The Polar Icecaps - Part 3

So what was happening in 2007 in the Antarctic at the same time as the large melt was happening in the Arctic?

The Southern Hemisphere sea ice area has broken the previous maximum of 16.03 million sq. km and is currently at 16.26 million sq. km. This represents an increase of about 1.4% above the previous Southern Hemisphere ice area record high.

This record level of ice in the Antarctic doesn’t stop the alarmists like British scientist Dr. David Vaughan from continually focusing on the Antarctic Peninsular and Larsen Ice shelves to prove that ‘global warming’ is real.

But a new study in 2008 found active volcano’s under the ice on the peninsular. (see top figure above (red dots are volcano’s) and bottom figure above) which concentrate their heat effects right in the areas where these scientists claim to see evidence of ‘Climate Change’. (seen below)

The first evidence of a volcanic eruption from beneath Antarctica’s ice sheet has been discovered by members of Vaughan's own British Antarctic Survey. The volcano on the West Antarctic Ice Sheet began erupting some 2,000 years ago and remains active to this day. Using airborne ice-sounding radar, scientists discovered a layer of ash produced by a ’subglacial’ volcano. It extends across an area larger than Wales.The volcano is located beneath the West Antarctic ice sheet in the Hudson Mountains at latitude 74.6°South, longitude 97°West.

In January of 2009 the figure above was released on the cover of “Nature” journal, it accompanied an article by Professor Eric Steig and his team claiming that Antarctica was in fact warming and not cooling contradicting all previous evidence. It was a claim that grabbed enormous media attention running as a major news story on print and electronic media. But again all is not as it would first seem. In an article called: Despite the hot air, the Antarctic is not warming up environmental journalist Chris Booker discovered:

But then a good many experts began to examine just what new evidence had been used to justify this dramatic finding. It turned out that it was produced by a computer model based on combining the satellite evidence since 1979 with temperature readings from surface weather stations.

The problem with Antarctica, though, is that has so few weather stations. So what the computer had been programmed to do, by a formula not yet revealed, was to estimate the data those missing weather stations would have come up with if they had existed.

In other words, while confirming that the satellite data have indeed shown the Antarctic as cooling since 1979, the study relied ultimately on pure guesswork, to show that in the past 50 years the continent has warmed – by just one degree Fahrenheit.

…A disbelieving Ross Hayes, an atmospheric scientist who has often visited the Antarctic for NASA, sent Professor Steig a caustic email ending: "with statistics you can make numbers go to any conclusion you want. It saddens me to see members of the scientific community do this for media coverage."

But it was also noticed that among the members of Steig's team was Michael Mann, author of the "hockey stick", the most celebrated of all attempts by the warmists to rewrite the scientific evidence to promote their cause. The greatest of all embarrassments for the believers in man-made global warming was the well-established fact that the world was significantly warmer in the Middle Ages than it is now. "We must get rid of the Mediaeval Warm Period," as one contributor to the IPCC famously said in an unguarded moment. It was Dr Mann who duly obliged by getting his computer-model to produce a graph shaped like hockey stick, eliminating the mediaeval warming and showing recent temperatures curving up to an unprecedented high.


A view point supported by Professor Fred Singer (PhD, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University ofVirginia) :

The recent report in the journal Nature of an unexpected Antarctic warming trend has created a certain amount of scepticism – even among supporters of AGW.

But in an AP news story, two of its authors (one is ‘hockey stick’ inventor Michael Mann from the Real Climate blog) argue that this refutes the sceptics and is “consistent with” greenhouse warming. Of course, as Roger Pielke, Jr, points out, not long ago we learned from Real Climate that a cooling Antarctica was ‘consistent with’ greenhouse warming and thus the sceptics were wrong: “So a warming Antarctica and a cooling Antarctica are both ‘consistent with’ model projections of global warming. Our foray into the tortured logic of ‘consistent with’ in climate science raises the perennial question, what observations of the climate system would be inconsistent with the model predictions?”

The results are based on very few isolated data from weather stations, plus data from research satellites. And here is the rub: these are not data from microwave sounding units (MSU), such as are regularly published by Christy and Spencer, but data from infrared sensors that are supposed to measure the temperature of the surface (rather than of the overlaying atmosphere, as weather stations do).

