Australia Accused of Manipulating a UN Climate Report

Flag of the United Nations, Public Domain Image

Flag of the United Nations, Public Domain Image

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Australia has been repeated accused over the last few weeks, of successfully lobbying UNESCO to drop mention of the Great Barrier Reef from a climate report. My question – if a relatively minor world player like Australia can manipulate the content of a UNESCO climate report, what does this say about the scientific integrity of other UN bureaucracies, such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change?

Every reference to Australia was scrubbed from the final version of a major UN report on climate change after the Australian government intervened, objecting that the information could harm tourism.

Guardian Australia can reveal the report “World Heritage and Tourism in a Changing Climate”, which Unesco jointly published with the United Nations environment program and the Union of Concerned Scientists on Friday, initially had a key chapter on the Great Barrier Reef, as well as small sections on Kakadu and the Tasmanian forests.

But when the Australian Department of Environment saw a draft of the report, it objected, and every mention of Australia was removed by Unesco. Will Steffen, one of the scientific reviewers of the axed section on the reef, said Australia’s move was reminiscent of “the old Soviet Union”.

No sections about any other country were removed from the report. The removals left Australia as the only inhabited continent on the planet with no mentions.

Read more: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/may/27/australia-scrubbed-from-un-climate-change-report-after-government-intervention

The Guardian provides a link to a chapter which they claim was removed from the final report, thanks to Australia’s political manoeuvring;

Climate change is the primary long-term threat to the integrity and biodiversity of the world’s most extensive coral reef ecosystem. The Great Barrier Reef (GBR) was added to the world heritage list in 1981. It is one of the world’s most complex and diverse ecosystems, with at least 400 species of hard coral, 150 species of soft corals and sea fans, and more than 2,900 individual reefs and some of the most important seagrass meadows in the world – teeming with marine life of all sorts, including more than 1,600 fish species, seabirds, seahorses, whales, dolphins, crocodiles, dugongs and endangered green turtles. The GBR extends for 2,300km along the coast of Queensland in Northeast Australia and has evolved over a period of 15,000 years (Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority 2012, Unesco). The GBR region is important for the indigenous heritage of First Australians – Aboriginal and Torres Straits Islander people – who are the traditional wners. Climate change threatens hunting and fishing as well as other traditional and cultural practices. Some sacred sites are also at risk for the more than 70 traditional owner groups for whom natural resources are inseparable from cultural identity (Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority 2012).

Read more: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/may/27/revealed-the-report-on-the-great-barrier-reef-that-australia-didnt-want-the-world-to-see

Click here to see the official report. I haven’t read the full report, but just glancing through provided some interesting highlights. The Union of Concerned Scientists features in the list of credits. The Great Barrier Reef gets a mention on page 89, in the references, but as far as I can tell it is not mentioned elsewhere, which in my opinion supports the assertion of a hasty removal of censored material from the report.

The following is a statement by the Australian Environment Department, about their contact with UNESCO regarding this report;

The World Heritage Centre initiated contact with the Department of the Environment in early 2016 for our views on aspects of this report.

The department expressed concern that giving the report the title ‘Destinations at risk’ had the potential to cause considerable confusion. In particular, the world heritage committee had only six months earlier decided not to include the Great Barrier Reef on the in-danger list and commended Australia for the Reef 2050 Plan.

The department was concerned that the framing of the report confused two issues – the world heritage status of the sites and risks arising from climate change and tourism. It is the world heritage committee, not its secretariat (the World Heritage Centre), which is properly charged with examining the status of world heritage sites.

Recent experience in Australia had shown that negative commentary about the status of world heritage properties impacted on tourism.

The department indicated it did not support any of Australia’s world heritage properties being included in such a publication for the reasons outlined above.

The Department of the Environment conveyed these concerns through Australia’s ambassador to UNESCO.

The department did not brief the minister on this issue.

Read more: Same as the first link

Regardless of whether you agree with the contents of the report, to me the far more damaging revelation is how easy it is for governments to manipulate UN climate processes – how susceptible the content of allegedly scientific UN Climate reports is to “political” input.

Advertisements

175 thoughts on “Australia Accused of Manipulating a UN Climate Report

  1. They don’t like their own publicity? Why? From what I read in the Austalian press Australia is a drought stricken land, ravaged by wildfires and hot, windy conditions. They strip mine all the minerals and send them to China. It’s too late to see the Great Barrier Reef because it’s almost entirely been bleached but it won’t matter because soon most of the coastal cities will be underwater. The people can only survive there because of the successful gun control laws, abundant wind energy, and economical desalination plants. You are welcome to move there as long as you are a refugee or poor. The kangaroos are doing fine.

      • Andy, I agree with you…that looks to be pert near unsurvivable!
        Oh, well…it is a short row over to Antarctica when things get really out of hand, eh?

      • Climate refugees about to flee Australia by swimming to……..North Africa?

        Image courtesy of IPCC

      • Us Novocastrians are doing it real tough Andy. (/sarc)

        BTW, here is a photo of the same beach taken in 1910 ….. look at that alarming sea level rise!!!!
        (more sarc, just in case)

      • …and don’t get me started on Esperance (south coast Western Australia) where life is really hard:

    • …. and economical desalination plants

      I hope you’re being sarcastic chilemike. Sydney’s $2 BILLION/b> desal plant has not produced a drop of water since it was built. It was officially turned off in 2012 and has been sitting idle ever since costing the NSW tax-payers millions/year just to sit there ….. doing nothing.

      • And don’t forget the desalination plant in SE Queensland, also costing a mint to maintain but not being used because, contrary to our ex-Climate Commissioner’s statement some years ago that our dams would be empty by now. Since then we have had lot’s of lovely rain. I wish Tim Flannery (ex-CC) would tell me I will never win Gold Lotto.

      • Actually Fred, the Brisbane DeSal plant did get used for a couple of weeks.

        This was in the fortnight AFTER the Brisbane floods in 2010, because the usual fresh water treatment plant was flooded.

      • Don’t forget South Australia’s desal plant too in the driest State in the driest continent-
        http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/water-customers-pay-for-mothballed-desalination-plants-costly-green-electricity-deal/story-e6frea83-1226537887265
        The moment Al Gore’s down under understudy Tim Flannery announced the rain was disappearing and what little rain would fall wouldn’t run off and fill our dams down it came like Al Gore’s snow everywhere he goes and we’ve been paying through the nose for our water bills ever since.

        They pour the dullards into universities nowadays to hide the truth from them about what Aussie schoolgirls knew a century ago with their erudite scribblings.
        http://www.dorotheamackellar.com.au/archive/mycountry.htm

      • Secret deal: Australia already has an ETS – carbon tax – starts in 5 weeks
        From http://joannenova.com.au/

        Get ready. The legislation was done on the last day Parliament sat in December. The Coalition government knew it would be popular with the voters who all want “carbon action” so they… buried the news. No cheering. No speeches.

        It apparently starts on July 1, and applies to 150 companies — about half our emissions. It’s a Cap N Trade system with “Caps” that can be screwed gently down as the climate warms to fill government coffers and raise electricity prices. The Direct Action plan auctions can be phased out and the SneakTax phased in. It could end up being the main game. A blank cheque.

        It’s called “Safeguard” — it was safe for politicians and guards them against their failure to meet pointless, symbolic international agreements to slow storms. A Safeguard for politicians but a SneakTax for the people.

        What does it mean? It’s time Australia got a new central political party.

        Alan Kohler in The Australian

        From July 1, coincidentally the day before the election, the Coalition’s “safeguard mechanism” within its Direct Action Plan will come into force.

        One-hundred and fifty companies, representing about 50 per cent of Australia’s total carbon emissions, will be capped by legislation at their highest level of emissions between 2009-10 and 2013-14.

        If they emit less than their caps, they will get credits, called Australian Carbon Credit Units (ACCUs), which were created by the Gillard government’s 2011 legislation; if they emit more, they have to buy ACCUs on the market.

        The caps specifically include the electricity sector and the ACCUs are “financial products” under both the Corporations Act and the ASIC Act, and can be traded, so an ETS market will be established from July 1.

