaten into third place by a very impressive performance by UKIP which gained 17.4 per cent of the vote...more from Cranmer here...