But the IR emission depends not only on temperature of the surface, but also on surface emissivity — and is further modified by absorption of clouds and haze.

These are all difficult points. Emissivity of snow depends on its porosity and size of snow crystals. Blowing snow likely has a different emissivity than snow that has been tamped down; so surface winds could have a strong influence. The emissivity of ice is again different and will depend on whether there is a thin melt layer of water on top of the ice, temporarily produced by solar radiation. Finally, we have temperature inversions that can trap haze which is essentially undetectable by optical methods from satellites.

The proof of the pudding, of course, is the MSU data, which show a continuous cooling trend, are little affected by surface conditions and are unaffected by haze and clouds. They are therefore more reliable.

Bottom line: As it looks to me right now, the Antarctic Continent is cooling not warming.

So bottom line seems to be we have another report based on another computer model designed by a person that brought us the hockey stick graph. A model, based on incomplete and information of perhaps dubious quality due to natural factors that are all but impossible to predict and replicate, all predicting something that is not being measured by a more accurate system, who’s information is ignored or rejected.

Needless to say the original report from Nature was supported and hyped locally by Professor Barry Brook, in the print media and the ABC.

The ABC even went so far as to expunge from both their podcast and transcript of interview the entire conversation that William Kininmonth had with the ABC reporter Nick Lucchinelli as part of a trio (that include Professor Barry Brook and Professor Eric Steig) that were interviewed simultaneously on the article from Nature journal.

Antarctic Cooling Theory Challenged, January 22, 2009, ABC Radio National:

Transcript:

Podcast:

When challenged on why only the comments from William Kininmonth (a sceptic) were removed, the excuse given was “time constraint” as can be seen in this link:

The possible reason proposed, of time constraint, is implausible given that the earlier Radio National, starting 10 minutes after the hour at 7:10am, was shorter than the later Local Radio edition starting at 8:00am but the earlier edition was able to include my comments!

The saga does, however, expose weaknesses in ABC policy/management. If there are regularly differences between the versions of AM broadcast on Radio National and on Local Radio then there clearly is no authentic record of what is actually broadcast on Radio National, which is a serious shortcoming. On the other hand, if changes are rare, then an explanation of the reasons for deletion of my comments on this occasion are called for.

The Polar Icecaps - Part 2

Is there any evidence that the ice at the North Pole has had previous times where it has been thin? These photos would suggest there is:

So what did the North Pole look like when the US Skate (SSN-578), surfaced at the North Pole, 17 March 1959 Submarine? The figure above shows this.

What about 1962? The figure above shows the Seadragon (SSN-584), foreground, and her sister Skate (SSN-578) during a rendezvous at the North Pole in August 1962.

What about 1987? The above figure shows HMS Superb (S109), USS Billfish (SSN 676) and USS Sea Devil (SSN 664) rendezvousing at the North Pole during the start of the melt season.

1993 perhaps? The figure above shows the USS Pargo at the North Pole in 1993 showing thin ice.

Then finally 1999 when the North Pole should be showing signs of stress from Climate Change? The photo above is of USS Hawkbill at the North Pole, Spring 1999 showing plenty of ice.

The point here is that the ice at the North Pole is dynamic not static and that a wide variance is the norm for this region. Something that seems to be getting forgotten in these days of alarmism and breathless reporting.

A November 2007 peer-reviewed study in the journal Nature found natural cause for rapid Arctic warming. Excerpt:

[The study] identifies a natural, cyclical flow of atmospheric energy around the Arctic Circle. A team of researchers, led by Rune Graversen of Stockholm University, conclude this energy flow may be responsible for the majority of recent Arctic warming. The study specifically rules out global warming or albedo changes from snow and ice loss as the cause, due to the “vertical structure” of the warming ... the observed warming has been much too weak near the ground, and too high in the stratosphere and upper troposphere. This study follows hot on the heels of research by NASA, which identified “unusual winds” for rapid Arctic ice retreat. The wind patterns, set up by atmospheric conditions from the Arctic Oscillation, began rapidly
pushing ice into the Transpolar Drift Stream, a current which quickly sped the ice into warmer waters. A second NASA team, using data from the GRACE (Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment) satellite, recently concluded that changes in the Arctic Oscillation were, “mostly decadal in nature,” rather than driven by global warming.