        Kohler claims this Cap N Trade idea has been part of Coalition policy since before the 2013 election. That is a spin doctor story it appears Hunt is providing. Abbott won on a blood oath to get rid of carbon taxes. He wanted to rule out emissions trading. Gore and Palmer forced him to add in a proviso to not rule it out entirely, but to allow a “review” for an ETS. When Direct Action was removed the ETS was sold as a deal that would only happen if and when all the major players signed up. So Hunt and Turnbull said straight after the coup that trading “might” start from mid 2016. Turnbull can say he’s sticking to the Abbott plan, but Hunt can get an ETS thanks to the Palmer clause that Al Gore flew here to get. In other words, this is a GoreTax. (What did he offer Palmer?)

        How did they get the contentious political bomb of a carbon tax through? By keeping it a secret.

        The key has been not talking about the ETS part of the policy and to emphasise the lack of a price on all emissions. He hasn’t exactly kept it secret, since it’s in the legislation, but nor has he talked about it publicly and nor has anyone else.

        Both the Greens and the ALP passed the legislation in December, even though they probably could have blocked it. Why? It’s because they basically agree with it and want to use the mechanism if elected.

        Will it work? That depends on the gradient of the cap reductions when they start. The key is that an ETS has now been legislated in Australia and can be adjusted to fit requirements, either budgetary or political.

        This raises several questions. The Liberal, Labor and Green members all voted for it. So not only did the 53 Turncoats sign it off, but so did the 45 Abbott supporters, and Abbott too. If Kohler is right, we heard nothing from the Nats, nor the Lib Dems, or any independents. Did they not realize what they were signing? Possibly not.

        Christopher Pyne on Q and A last night:

        Audience Question: “Why is the Coalition Government being so quiet about this virtual ETS during this election cycle?”

        Pyne circled the question before admitting he hadn’t read the article by Kohler.

        “Nobody asked me to become familiar with it before the show so I can’t talk about Alan Kohler’s column,” Pyne said.

        “I can tell you with a number of different measures… I believe we will meet our 26-28 percent target without doing what Labor wants to do, which is bring back a job-destroying carbon tax.”

        Where are the protests from the 150 companies who will have to pay?
        Our Enviro Minister Greg Hunt,says it’s not what we think it is.What say you?

      • Don’t you mean Melbournes desal plant? Oh wait – both of them have cost nigh on $2Bn, and have never been switched on.

    • Yes, times are very hard in Austrailia. Here in Norway, I have read, some time ago, that the Great Barrier Reef was 90% “dead”, or would be very soon, Next year it was 75%, so the total is very scary indeed. And without those wonderful desalination plants, they would have been drinking beer made from salt water. Can you imagine that?

    • Chilemike you obviously believe the hysterics of Greenie Alarmists. suggest you buy a ticket and come to Australia to see Australia for yourself. We have to put up with enough BS from WWF, GreenPeace and every other alarmist rent seeking ‘scientist’ BS claim that 97% of the Great Barrier Reef is bleach affected while showing pictures that are of reefs in the Philippines or some cyclone damaged Pacific island. The El Nino has cause some bleaching in the northern most area of the GBR but even now much of those are repair themselves. Bleaching is a natural event. As for our white elephant $100Bs desalination plants all those on the east coast are in mothballs and the biggest, the $30B Wonthaggi desalination plant has never been required to supply any water to date and need never have been built if the planned dam for the Mitchell River was not stopped by the Victorian State government to appease the ‘greenies and secure their votes.

    • Hey,

      I’m from Australia.. our island is NOT sinking !!!

      But send me some money anyway, please.

      • No Andy, you have to be a VICTIM of some damn thing or the other to get the money. So get with the con program.

        “Help! we are sinking here in Orlando!” — see how that is done? Does not matter that Orlando is in the center of the state. Does not matter at all.

        Politics and climate “science” — where truth goes to die. (and in romantic relationships but we all knew that already)

  2. Ok, Mr Worrall, I’ll take a whack at the softball:

    You ask “My question – if a relatively minor world player like Australia can manipulate the content of a UNESCO climate report, what does this say about the scientific integrity of other UN bureaucracies, such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change?”

    Answer: The whole mess has no credibility or foundation. Point of order: Kiribati in the Gilberts is minor-er(?) nation then Australia…

  3. The most delightful part of that report is the image of Will Steffen one of the arch warmista science troughers seething over this political interference with their vision to ruin the Australian Economy.

    • It’s fine imo. These bleaching events happen with El Ninos. I was reading a more unbiased report comparing the bleaching now to the prior 2 bleaching events. Two things I noticed was the most recent hysteria oriented news articles quote a different number related to how much is bleached. They are calling even partial bleaching ‘bleached’ in the alarmist articles when in the earlier bleaching events this was broken out as different numbers. It’s still not known if the current bleaching event is worse than what happened in 98 or not with real numbers. The officials that produce the numbers in Australia are stating that this will take many months of measurements to know. But that’s not getting into the alarmist stories.

      Bottom line, the correct numbers for the current bleaching event are still being studied. 2nd bottom line, it’s been much warmer in the past than now since the end of the last ice age and the reef did fine. As you read these alarmist stories, it’s important to remember (like the rate of sea rise article here) that there is nothing, zilch, nada, in our current warming that shows any signal outside of what’s well within natural variability in the paleo climate record.

      This event is analogous to equating climate with weather. Take a temporary event and treat it as proof of a long term trend and remove the event from any historical context and you have the method of most all alarmist news these days.

      • “Take a temporary event and treat it as proof of a long term trend and remove the event from any historical context and you have the method of most all alarmist news these days.”

        Precisely! A short but very accurate analysis of today’s climate alarmist’s “scaremongering-recipe” !

      • The latest is that 35% of the northern and central sections – area from Townsville north – is dead.
        Pretty bad result for tourism operators and fisherman. Also bad because the northern end was in the best condition, less affected by poor water quality and other effects.
        This is only the third bleaching event in living memory, the first was 1998.
        http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/coral-bleaching-kills-35-of-corals-in-northern-and/7458162
        Another one within the next 20 or so years could be a real blow to such an important system.

      • Redback1,

        A week or so ago I posted a link to a science article that referred to similar coral bleaching events back in the 1800’s.

        I’m going out in a little while, so I don’t have time to look for it. But IMHO it’s nonsense to believe that a 0.7ºC change in temperature over a century is enough to kill off corals. You don’t really believe that, do you? I sure don’t.

      • @Redback1

        So – if your fears are justified: How then did the corals survive the even warmer water temps of the Holocene Optimum from about 8000 to 4000 years ago?
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_climatic_optimum

        (No need to mention, the lots of fossil coral reefs in chalk sediments of the Cretaceous and Jurassic periods, when the water temps and the atmospheric CO2 content were much higher than today…)

    • Biggest threat to the GBR, is stupid human alarmism (SHA), or the crown-of-thorns (CoT) starfish. I bet on the CoT starfish, SHA is a close second.

      • Not sure how much of a threat the crown-of-thorns really is. I was told about the crown-of thorns destroying the reef way back in 1970, only then the “destruction” was announced to be imminent. Oh and it was mankind’s fault because we brought the CoTs in attached to the hulls of ships.

        So I rather think that SHA takes lead. :)

    • It is going to die very soon, and die again the year after, so that the scare story can be resirculated. In some religions, re-birth is a feature, in the climate crises cult, re-death is more important.

      • You’re right – the Great Barrier Reef has been “dying any day now” for 46 years that I personally know of, which is when I first heard of it. I’m sure it’s been longer than that. Alarmist don’t ever let go.

      • Kind of like the constantly starving children in Africa and the 40+ year famines. I do not want to make light of people who actually are suffering, but the never ending crisis claims are hard to take seriously. It is especially hard to believe the constant doom and gloom claims when Africans themselves are pointing out that certain “problems” are not as widespread as advertised, do not exist, or have actually been exacerbated/caused by well meant aid.

        Sounds familiar, does it not?

    • I haven’t personally seen the reef since I’m stuck in Perth on the other side of Oz, so must rely on the witness of others, however I’m not that concerned given the following collection of links and my understanding that while the reefs may be ancient, much like annual plants, the polyps themselves are short lived things which constantly refresh their symbiotes with each generation.

      I also read that warming water is the trigger for coral spawning.