A July 2007 analysis of peer-reviewed literature thoroughly debunks fears of Greenland and the Arctic melting and predictions of a frightening sea level rise. Excerpt:

“Research in 2006 found that Greenland has been warming since the 1880s, but since 1955, temperature averages at Greenland stations have been colder than the period between 1881-1955. A 2006 study found Greenland has cooled since the 1930s and 1940s, with 1941 being the warmest year on record. Another 2006 study concluded Greenland was as warm or warmer in the 1930s and 40s and the rate of warming from 1920-1930 was about 50% higher than the warming from 1995 to 2005. One 2005 study found Greenland gaining ice in the interior higher elevations and thinning ice at the lower elevations. In addition, the often media promoted fears of Greenland’s ice completely melting and a subsequent catastrophic sea level rise are directly at odds with the latest scientific studies.” [See July 30, 2007 Report - Latest Scientific Studies Refute Fears of Greenland Melt].

This is not the first time that global warming has been blamed for melting the Arctic. Above is an article from 1922 saying much the same things that we read today.

Dr. Tim Ball wrote a paper in August of 2008 called: Arctic Sea Ice - The Media Darling of Climate Change Misrepresentation. In he wrote about the media’s fascination with the Arctic in particular:

Why Arctic Sea Ice is a Media Darling Arctic and Antarctic regions receive a great deal of attention for Several reasons: a) we know very little about them b) they are regions where the greatest warming due to human CO2 is predicted c) they are home to animal species that have been used to exploit our emotions …Al Gore’s complete misrepresentation of polar bears to the more accurate but very emotional portrayal of Antarctic penguins.

Of course if the melting at the Arctic is caused by global warming then this must be getting recorded in the temperature data during the summer melt season, correct? Well perhaps not! The figure below is the daily mean temperature graph for the arctic during this years melt season. As can be clearly seen the red data line is following the curve and line of green line and is only above the blue line for a short period. So which line is which? The blue line represents the “melting point” of ice in Kelvin or 0°C/32°F The green line represents the average climate from 1958 to 2002, i.e. the “baseline”

So there is no excess temperature or excess time at the melting temperature being recorded. So what about if we compare it to 1958?

So no real change then! If anything it was less.

Here is a link to an article in Sep 2009 entitled DMI arctic temperature data animation doesn’t support claims of recent Arctic warming which explains the above graphs in more detail.

The Polar Icecaps - Part 1

The polar icecaps, in particular the Arctic are probably the most often sited examples of evidence of global warming and climate change. Images or footage such as the one above of calving ice into the sea are invariably used by the media whenever climate change is raised as a topic.

Common alarmist quotes include:

“The North Pole is melting.”

“Polar bears are going to go with the ice cap.”

“Global warming has melted the polar ice caps”.

"Unless we take urgent action to stem this trend, we maybe virtually ice-free by 2037, even by 2030,"

This is despite the outgoing leader of Greenpeace has admitted his organization’s recent claim that the Arctic Ice will disappear by 2030 was “a mistake.”

Under close questioning by BBC reporter Stephen Sackur on the “Hardtalk” program, Gerd Leipold, the retiring leader of Greenpeace, said the claim was wrong.

“I don’t think it will be melting by 2030. ... That may have been a mistake,” he said.

Sackur said the claim was inaccurate on two fronts, pointing out that the Arctic ice is a mass of 1.6 million square kilometers with a thickness of 3 km in the middle, and that it had survived much warmer periods in history than the present.

Yet UN President Ban Ki Moon continues to recite the Greenpeace propaganda in the lead upto the Climate Change conference due at Copenhagen in November 2009. As does former Democratic Presidential contender Senator John Kerry when he said this:

"Scientists project that the Arctic will be ice-free in the summer of 2013," he wrote. "Not in 2050, but four years from now."

Greenpeace wasn't even willing to distort the truth that much when it mentioned melting Arctic ice in a July 15 article. The group pinpointed 2030 as doomsday, 17 years later than Kerry.

Indeed it is also true that the ice caps, particularly the Arctic, melt somewhat every Northern Hemisphere summer. It is also true that there was a more dramatic melt than normal in 2007 (As can be seen above and onthe graph below). It is also true that this melt opened up the fabled Northwest passage. But was this dramatic melt caused by climate change? Not according to Dr Mitchell Tayor who has been studying and working in the Arctic for 30 years studying Polar Bears:

Dr Taylor agrees that the Arctic has been warming over the last 30 years. But he ascribes this not to rising levels of CO2 – as is dictated by the computer models of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and believed by his PBSG colleagues – but to currents bringing warm water into the Arctic from the Pacific and the effect of winds blowing in from the Bering Sea.

What is not true about how it was reported was that this is the “first time” ever that this has happened.

What is true is that the measurements, which are done by satellite, go back only 29 years.

What is also true is that the North-West Passage, a good proxy for Arctic sea-ice extent, was also open to shipping in 1945, or that Amundsen passed through in a sailing vessel in 1903. As can be seen by this map.

The dramatic melting of 2007 was followed by an Equally dramatic recovery. Feb. 08 figures from the respected US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration show that almost all the “lost” ice has come back.

Ice levels which had shrunk from 13million sq km in January 2007 to just four million in October, are almost back to their original levels.

So from mid September to mid February (less than six months) the Artic had replaced approximately 9 million square kilometres of sea ice.

The Alarmists, however, were now in full flight about the 2008 melt:

“We’re actually projecting this year that the North Pole may be free of ice for the first time,” claimed Dr David Barber, of Manitoba University .

“Have we passed the tipping point?”, “It’s hard to see how the system may bounce back (this year),” fretted Dr Ignatius Rigor, of Washington University’s polar science centre.

“this may be the Arctic’s first ice-free year”, worried Dr. Tim Flannery.

“Here you can see climate change happening before your eyes.” wailed the ABC and Age reporter Marian Wilkinson.

“North Pole soon may be ice-free” printed the Rocky Mountain News.

Lewis Pugh, the U.K.-based explorer, athlete, climate crusader and maritime lawyer whose 2007 North Pole swim drew headlines around the world, is back with a dream to kayak from Norway to the Pole to draw attention to global warming…

After last year’s record-breaking loss of sea ice in the Arctic, many scientists are predicting that waters all the way up to the North Pole will be largely ice-free by the end of the summer.
“It wouldn’t have been possible to do this kayak even last year,” said Pugh. “The Arctic has changed so much in just one year.”

However, when he attempted to do so, it was finally reported Lewis saying: “We’re stuck”. So where did Lewis get stuck? At about 69 miles per degree of latitude, it would seem that they’re still 600+ miles from the North Pole.

Conveniently forgotten, is that in 1893 the Arctic was so ice free that a Norwegian explorer was able to kayak above 82 degrees north, 100 miles nearer the Pole.

The facts are that although there was another large melt in 2008 (the second lowest since satellite measurement began in 1979), it was still 10% higher than 2007 as seen in the picture above and the graph down below.

Confirmed by The National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) in Boulder, Colorado who said:

UI (University of Illinois) is calculating ice area, while NSIDC is calculating ice extent, two different but related indicators of the state of the ice cover. However, both yield a consistent change between Aug. 12, 2007 and Aug. 11, 2008 – about a 10% increase.

This melt was again followed by a very rapid recovery and by early November was back to average.

So what did the Arctic look like by the end of the year? The top figure above is a comparison between the 25th Nov 2008 and 24th Nov 1979. The ice extents are approximately the same. So where is the melted ice cap?
In an article entitled "What melts the Arctic?" it explains why this was not climate change:

The Arctic did not experience the meltdowns forecast by NSIDC and the Norwegian Polar Year Secretariat. It didn’t even come close. Additionally, some current graphs and press releases from NSIDC seem less than conservative. There appears to be a consistent pattern of overstatement related to Arctic ice loss.