      Coral polyp colonies are transient and evolve rapidly
      :http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0033353

      Polyp symbiosis is vastly more complex and biologically diverse than previously thought and corals are vastly more tolerant to changing water conditions than they ever thought:
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26414414

      Coral polyps, (for a long time believed to have only a single symbiote species) actually have many potential symbiotes to choose from and switch symbiotes to suit current conditions, just as we humans switch gut bacteria to suit the available food (as an aside some sub-saharah people have achieved the impossible and carry gut biota that can digest cellulose):
      http://www.nature.com/ismej/journal/vaop/ncurrent/pdf/ismej201654a.pdf

      • “achieved the impossible and carry gut biota that can digest cellulose” now, if someone will accept the challenge to develop gut biota to digest ‘climate scientists’. THAT would be worth a Nobel Prize!

  4. “relatively minor world player like Australia ”

    Hey, that’s a bit harsh…… steady on there, Eric !!! ;-)

    • Well they say the same thing about Canada, as if we can make any real difference. The new government is trying their darnest though to implement new rules, CO “credits, shutting down coal plants, stopping pipe lines stopping Hydro projects and mining, logging and the list goes on. It is a dangerous time we live in

    • “Hey, that’s a bit harsh”

      Not in my book. I think it is a complement. The biggest “player” on the world stage is the US Empire who has been at war nearly the entirety of its existence. We have killed millions upon millions of innocent men, women and children around the globe. We now even murder via remote control drones. Woot! USA! USA! USA!

      If one has any morality, then he would not mind at all his country being called a “minor player” in the game of politics.

      Disclaimer: most of my family (even a niece) have served in the killing machine. (for generations)

      • Whatever happened to “Kill or be killed”?

        We went to the other side of the planet to kill men, women and children in Vietnam. One uncle rained fire from the skies on peasant farming villages for two tours. That is not “kill or be killed”.

        You will not find any defensive war in our history after the war for independence; unless you call our goading Japan into an attack “defensive”. Other than that, nothing.

      • markstoval May 29, 2016 at 3:48 am wrote:

        “Hey, that’s a bit harsh” [calling Australia a relatively minor world player]

        markstoval: “Not in my book. I think it is a complement. The biggest “player” on the world stage is the US Empire who has been at war nearly the entirety of its existence.”

        There are a lot of bad guys out there that need killing, Mark.

        markstoval: “We have killed millions upon millions of innocent men, women and children around the globe.”

        The U.S. has inadvertently killed a lot of innocent civilians in the course of war, but “millions and millions” is an exaggeration (got any figures?). On the other hand, our enemies deliberately killed tens of millions of innocent men, women and children in their efforts to take over the world. Efforts the good ole United States stopped cold in their tracks. Aren’t you glad? The U.S. didn’t instigate these wars, the U.S. stopped these wars. As a consequence, innocent people are killed, but many more innocent people were saved. There is no way to eliminate the horror of innocents dying from war. You are requiring the impossible of the U.S. Blame the bad guys for starting the war in the first place. No innocents would have been exposed to war, if not for them.

        markstoval: We now even murder via remote control drones. Woot! USA! USA! USA!”

        Well, that is because our pacifist/appeaser leaders are too cowardly to go in with troops and finish off our enemies, so instead, they pick off a guy here and there and claim they are making progress against the enemy. Most of those who are struck deserve what they got.

        markstoval: “If one has any morality, then he would not mind at all his country being called a “minor player” in the game of politics.”

        Australia has been a major player in most of the wars the United States has been involved in. You going to complain about how many innocent people the Australians killed?

        markstoval: “Disclaimer: most of my family (even a niece) have served in the killing machine. (for generations)”

        It’s hard to square that with your obvious distaste for the U.S. military. Or maybe it is just our military leaders you disdain.

        markstoval May 29, 2016 at 10:24 am wrote:

        “Whatever happened to “Kill or be killed”?

        markstoval: We went to the other side of the planet to kill men, women and children in Vietnam.

        That’s where the war was. That’s where the communist Chinese and Russians were trying to take over the entire southeast asia region using North Vietnam as their proxy army. The region would look a whole lot different had the U.S. not nipped that ambition in the bud. EVERY U.S. president supported intervention in Vietnam. Were they all stupid?

        markstoval: One uncle rained fire from the skies on peasant farming villages for two tours. That is not “kill or be killed”.”

        I would have to characterize that as an outright falsehood by someone. If your uncle told you that, he is lying to you. No American aviation unit targeted innocent civilians deliberately, or on a continuing basis, as you state. You are invited to prove me wrong. The enemy had a habit of using innocent civilians as human shields, which accounts for many of the innocent civlians being killed. Americans went out of their way to spare the innocent, as they always do, in war.

        markstoval: “You will not find any defensive war in our history after the war for independence; unless you call our goading Japan into an attack “defensive”. Other than that, nothing.”

        Yeah, poor Japan, so put upon by the U.S.

        I don’t understand the reason for your hatred of the U.S., but I see you have it. I think you are completely off base in your thinking on this subject. The U.S. is the good guy here, not the bad guy. If you can’t see that, then you must live in a terribly scary world, where there are no good guys.

      • TA May 29, 2016 at 11:45 am
        “… The U.S. is the good guy here, not the bad guy. If you can’t see that, then you must live in a terribly scary world, where there are no good guys.

        THANK YOU! Good people like you seem to be so rare, these days.

      • Not all actions taken in war (or peace) are ideal, and some are rather awful. I think that the US’s willingness to admit that fact is a positive point in our favor, particularly when one considers how few societies are willing to do the same.

        As for Vietnam, people have been all too quick to forget the atrocities committed by the Vietcong. I know a lot of people from Southeast Asia (Vietnam, Thailand, Cambodia, and Laos) who were refugees from the Vietcong, Pol Pot, and other despotic governments. Many were tortured, saw their families, friends, and neighbors massacred (NOT by Westerners), and were forced out of their homes. They consider themselves lucky to have escaped with their lives, and are grateful that they were able to find safety in the US. Despite what the media and confirmed apologists claim, Southeast Asia was a hellhole BECAUSE the communists gained ground, and most non-favored citizens suffered under the leftist regimes. There were some bad decisions and abuses by US forces, but nothing compared to the “native” commies.

        America’s sin was stopping funding of the South Vietnamese forces. They were winning, and we left them to fend for themselves against the communist-funded Vietcong. Media and leftist distortion have won the PR war, but that does not change actual facts.

        As for Japan, I am sure that the Bataan death marches and other atrocities were all defensive moves. (Sarcasm!) Even if you want to argue about the hows and whys of America’s entry into the Pacific theater (and if it was justified), you cannot seriously claim that Japan’s actions during the war were acceptable. If you have issues about American forces’ effect on civilians during Vietnam, Japanese abuses ought to induce a heart attack.

        One should always take responsibility for one’s own actions, and not excuse those actions by saying that “So-and-so did worse!”, but if we are talking about moral culpability and responsibility during conflict, all parties’ deeds should be considered. Context matters.

      • I see we have war mongers who see only what they want to see and disregard the rest.

        Recall that the great Major General Smedley Butler, USMC. Told us:

        War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.

        I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we’ll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.

        I wouldn’t go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.

        http://fas.org/man/smedley.htm

        Recall that the general in great movie Dr. Strangelove was based on our own general Curtis Emerson LeMay who may have been the most blood thirsty general in the history of the US. He was certainly no pussy. He claimed that the nuking of Japan was totally unnecessary and was the president’s message to the Russians. LeMay said that! OMG.

        Recall that the US was looking to get into WW2 and was practicing economic warfare on Japan way before Pearl. Many navy men have written books on that. One lived across the street from me when I was growing up in the shadow of a navy air base in central Florida.

        Finally, I understand that many here are just the products of state propaganda and are no better than the poor souls who believe the climate alarmists — when it comes to history. But even the most ignorant of history must realize that when the US Empire starts a war — that guarantees that women and children will be murdered. It also guarantees destruction of civilizations. The middle east was destroyed on purpose. The real question is why?

        The USA has not been invaded since the British. Why then have we been at war on a continual basis?

        Why did we invade the Philippines after they helped us drive out the Spanish? We had promised that they would be independent and we broke our promise to them. We then kill over a million civilians. The president claimed we were there to “Christianize” the people. They were 99 per cent Catholic! The lying bastard.

        Why did we invade Vietnam? We promised during the war that if they helped us beat the Japs then we would recognize them as an independent country. We broke the promise as always.

        Why did we have the CIA kill all those women and Children in South America in the “secret wars”? Were we afraid of invasion by those peasants?