We know that Arctic summer ice extent is largely determined by variable oceanic and atmospheric currents such as the Arctic Oscillation. NASA claimed last summer that “not all the large changes seen in Arctic climate in recent years are a result of long-term trends associated with global warming”.

The media tendency to knee-jerk and blame everything on “global warming” makes for an easy story - but it is not based on solid science.

So where did itend up in 2009 at the height of it's melt season?

Better than both '07 and '08. After which it quickly recovered to be better than the '05 melt as well. So the Summer melt is slowly on the improve again despite the continued rise in CO2 during that time. Showing another disconnect between what we are being told and what is actually happening. The only reason why 2009 had that final dip below the 2005 line was the return of the South Easterly winds that caused the 2007 melt. As seen in this NSIDC page listed as "A change in ice motion slows seasonal decline."

Comic Relief

Now a quick word from Comical Ali (former Iraqi Information Minister under Saddam Hussein) who has about as much credibility with the truth as many alarmists:

The Environmental Activists Hidden Agendas

Another interesting aspect to this debate is the openly stated agenda of many in the environmental movement that has nothing to do with global warming or climate change, other than using it as an excuse to further their particular cause. So example quotes from Green Agenda include:

"The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution,the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself." - Club of Rome, premier environmental think-tank consultants to the United Nations.

"Unless we announce disasters no one will listen." - Sir John Houghton, first chairman of IPCC

"It doesn't matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true." - Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace

"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

"No matter if the science of global warming is all phoney ...climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world." - Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment..

"The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe." - emeritus professor Daniel Botkin

"We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis..."- David Rockefeller, Club of Rome executive member

"In Nature organic growth proceeds according to a Master Plan, a Blueprint. Such a ‘master plan’ is missing from the process of growth and development of the world system. Now is the time to draw up a master plan for sustainable growth and world development based on global allocation of all resources and a new global economic system. Ten or twenty years form today it will probably be too late.” - Club of Rome, Mankind at the Turning Point

"Democracy is not a panacea. It cannot organize everything and it is unaware of its own limits. These facts must be faced squarely. Sacrilegious though this may sound, democracy is no longer well suited for the tasks ahead. The complexity and the technical nature of many of today’s problems do not always allow elected representatives to make competent decisions at the right time." - Club of Rome, The First Global Revolution

"Regionalism must precede globalism. We foresee a seamless system of governance from local communities, individual states, regional unions and up through to the United Nations itself."- UN Commission on Global Governance

"The current course of development is thus clearly unsustainable. Current problems cannot be solved by piecemeal measures. More of the same is not enough. Radical change from the current trajectory is not an option, but an absolute necessity. Fundamental economic, social and cultural changes that address the root causes of poverty and environmental degradation are required and they are required now.” – from the Earth Charter website

"Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?” - Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme

"A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-development means bringing our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation.” - Paul Ehrlich, Professor of Population Studies

"My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with it’s full complement of species, returning throughout the world." - Dave Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!

"A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.” - Ted Turner, founder of CNN and major UN donor.

"The extinction of the human species may not only be inevitable but a good thing.” - Christopher Manes, Earth First!

"Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license. All potential parents should be required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.” - David Brower, first Executive Director of the Sierra Club

There are many common totalitarian themes of which Josef Goebbels would have been proud.

The truth is unimportant, only the agenda matters.

A totalitarian approach to governance. Removal of democracy and the ability of dissenters to have a voice.

A “Brave New World” science fiction approach to the procreation of future generations with harsh penalties for non compliance, metered out presumably by a “green shirt” police force.

Massive culling of the human population, even to the point of total extinction.

Destruction of our industrial capabilities, despite the fact that any solution to climate change will require a technological fix.

Dismantling of any other forms of religion, as only worship to “Gaia” or the “Earth God” will be tolerated in the new Utopian society.

All anti-human, anti progress, anti freedom agenda’s disguised as doing there level best to protect humanity from a perceived disaster, whether they believe it or not.

There but none more so than the Earth first, humans last population reduction or extinction policies of many of these radical deep green individuals or groups which we have seen mentioned before with Dr. John Holdren, making these policies now much closer to the mainstream and The White House.