        We could go on, but the blood thirsty who love to see the nation go kill people will never believe that the one who starts it is the one who shoulders the blame. Yes what WE SAID at the Nuremberg Trials should also apply to the US Empire.

        ~ Mark

        PS: Yell and holler all you want — the truth is still in the history books. (not those by the court historians)

      • Mods.

        My reply to the warmongers seems to have disappeared totally. It was not unexpected, but it would be nice if you could get it out of the trash bin. (que obvious jokes)

      • Anyone interested in the truth about the Vietnam war should read: “Stolen Valor: How the Vietnam Generation Was Robbed of its Heroes and its History”

        Mr. Stoval is apparently an anti-war person, most of whom are on the Left, but I don’t know his political affiliation, and it doesn’t matter, because if you are wrong, you are wrong no matter what your politics are.

        Mr. Stoval claimed that the U.S. murdered “millions and millions” of innocent civilians in war.

        Let me quote one of the most prominent anti-war Leftists in history, and one of the chief architects of our eventual defeat in South Vietnam, Senator Edward Kennedy on the Vietnam war, and you will see where Mr. Stoval gets his figures, and you will see that he is wrong about his figures.

        page 109 of the above referenced book:

        “Hanson W. Baldwin, retired military writer for the New York Times, took antiwar activists to task in May 1971, for their inflation of civilian combat deaths in Vietnam. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy”s Senate Subcommittee on Refugees had issued an estimate that up to 1.1 million South Vietnamese civilians had been killed or wounded in the war between 1965 and 1971. Baldwin pointed out that these were extrapolations based on extrapolations; actual statistics of civilian deaths in Vietnam was far lower. From October 1967, when reasonably valid information was available, through 1970, about 20,000 had been killed and another 48,000 to 50,000 wounded. And most of those deaths were attributable to the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese.”

        The fact is the Vietnam war had fewer war crimes charged than any previous American war. The claim that even one American unit was routinely practicing the murder of civilians every time they went out is absurd. The war atrocities that were committed by U.S. troops were promptly reported to their superiors by others in the unit. And if they didn’t report it, the Vietnamese would. Noone could get away with murdering civilians every day. Anyone who believes that has been watching too many Oliver Stone, anti-war, anti-Vietnam war, anti-military, anti-American movies.

        Vietnam veterans who return to Vietnam to visit are treated like royalty by the Vietnamese. They love Americans. Would the Vietnamese love Americans if Americans had been slaughering innocent civilians every day? I don’t think so.

      • “Mr. Stoval claimed that the U.S. murdered “millions and millions” of innocent civilians in war.”

        Well, I see you are unable to read. I claimed millions and millions of innocent civilians murdered in American Wars, not just Vietnam. I also was censored in reply so you don’t know that my Uncle was on the planning staff of the war and I know what happened. No need to read some academic’s book.

        Leftist? Oh boy are you wrong. I am a Rothbardian radical libertarian. I am as anti-war as the “Old Right” of the Republican party that saw defense of our own lands as the only justifiable use of war.

        It is obvious you are a warmonger who does not care a bit about the innocent. You would have been a good aid to Sherman as he brought total warfare to the modern world for the first time.

        May you get what you so richly deserve.

      • AllyKat May 29, 2016 at 11:46 pm wrote: “America’s sin was stopping funding of the South Vietnamese forces. They were winning, and we left them to fend for themselves against the communist-funded Vietcong. Media and leftist distortion have won the PR war, but that does not change actual facts.”

        Thanks for the setup, AllyKat. Here is a pertinent link:

        http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/29/vietnamese-communist-leader-says-us-anti-war-activists-helped-their-victory/

        AllyKat: “As for Japan, I am sure that the Bataan death marches and other atrocities were all defensive moves. (Sarcasm!)”

        Here’s another pertinent link:

        http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2016/05/27/war-crimes-imperial-japan-lesson-moral-equivalence-mr-obama/

      • markstoval May 30, 2016 at 10:20 am wrote:

        TA:”“Mr. Stoval claimed that the U.S. murdered “millions and millions” of innocent civilians in war.”

        Well, I see you are unable to read. I claimed millions and millions of innocent civilians murdered in American Wars, not just Vietnam.”

        You would be wrong about the other wars, too. I believe I recently heard the figure 500,000 as the number of civilians killed in Germany during World War II and approximately the same number in Japan. That totals one million. I’m not sure how many are attibuted to the U.S., but certaily not all of them. “Millions and Millions”?

        markstoval: “I also was censored in reply”

        I was sorry to hear that. I was looking forward to reading your reply. It must have been one heck of a rant to get you censored.

        markstoval: “so you don’t know that my Uncle was on the planning staff of the war and I know what happened. No need to read some academic’s book.”

        Having an uncle on the planning staff doesn’t guarantee you understand the war, and you *don’t* understand the war. I can tell by the way you talk about it. Having an uncle on the staff didn’t do you any good. BTW, I spent two tours in Vietnam: 1968 and 1969.

        markstoval: Leftist? Oh boy are you wrong. I am a Rothbardian radical libertarian.

        Well, I said I wasn’t sure. I’ve seen anti-war types of all political persuasions, but most of them are on the radical left. Same mindset though.

        markstoval: “I am as anti-war as the “Old Right” of the Republican party that saw defense of our own lands as the only justifiable use of war.”

        Yeah, that’t the way I look at it, too. Fighting in South Vietnam was defending my land from communist aggression, IMO.

        markstoval: “It is obvious you are a warmonger who does not care a bit about the innocent.”

        Obvious to you, I guess. I actually prefer peace instead of war, but being realistic, I know that is not possible. There are bullies out in the world who will kill us if we don’t do something about it first. Your alternative opposing them is?

        markstoval: “You would have been a good aid to Sherman as he brought total warfare to the modern world for the first time.”

        Getting a little carried away, arent’ you?

        markstoval: “May you get what you so richly deserve.”

        That’s what I’m hoping.

      • I tried this once and it didn’t go. I’ll try again with a little modification.

        markstoval May 30, 2016 at 10:20 am wrote:

        TA:”“Mr. Stoval claimed that the U.S. murdered “millions and millions” of innocent civilians in war.”

        markstoval: “Well, I see you are unable to read. I claimed millions and millions of innocent civilians murdered in American Wars, not just Vietnam.”

        You would be wrong about the other wars, too. I believe I recently heard the figure 500,000 as the number of civilians killed in Germany during World War II and approximately the same number in Japan. That totals one million. Not all of them were killed by the U.S. “Millions and Millions”?

        markstoval: “I also was cnsored in reply”

        I was sorry to hear that. I was looking forward to it. It must have been one heck of a rant.

        markstoval: “so you don’t know that my Uncle was on the planning staff of the war and I know what happened. No need to read some academic’s book.”

        Having an uncle on the planning staff doesn’t guarantee you understand the war, and you *don’t* understand the war. I can tell by the way you talk about it. Having an uncle on the staff didn’t do you any good. You should read the book. BTW, I served two tours in Vietnam: 1968 and 1969.

        markstoval: Leftist? Oh boy are you wrong. I am a Rothbardian radical libertarian.

        Well, I said I wasn’t sure. I’ve seen anti-war types of all political persuasions, but most of them are on the radical left. Same mindset though.

        markstoval: “I am as anti-war as the “Old Right” of the Republican party that saw defense of our own lands as the only justifiable use of war.”

        Yeah, that’t the way I look at it, too. Fighting in South Vietnam was defending my land from communist aggression, IMO.

        markstoval: “It is obvious you are a w@rmonger who does not care a bit about the innocent.”

        Obvious to you, I guess. I actually prefer peace instead of war, but being realistic, I know that is not possible. There are bullies out in the world who will kill us if we don’t do something about it first. Your alternative to opposing them is?

        markstoval: “You would have been a good aid to Sherman as he brought total warfare to the modern world for the first time.”

        Getting a little carried away, arent’ you?

        markstoval: “May you get what you so richly deserve.”

        That’s what I’m hoping.

      • @markstoval
        Poor boy your memory must be failing you, you left out how American aggression provoked
        Pol Pot and his loony commo mate wiped out 3 million fellow countrymen and women and children or caused the Amenian genocide or the Hutu Tutsi get together or the Japanese invasion of China and SE Asia which killed 10’s of millions. You also left out the advances in medicine and agriculture which has saved 100’s of millions. If you hate the United States so much why don’t you bigger off to to some socialist paradise like China, North Korea , Cuba or Venezuela IF they would have you.

      • Now the H*tler Defense

        We have some twit who claims the USA is just wonderful because Pol Pot killed so many of his own people.

        Woot! That means the USA can murder millions around the world and it don’t count!. Guy’s argument is as dumb as those of climate “scientists”. Anytime someone tries to defend their actions or those of their country by saying they are not as bad as the WW2 Germans are admitting they are defending evil.

        America Has Been At War 93% of the Time – 222 Out of 239 Years – Since 1776
        http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/02/america-war-93-time-222-239-years-since-1776.html

        Look at the list. Know that millions died from both fighting directly and from the destruction of civilizations. Just the genocide against the native Americans is every bit as bad as the Pol Pot defense.

        As an aside to the warmongers here (a majority looks like), it was Winston Churchill himself who pointed out that WW1 had settled into a stalemate and would have been over soon if it were not for the USA coming in late in the game. Without the horrific mistakes of the WW1 “peace” treaty, Germany would not have tried to re-take their land which led to WW2 and all the evil from that war. Without WW2, ….

        America a “force for peace in the world”??? Are you people delusional or just ignorant of history?

        (note: it will be interesting to see if this one also goes to the trash bin)

  5. From what I can understand, the GBR is subject to occasional bleaching. From the GBRMPA site:

    “The Great Barrier Reef has experienced mass coral bleaching events in the past.
    In 1998, there was a global mass bleaching event where 50 per cent of the reefs on the Great Barrier Reef suffered bleaching. During this time, sea temperatures on the Great Barrier Reef were the highest ever recorded.
    Mass bleaching also occurred in 2002, with 60 per cent of reefs were affected. This was the largest coral bleaching event on record. Two periods of hot weather resulted in sea surface temperatures a few degrees centigrade higher than long-term summer maxima.
    In both events, about five per cent of the Great Barrier Reef’s coral reefs were severely damaged.”

    The GBR corals are cool and medium warm corals, and thus are subject to bleaching with lengthy periods of warm water – the warm waters occur when persistent easterly winds keep warm water in the area where it can heat up under the sun’s influence. When westerly winds blow, the sun-warmed waters are driven out into the Coral Sea, replaced by comparatively cool waters upwelled from the depths.

    From it appears that in the last 15 000 years the sea level has risen about 116 metres (the 15 000 year period is referred to in the allegedly removed shapter quoted above) so obviously the coral reef has kept pace with the sea as it rose – else the reef would be 116 metres down and invisible. So another 300 (or thereabouts) mm rise in the next 100 years will not upset the corals.

    These bleaching episodes, if prolonged, and if frequent enough, will kill off the most heat sensitive corals, and presumably allow the less sensitive corals to take over. If 50% of the reef suffered bleaching in 1998, and 60% in 2002, and some suffered in 2006, there must have been substantial recovery between each episode. Even the present supposed 93% bleaching will probably be unnoticed in a few years (IMHO). Probably the bigger problem is the Crown of Thorns starfish which likes eating coral, and reproduces wonderfully.

    So, J Philip Peterson, you may take comfort, or not, as the case may be.

    • According to sea level research done on-shore near the reefs, looking at old shorelines, sea level has in recent millennia been up and down like a whore’s drawers and the idea that it has crept up slowly for 15,000 years is nonsense. The relevant papers, published decades ago, are by Prof Fairbridge who found E Australian shorelines change far more frequently than has been assumed in the UNESCO report.

      Similar work on shorelines in E Ireland shows the same variability. These supposed threats to the reefs are baseless.

    • A good analogy for coral bleaching events is the occasional cold snap or drought on land that kills or sets back regionally adapted plants and animals for a short time. As the weather (or local sea temperatures) resets back toward the climatic norm, plants, animals, coral, fish or beach bums reclaim their previous ecosystem. Sorry, once again no catastrophe.

    • Dudley Horscroft May 28, 2016 at 8:49 pm
      UNESCO assertion that GBR formed over the last 15,000 years is unusually precise but I think this could be just a guess in that sea level began to rise rapidly as you point out: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d/Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png
      I understood that GBR in its current form is only 8000 years old which is when sea level ‘topped out’ at it’s current level. So if one wanted to go back in time 15,000 years and dive at GBR you would need to do it from an airplane! That would be novel.

  6. So tourism trumps saving the world in Australia. Or is this just the beginning of the saviors realizing it will begin cooling and they want to get off the merry-go-round before it crashes? At some point even the staunchest of AGW pushers have to realize they’ve been duped.

  7. Coral reefs … blah, blah, blah … coral bleaching … blah, blah, blah … global warming … blah, blah, blah … send money now.

  8. Wouldn’t it be fun if ALL the countries in the report insisted on being taken out for the same reason Australia was let off the hook. Why should Austrailia profit at the expense of everyone else? This is the fundamental flaw in CAGW politics – if only one player refuses to go along, it all falls apart. Just basic game theory.

  9. Great Barrier Reef coral bleaching at 95 per cent according to the national broadcaster ABC so it is not worth visiting anymore. Been to plenty of places in Indonesia that are cheaper and strangely global warming has not reached there yet. Have seen bleaching there – but only in small areas in quite shallow water. It was caused by unusually low tides. Good luck working that out given the accelerating rises in sea level.

  10. Don’t you just love it when hard science is flexible in times of need? I suppose if scientists were not corruptible it would be very difficult for them to live the good life we all seek. I worked in computer security for 30 years – compromising my responsibilities for gain was never an option or consideration. I guess I should have majored in climate fraud and worked for a comfy university or government agency.

    • DP, you just didn’t work for the right clients. (see Clinton, Hillary)
      But of course she said there were Secret Service agents just outside guarding her server, so it MUST have been secure.

    • Shaving is much easier when one can look in the mirror and a good night’s sleep… priceless! GK

  11. From the UNESCO Report:
    “… Coral reefs have persisted in tropical marine environments for several hundred million years and for at least the last 420 000 years have been able to adapt at the relatively slow rate of environmental change.
    Temperature change in the last 140 years, however, has been much greater and corals’ ability to adapt is highly likely to continue to be outstripped by the rate of climate change in the coming decades (Hoegh- Guldberg 2012) …”.
    In other words according to Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg (Director of the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland) the planet has never before experienced a temperature rise of ~0.8C in 150 years (!).
    Veteran GBR observer Dr Walter Starck:

    • I’d love to openly debate this fool on corals and their environment.

      It is dishonest to say Corals cannot adapt to small changes over years, I changed reef tanks people had at lower temperatures since they set them up, some had them at 74f and we brought the temp to 85f over the course of a week incrementally. Reef responded well.

      • that should be 83f not 85 duh, and it’s a range, a good reef setup has a range, like real corals experience. 79f to 83f is a good range

      • The reef is only being dug up and destroyed by Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg as he tries to bury the one piece of real science he was part of. ENCORE was excellent science unfortunately for Ove it closed down the nutrient gravy train and he had to switch to climate change to fund the lifestyle he enjoys. Now ,unfortunately for Ove, real scientists the likes of Steve McIntyre, Anthony Watts, etc are threatening his climate change trough. Shut that down and it’s back to snorkel instructor for Ove. In my opinion, he has little of value to contribute to this world.
        On coral bleaching, nothing new, we watched the inshore reefs bleach in the 1960s, recovered to be designated as pristine by the end of the 70s.
        Australia has a small problem, our snowfield socialist lifestyle has exhausted the family silver and we are currently digging up the back-yard and flogging it. This is the environmental disaster heading our way. Poverty. Hopefully Willis can boost the economy by delivering ‘ICE’ here and kick-starting tattoo tourism and bikie retirement developments.

      • Mark I agree with you. I have kept many different fish tanks both fresh and salt water. The knowledge I have gained from managing these various tanks has kept me from being sucked in to the AGW garbage. The transition from a green water, algae infested tank to a vibrant colorful explosion of life with just the addition of a little CO2 is a joy to behold.

      • Reef responded well.
        ====
        Mark, you can put them in a bag and ship them to the other side of the planet

      • ‘Climate change is the primary long-term threat to the integrity and biodiversity of the world’s most extensive coral reef ecosystem’
        Could it be there’s now many more observers and a greater interest in reporting? What about Crown of Thorns Starfish infestations? Farmer’s nitrogen fertilizer runoff?