Do As I Say, Not As I Do

Most surprisingly (or maybe not) is the way a number of key people are so busy telling us how to live “green” and “reduce our carbon foot prints”, whilst they live lifestyles that make theirs enormous. A few examples follow:

Al Gore: You would expect, given his level of deep concern for our planet that he would be amongst the cleanest and greenest of them all, yet all is not as it seems. In a story by reporter Steven Milloy for Fox News in March 2007, he found:

At the end of Gore’s movie, “An Inconvenient Truth,” viewers are asked, “Are you ready to change the way you live”? Following this line of thinking, the movie’s web site suggests many ways that you can “reduce your impact at home,” including using less heating and air conditioning, buying expensive fluorescent light bulbs, using less hot water, using a clothesline rather than a dryer, carpooling, flying less and buying cost-inefficient hybrid cars.

Given that Gore calls the fight against global warming a “moral imperative” in the movie, you might reasonably think that he practices what his movie’s web site preaches. But you’d be wrong.

…the Tennessee Center for Policy Research reported that Gore’s Nashville mansion consumed more than 20 times the electricity than the national average. Last August, the Gore mansion burned more than twice the electricity in a single month as the average American family uses in an entire year. Gore’s heated pool house alone uses more than $500 in electricity every
month.

A Gore spokesman tried to deflect the charges ..by stating that the Gores “purchase offsets for their carbon emissions to bring their carbon footprint down to zero.” Gore himself has been very public about this approach to carbon neutrality, but not only is this claim not exactly true, it’s quite meaningless in terms of global warming.

First, Al Gore doesn’t purchase carbon offsets out of his own pocket and the actual economic cost, if any, to him is unknown.

The actual offset purchaser is a London-based investment firm, Generation Investment Management (GIM), that Al Gore co-founded with former Goldman Sachs executive David Blood and others in 2004.

GIM supposedly purchases carbon offsets for all 23 of its employees to cover their personal energy use, according to a March 7 report. These offsets, then, would be provided to Gore more as an employee benefit, thus requiring very little sacrifice on his or his family's part.
Trading and or purchasing carbon offsets is an emerging business, and CNS News is also pursuing an investigative story into whether Gore or his company are making money from these offsets. It’s quite possible, for example, that GIM’s offsets actually produce financial benefits for the Gores either through tax deductions or even business profits.

…Financial matters aside, what are the environmental impacts of Gore’s offsets?

I was surprised to find that even a leading advocate of carbon offsets acknowledge that they have no impact on global climate.

…Instead, they merely: (1) demonstrate commitment to taking action on climate change; (2) add an economic component to climate change; (3) help engage and educate the public; and (4) may provide local social and environmental benefits that help to encourage the use of low-carbon technologies.

The real design behind offsetting, then, is to impact the public debate, not to avert the dreaded global warming.

“…Are you ready to change the way you live?” Gore literally meant you – and only you.

But Al Gore is far from alone in his “do as I say not as I do” actions. Prime Minister Kevin Rudd of Australia has long been a strong advocate of action on Climate Change, symbolically ratifying the Kyoto Protocol as one of the first actions of his administration. But he too has a Carbon Footprint that is enormous compared to the average citizen that he wishes to impose a “Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme” upon to reduce their carbon footprints.

Ben Packham of Melbourne’s Herald Sun investigated PM Rudd’s carbon footprint in December of 2008, and this is what he found:

The Lodge and Kirribilli House emitted 272 tonnes of carbon in just nine months.

It's about 21 times more than an average household, which emits about 14 tonnes a year.

The PM's hectic travel schedule also contributes to his huge carbon footprint. If he travelled on a commercial carrier, he would have pumped out 90 tonnes of carbon by flying 264,764km this year.

But he flies on an RAAF Boeing 737 with an entourage of advisers, lifting his travel emissions to an estimated 11,700 tonnes or more.

The Rudd family's household emissions include one tonne of wood burned in The Lodge's open fires, and about 240,000 kilowatt hours of electricity at both residences.

They also used 388,000 mega joules of gas for hot water, heating and cooking.