  12. Very good point Eric, and we know it is evidence of what we already suspected. It’s all political.

  13. THE UN IS A WASTE OF SPACE

    Can anyone get the UN to do anything that it is supposed to do – like actually replying to you?

    EXAMPLE –

    The UN convention on the rights of the child

    The British government has been found to have violated the UN convention on rights of the child:
    Download the judgement
    https://www.supremecourt.uk/decided-cases/docs/UKSC_2014_0079_Judgment.pdf

    A simple request about where to send a petition about this to the UN went unanswered.

    Try it yourself : petitions@ohchr.org

    Over the years, other simple requests to the UN were all ignored; these included information on environment-related grants, climate-related grants for development and scientific research, etc.

    The UN is the most useless bureaucracy on the planet and it could completely disappear without most of its inhabitants noticing.

    • The UN is the most useless bureaucracy on the planet and it could completely disappear without most of its inhabitants noticing.
      Somebody please make it so!

    • Sasha commented: “…The UN is the most useless bureaucracy on the planet and it could completely disappear without most of its inhabitants noticing….”

      Actually if the money given to the UN were dispersed by the donor countries directly many countries would immediately notice the difference. The UN is a blatant political bureaucracy masquerading as a charitable organization. The countries of the world would be better off utilizing GoFundMe for help.

      • I used to think that UNICEF was the one bright spot of the UN. Then I found out that only 50 cents of every donated dollar (if that) actually goes towards direct aid. It is just as crooked as the rest of the organization. Drips and drabs of good emerge, but I think they may be more accidental than intentional.

        I am surprised that the disappearing reef claims would have a negative effect on tourism. I would think that people would be scrambling to see the reef while it was still around. My dark side does feel a bit of schadenfreude that their alarmism is backfiring on the green Chicken Littles, but my better nature feels bad for the innocent people who rely on the reef for their income. Ambivalence at its finest.

  14. What is it about these loons and turning maps upside down

    Reconstructions, contaminated lake sediments, and ice :D

  15. No surprises here just the truth. where warmist are concerned it’s always about the art of the hoax deal = money ,power and control.
    The world needs a savior to protect it from the green machine and trump the parasitical AGW pushers.

  16. Investigations of the sea level on the Eastern Seaboard of Australia show that sea level has been much higher than it is now, indicating a much warmer world, and lower, leaning a much colder one.

    One expects therefore that during ice ages the whole GRB lies exposed above the waterline and the creatures retreat to the shallows.

    The idea that a warmer world is going to erase the GRB or its inhabitants is belied by its current state and the fact that as recently as a few thousand years ago it was much warmer than it is now.

    That a UNESCO product can have substantial deletions from ir doesn’t surprise me in the least. The objection are legitimate and UNESCO is beholden to its sponsors. It I not an independent academic publication. Therefore one expects political nuance. BTW, wholesale deletion is a new synonym for ‘nuance’.

    • I can’t recall where but somewhere in Australia there are fossilised remains of a coral reef millions of years old several tens of meters above sea level. Even Tim Flannery knows about it.

    • Not everyone is alarmist. Some people can still be rational, even if they do believe the global warming story.
      http://www.the-great-barrier-reef-experience.com/great-barrier-reef-history.html
      […] The final rise in sea level, around 6000 – 8000 years ago, flooded the continental shelf again […] The Great Barrier Reef, as we see it today, started at this time. New coral reefs began building themselves on top of previous reef systems that had appeared every time the sea levels rose after a receding ice age.
      […]
      The Great Barrier Reef history is indeed a long one, but the development of the Reef is an ongoing cycle.
      As global warming now threatens to raise sea levels, new opportunities for coral growth are bound to present themselves over the decades and centuries that lay ahead.

      • ” Some people can still be rational, even if they do believe the global warming story.”
        ———————–
        Got an example? Just one?

      • Rationalizing can leave one rational within the confines of a concept or theory. It can be exclusive and can lead to cognitive dissonance, denial, self delusion.

      • A thought process that is not bound to the subject or any subject is better, which is why philosophy and logic are better, the subject matter, concept or theory, even history, are irrelevant. They are tool sets to be applied to any idea.

      • Alan Robertson – the quote in my comment above is an example of someone still being rational, even if they do believe the global warming story: “As global warming now threatens to raise sea levels, new opportunities for coral growth are bound to present themselves over the decades and centuries that lay ahead.“. But perhaps the highest-profile rational person believing in AGW is Bjorn Lomborg.

        It’s not good that so many believe in AGW, but if they are rational then at least they can change their minds if you discuss it with them.

  17. if a relatively minor world player like Australia can manipulate the content of a UNESCO climate report, what does this say about the scientific integrity of other UN bureaucracies, such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change?

    Scientific integrity in the UN? You owe me a new keyboard for spilling my tea over that one. The UN bureaucracies have NO scientific value of any worth. Political who@es looking for a free buck!

  18. The UN report covers many other countries too. There is a section on neolithic monuments in Britain, the most famous of which is Stonehenge. It discusses how Stonehenge might be endangered by climate change. Since Stonehenge is the best part of 5,000 years old it obviously would not be here today if the climate had started to change before the 20th century!

  19. The real question is not that the Australian goivernment objected to some of the draft report’s content, we may never know what the particular objections were, rather why UNESCO then ‘removed all refeference to Australia’.

    There is just a little bit more to Australia than the Great Barrier Reef so why remove ALL reference? Did that include references to more positive aspects such as the greening of the continent or the increased use of gas compared to coal ?

    It seems to me like UNSECO petulence contrived to give the likes of alarmist careerists like Will Steffen and co a segue to enter into the fray smack in the middle of a fairly close run Federal election campaign.

  20. United Nations and United Nations climate panel IPCC have an enormous influence on governments. IPCC states that it does not perform any research – and that might be right. However, by selecting, assessing, interpreting and summarizing scientific work – IPCC do science. No matter what they say, or whether the method is proper or not.

    Producing a consensus opinion is not a scientific method – neither is producing low, medium and high level of confidence. Nobody has been able to quantify a relationship between consensus or confidence and the probability that a hypothesis or theoretical system is true – or even accurate. The strive for consensus is a political method – not a scientific method. In the guise of science, IPCC follows a political method.

    Besides the scientific problem with their choice of method – another problem is that the United Nations should have been concerned about human rights, which states:
    Article 21. (3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

    United Nations has not been serving me the right to express my will. There has been no election of the people in charge of this enormous bureaucracy. In my opinion United Nations has become defective by noble causes. My will would be to deconstruct this enormously expensive bureaucracy.

    • ‘However, by selecting, assessing, interpreting and summarizing scientific work – IPCC do science.’

      No. They do politics.

      • Exactly. If they were doing science there would be no need for political editing of their reports. And that is what they do. Every single syllable is perused and discussed and if the politicos think it necessary, edited, before an IPCC report is released.

      • to ‘do’ science involves attempting to find fault – to attempt to falsify hypothesis .. the IPCC clearly do not do this.

      • I think it depends somewhat on how it is done. The way IPCC does it – it is at best heavily influenced by politics. This is not a scientific process:

        And the Principles governing IPCC are not scientific:
        – United Nations enforced a mission on IPCC §1
        – United Nations let IPCC operate by the unscientifically principle to strive for consensus §10
        – United Nations let IPCC establish an organization structure and approval process which by its nature was bound to diminish dissenting views. §11

        United Nations demonstrated gross negligence by creating a biased organisation, a political organisation which by its principles must have been unable to provide balanced and pure scientific statements.

      • ‘United Nations demonstrated gross negligence by creating a biased organisation, a political organisation which by its principles must have been unable to provide balanced and pure scientific statements.’

        “Gross negligence?” Do you have evidence that they didn’t do exactly what they were trying to do? I’m confident they did.

    • I think the most damning part is this: “selecting…scientific work”. That right there implies that there is data being excluded.

  21. “Australia has been repeated accused over the last few weeks, ”

    Eric, should that be “REPEATEDLY” ??

  22. whining will steffen
    and that Pratt ove hugh goldberg
    theyre the two most pathetic and abc favoured dweebs since flimflam got outed from govvy position

    the reefs most at risk from SEWAGE outfalls from Brisbane n Sydneys poop plants then the Farm runoff OR any elnino warming

    the dugongs n turtles are at risk from tourist boats and aboriginals hunting them for food still
    theyre “special” theyre allowed to kill “endangered species”
    mere mortals can get fined for even picking a turtle up to move it OFF the road to save its life elsewhere
    hmm
    windmills n aborigines have something in common

      • mikerestin:
        “and what was that usefulness that it had and then outlived?

        Raising bureaucratic theft and corruption to an art-form to the point of embarrassing international crime syndicates? No more warehouse room in N.Y. to store their parking tickets?

        Okay. I give up, mike.

  23. We Australia suffer much much from climatey change. Reef go white – like country after aboriginal all killed when boat arrived. No left for welfare payment. Need refugee fill gap. Labor save us. Green save us. LGBTI is future. No more have children. Dress up as woman. Reef can be save. #1 priority for Australia.

  24. I would have thought it obvious why the Australian part got pulled.
    Think about it this way.
    Australia is surrounded by sharks, coral snakes and salt water crocodiles.
    Inland are the deadliest snakes,spiders and other nasties known to man.
    Just about everything in the country is out to kill you.
    In this place that would have the devil himself looking over his shoulder, are some of the friendliest people in the world.
    The thing in the back of the UN bureaucrats minds though, is ,are the Australians as harmless as they look, or are they really Terminator level killing machines that have evolved to deal with their environment?
    And do you really want to find out what happens when they stop being friendly?

    • I love this! +1000

      You are right, too, I’m living with 4 species of deadly snakes in my garden that I have so far identified: Brown snakes, red-bellied black snakes, copperheads and tiger snakes, all very active, all very lethal. I’d still pick living here in the country over any city anywhere in the world. And yes, I’m friendly. Mostly. :)

    • Felf old chap,
      This debate always reminds me of the Terry Pratchett fantasy ‘The Last Continent’ and the scene when the wizards enter the library of Unseen University and command it to give them books on the dangerous animals of ‘Four Ecks’ – the Last Continent (which certainly looks and sounds like Australia!).

      Being a magic library, it complies, and they are buried under books; one is examined – it is ‘The Dangerous Animals, and Plants, of Four Ecks’ – Volume XXXII, Part 4.
      They then ask for details of the non-dangerous animals of Four Ecks.
      A single sheet of paper floats slowly down to them.
      They read – ‘The Sheep. PTO.’
      On turning over, the reverse reads, ‘Some of them’.

      Read Pratchett for fun. He was hugely inventive, and not at all politically correct.

      Auto

    • We have harmless snakes as well. The dangerous ones know they are dangerous they don’t run away they just sit and say “come on then have a go” at which point a sensible person backs off.

  25. Eric,

    I think that you want to change “repeated” in the first sentence to “repeatedly.”

  26. There’s no freedom of speech in Australia, and it is a criminal offence to publish any leaked government document, no matter how trivial.

    Governments are becoming more and more used to making sure information that doesn’t fir their political narrative doesn’t get out into the public.

    Doctors have broken the law and made themselves liable for 2 years imprisonment for taking about the sexual abuse of children they have treated from our asylum seeker’s detention centres.

    The press is currently being pursued for reporting on some facts about price blowouts in the national broadband roll out.

    The collection of social and industry statistics was defended in 2014 for 13 projects of the ABS, the CSIRO has had climate monitoring and modelling defunded in 2016.

    Controlling inconvenient information is a proxy for doing a adequate job, so this removal of all Australian effects in a climate report must surely have been expected.

    I don’t suspect that it would have affected tourism as much as the actuality of the damage to the GBR.

    • Seth May 29, 2016 at 6:34 am wrote: “There’s no freedom of speech in Australia, and it is a criminal offence to publish any leaked government document, no matter how trivial.”

      I see that as a real danger to your freedom. The same for England and the other nations that restrict free speech. Now, you are at the whim of those in power. You guys need to change that.

      In the meantime, we Americans will speak freely for you, if there is something you can’t say in your home country. Not being able to speak freely would be tyranny to me.

    • Misleading, frightening, manipulating and using children for political gain. Why am I not surprised? Disgusted, yes, but not surprised.

  27. “…with at least 400 species of hard coral, 150 species of soft corals and sea fans, and more than 2,900 individual reefs and some of the most important seagrass meadows in the world – teeming with marine life of all sorts, including more than 1,600 fish species, seabirds, seahorses, whales, dolphins, crocodiles, dugongs and endangered green turtles….”

    This tells an intelligent person all he/she needs to know about the continued survival of the GBR. biological diversity is its strength for survival. The terrible state of world science is evident when a geologist and engineer like myself has a better grasp of the survivability of the GBR than do biological ‘experts’. Surely the ‘experts’ know that the earth was much hotter 7-8000yrs ago than it is now. They can even read Wiki on the reef to learn that:

    “..The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA) considers the earliest evidence of complete reef structures to have been 600,000 years ago..”

    Gee, are they saying the rise from the cold LIA to the present which is still well within the historical temperature variations of the past 600,000yrs is a danger to the reef.

    Compare this to UNESCO’s (above)

    “..and has evolved over a period of 15,000 years (Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority 2012, Unesco).”

    It’s amazing to comtemplate that real estate developer Donald Trump is probably going to take this whole house of cards down in one fell swoop.

    • I just want to know why it is that “Darwinism” is true when trying to cudgel a religious person (regardless of their opinion about evolution), but ceases to be a factor when AGW is “in” the picture. Survival of the fittest suddenly does not apply, evolution cannot happen “fast enough”, and all change is bad. Nature’s default position is static. Change only occurs because of man, whose original sin is existence.

      I want certain animals and plants to survive, I think people should be more mindful of their effect on the environment and their fellow man, but I am not so foolish to think that change is not inevitable. Anyone who claims that the world has radically changed since its formation in one breath, and in the next breath claims that all change over the last 150-200 years is unnatural, needs to take a course in logic. Reason and consistency are your friend.

  28. Good for Australia, bad for UNESCO. If they went along with Australia they did the right thing for once because man-made climate change does not exist. And if they did go along with Australia it is a cinch to conclude that they have gone along with bigger players in the past who as a rule advocate global warming. We were told by Hansen in 1988 that the greenhouse effect has been detected. In his own words, “…global warming is now large enough that we can ascribe with a high degree of confidence a cause and effect relationship to the greenhouse effect.” But elsewhere he considers regional observations of warming and the best that he can say about it is that “…In all of these cases, the data is just beginning to emerge.” Hence, we can paraphrase him as: “…If it is warm it must be greenhouse warming but data to prove this has yet to emerge.” This is not science but IPCC and others insist that Hansen proved the existence of the greenhouse effect. They have spread it around and the greenhouse effect is now uncritically and falsely taken for granted. The following example proves the falsity of this assumption. It depends upon the experimental observation of NOAA global warming curve. The curve shows the existence of a thirty year warming period that extends from 1910 to 1940. The extended Keeling curve shows that there was no corresponding increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide during this period that would be required if this was greenhouse warming. In addition, this warming is followed by a severe cold spell that inaugurated World War II. It is impossible to reverse greenhouse warming without removing every absorbing carbon dioxide molecule from the air. The fact that this thirty year warming was followed by cooling proves that it could not possibly be greenhouse warming.That takes care of a third of a century. There is no particular reason to think that the rest of the century is any different, hence the twentieth century warming is simply not anthropogenic global warming as we are drilled to believe. That being the case, the Great Barrier Reef is now simply on its own, likely to do its thing as it always has done without imaginary input from AGW.

    • It does not matter. Australia will introduce a cap and trade ETS, July 1st, one day before the Federal election, all passed in to law in secret during the last sitting of Parliament in December 2015.

  29. I live by the sea, and this morning I measured a 1.5M rise in the sea level. If this continues for the next week or so the entire East coast of Australia will be under water.

  30. hot off the press
    Bleaching kills third of coral in Great Barrier Reef’s north


    Dead and dying staghorn coral on the central Great Barrier Reef At least 35 percent of corals in the northern and central regions of Australia’s Great Barrier Reef are dead or dying from a mass bleaching event, scientists said on May 30, 2016. The assessment was made after months of aerial and underwater surveys after the worst bleaching in recorded history first became evident in March as sea temperatures warm.
    http://phys.org/news/2016-05-coral-great-barrier-reef-north.html

    • With each successive El Nino spiking reef water temperatures higher, over the bleaching threshhold…it doesn’t augur well.

  31. I tried this once (now twice) and it didn’t go. I’ll try again with a little modification.

    ms May 30, 2016 at 10:20 am wrote:

    TA:”“Mr. S claimed that the U.S. murdered “millions and millions” of innocent civilians in war.”

    ms: Well, I see you are unable to read. I claimed millions and millions of innocent civilians murdered in American Wars, not just Vietnam.”

    You would be wrong about the other wars, too. I believe I recently heard (it being Memorial Day) the figure 500,000 as the number of civilians killed in Germany during World War II and approximately the same number in Japan. That totals one million. Not all of them were killed by the U.S. “Millions and Millions”? And Germany and Japan brought that destruction upon themselves.

    ms: “I also was cnsored in reply”

    I was sorry to hear that. I was looking forward to your reply. It must have been one heck of a rant.

    ms: “so you don’t know that my Uncle was on the planning staff of the war and I know what happened. No need to read some academic’s book.”

    Having an uncle on the planning staff doesn’t guarantee you understand the war, and you *don’t* understand the war. I can tell by the way you talk about it. Having an uncle on the staff didn’t do you any good. You should read the book. BTW, I served two tours in Vietnam: 1968 and 1969.

    ms: Leftist? Oh boy are you wrong. I am a Rothbardian radical libertarian.

    Well, I said I wasn’t sure. I’ve seen anti-war types of all political persuasions, but most of them are on the radical left. Same mindset though.

    ms: “I am as anti-war as the “Old Right” of the Republican party that saw defense of our own lands as the only justifiable use of war.”

    Yeah, that’t the way I look at it, too. Fighting in South Vietnam was defending my land from communist aggression, IMO.

    ms: “It is obvious you are a wrmonger who does not care a bit about the innocent.”

    Obvious to you, I guess. I actually prefer peace instead of war, but being realistic, I know that is not possible. There are bullies out in the world who will kill us if we don’t do something about it first. Your alternative to opposing them is?

    ms: “You would have been a good aid to Sherman as he brought total warfare to the modern world for the first time.”

    Getting a little carried away, arent’ you?

    ms: “May you get what you so richly deserve.”

    That’s what I’m hoping.

  32. ‘the scientific integrity of other UN bureaucracies, such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change?’

    best summed up by the IPCC themselves , we do not do science . therefore than can have no scientific integrity which given they show themselves to have no integrity at all comes has no surprise.

  33. mark s May 30, 2016 at 10:20 am wrote:

    TA:”“Mr. $toval claimed that the U.S. murdered “millions and millions” of innocent civilians in war.”

    ms: Well, I see you are unable to read. I claimed millions and millions of innocent civilians murdered in American Wars, not just Vietnam.”

    You would be wrong about the other wars, too. I believe I recently heard (in a Memorial Day discussion) the figure 500,000 as the number of civilians killed in Germany during World War II, and approximately the same number in Japan. That totals one million. Not all of them were killed by the U.S. So where are your “Millions and Millions”?

  34. ms also wrote:

    ms: “I also was cnsored in reply”

    I was sorry to hear that. I was looking forward to it. It must have been one heck of a rant. I posted this message three times and it never showed up. so I’m posting it in parts to see if that gets around the problem.

    ms: “so you don’t know that my Uncle was on the planning staff of the war and I know what happened. No need to read some academic’s book.”

    Having an uncle on the planning staff doesn’t guarantee you understand the war, and you *don’t* understand the war. I can tell by the way you talk about it. Having an uncle on the staff didn’t do you any good. You should read the book. BTW, I served two tours in Vietnam: 1968 and 1969. I don’t need a book, except to quote from.

    ms: Leftist? Oh boy are you wrong. I am a Rothbardian radical libertarian.

    Well, I said I wasn’t sure. I’ve seen anti-war types of all political persuasions, but most of them are on the radical left. Same mindset though.

    ms: “I am as anti-war as the “Old Right” of the Republican party that saw defense of our own lands as the only justifiable use of war.”

    Yeah, that’t the way I look at it, too. Fighting in South Vietnam was defending my land from communist aggression, IMO.

    ms: “It is obvious you are a w@rm0nger who does not care a bit about the innocent.”

    Obvious to you, I guess. I actually prefer peace instead of war, but being realistic, I know that is not possible. There are bullies out in the world who will kill us if we don’t do something about it first. Your alternative to opposing them is?

    ms: “You would have been a good aid to Sherman as he brought total warfare to the modern world for the first time.”

    Getting a little carried away, arent’ you?

    ms: “May you get what you so richly deserve.”

    That’s what I’m hoping.

  35. ms also wrote:

    s: “I also was [prevented from replying] in reply”

    I was sorry to hear that. I was looking forward to it. It must have been one heck of a rant. I’m having a rather hard time getting this entire post posted myself for some reason. Been trying for two days.

    ms: “so you don’t know that my Uncle was on the planning staff of the war and I know what happened. No need to read some academic’s book.”

    Having an uncle on the planning staff doesn’t guarantee you understand the war, and you *don’t* understand the war. I can tell by the way you talk about it. Having an uncle on the staff didn’t do you any good. You should read the book. BTW, I served two tours in Vietnam: 1968 and 1969.

  36. ms also wrote:

    ms: “I also was [prevented from replying]

    I was sorry to hear that. I was looking forward to it. It must have been one heck of a rant.

    ms: “so you don’t know that my Uncle was on the planning staff of the war and I know what happened. No need to read some academic’s book.”

    Having an uncle on the planning staff doesn’t guarantee you understand the war, and you *don’t* understand the war. I can tell by the way you talk about it. Having an uncle on the staff didn’t do you any good. You should read the book. BTW, I served two tours in Vietnam: 1968 and 1969.

  37. more from ms:

    ms: Leftist? Oh boy are you wrong. I am a Rothbardian radical libertarian.

    Well, I said I wasn’t sure. I’ve seen anti-war types of all political persuasions, but most of them are on the radical left. Same mindset though.

    ms: “I am as anti-war as the “Old Right” of the Republican party that saw defense of our own lands as the only justifiable use of war.”

    Yeah, that’t the way I look at it, too. Fighting in South Vietnam was defending my land from communist aggression, IMO.

    ms: “It is obvious you are a warmonger who does not care a bit about the innocent.”

    Obvious to you, I guess. I actually prefer peace instead of war, but being realistic, I know that is not possible. There are bullies out in the world who will kill us if we don’t do something about it first. Your alternative to opposing them is?

    ms: “You would have been a good aid to Sherman as he brought total warfare to the modern world for the first time.”

    Getting a little carried away, arent’ you?

    ms: “May you get what you so richly deserve.”

    That’s what I’m hoping.

  38. Well, it looks like I finally got the first and last part of my post posted. Now if I can just figure out why the middle part of the post wont’ post, I’ll favor you with that part, too, Mark

    [Nothing in the “Spam” folder, nothing in the “Pending Review” folder. .mod]

  39. middle part part 1:

    ms: “I also was [prevented from replying]”

    I was sorry to hear that. I was looking forward to it. It must have been one heck of a rant.

    ms: “so you don’t know that my Uncle was on the planning staff of the war and I know what happened. No need to read some academic’s book.”

  40. middle part 2

    my answer to ms: Having an uncle on the planning staff doesn’t guarantee you understand the war, and you *don’t* understand the war. I can tell by the way you talk about it. Having an uncle on the staff didn’t help your understanding. You should read the book. BTW, I served two tours in Vietnam: 1968 and 1969. I don’t need to read a book.

  41. Well, part 2 still won’t post. Don’t know why.

    Mark, you really do need to read the book. Your uncle didn’t give you a very good understandig of the war. I spent two years there in 1968 and 1969. You need to read the book.

  42. [Nothing in the “Spam” folder, nothing in the “Pending Review” folder. .mod]

    Mods, I have tried to post this one single message twice last night and once this morning, and nothing.

    So I tried modifying the post to take out possible trigger words to see if it would take but that didn’t work, so I decided to break it down into smaller parts, to see if there was a particular problem I could spot. Something in the middle part of my post must be triggering something. There are no trigger words in that part as far as I can tell. No problem, I have pretty much said what I wanted to say now.

    Strange. But computers do such things sometimes, don’t they. :)

Comments are closed.