The PM would have to plant 2205 trees to offset his annual household emissions.

Now whilst no one would expect their Prime Minister to travel in the ‘cattle class’ section of a Budget airline carrier, or not to have a slightly elevated usage of electricity, etc. To have racked up more than 21 times the average household annual usage in just nine months is more than a little excessive. It could strongly be argued that at least some of the numerous overseas trips he undertook in his first 12 months could have been just as successfully conducted by teleconferencing. Especially for a Prime Minister who is intent on showing a leadership to the rest of the world on this issue. Instead he seems to be showing a (not so) clean pair of jet trails and approximately 5,440,000 “black balloons” (each worth 50 grams of greenhouse gas) in nine months as per the Victorian/NSW State Government’s television campaigns to get people to reduce their Emissions (not counting his extensive travel).

The third example I wish to show is one of the usual high profile “stars” of stage or screen that constantly are telling the press and their fans that “the earth is in great peril” and that “we” must do more to protect it, etc. One of these leading environmental advocates is English Rockstar “Sting” (a.k.a. Gordon Sumner) of 80’s rock band “The Police” fame as well as numerous movie appearances:

“We can’t live here and be happy with less/With so many riches, so many souls/Everything we see that we want to possess”,Sting sang, in one emotive passage.

It was a theme to which he returned at this summer’s Live Earth climate change concert… At one point in the performance, Sting pledged to the audience that he would “work to reduce” his carbon footprint in the future.

A commendable objective - but what Sting didn’t mention was how much larger his carbon footprint is than just about anyone else’s…

Earlier this year, a glimpse into Sting’s daily routine at (his Wiltshire) mansion was provided by Jane Martin, 42, a cook who took the rock star and his wife Trudie Styler to an employment tribunal which awarded her £24,944 following her “shameful” dismissal from her job…

The cook added that she had often been required to make an expensive rail and taxi journey between London and Salisbury just to prepare a soup and salad meal for the family, even though they also kept two housekeepers, two nannies and a butler on the premises…

This same paragon of self-denying minimalism who reminds us all not to squander our resources also owns a three-storey mansion in Highgate, North London, a townhouse in Westminster and what’s described as a workman’s cottage in the Lake District. He also maintains a beach house in Malibu, California, and a 600-acre estate in Tuscany…

Early in his career, he expressed the opinion that “I just don’t agree with (procreation) any more… We have too many people we’re not the most important thing on the planet, and until we realise that, we’re in deep s***.”

How ironic then that Sting has six children, from two wives, ranging in age from 30 to 11.
There’s nothing wrong with that - he’s long since earned the right to live just as he likes - but, taken as a whole, it would seem to suggest that Sting’s campaign against Western excess might not always be a priority in his own day-to-day life.

So the next time you here someone preach that you are responsible and that you cut your carbon footprint, ask yourself if they are doing the same!

But the ones that demand such sacrifices from us see no problem with their own hypocrisy as can be seen in this article from the U.K. Guardian which states in it's conclusion:

The charge of hypocrisy against environmentalists may also be illegitimate as well as irrelevant. In my view, Gore was right to rack up thousands of air miles in his campaign to raise awareness of climate change: the political shift he has helped to engineer, particularly in America, has been truly profound, and is one of the few real causes for optimism on climate change today. If he had stayed at home in Tennessee with the lights and heating off, wearing organic woolly jumpers and feeling generally good about himself, we would have a lot further to travel in terms of awareness-raising than we do now. Being a purist may be comforting, but it is unlikely to change the world.

So remember it is you and only who must make the sacrifices, but if you serve "the cause" then you are excused being a hypocrite as the rules you wish to employ no longer apply to you.

More Errors By Al Gore

Professor David Bellamy(seen above) found yet another Gore error, not from his film this time, but as usual from his mouth.

One of Gore's biggest clangers was saying that the Aral Sea in Uzbekistan was drying up because of global warming.

Well, everyone knows, because it was all over the news 20 years ago, that the Russians were growing cotton there at the time and that for every tonne of cotton you produce you use a vast amount of water. The thing that annoys me most is that there are genuine environmental problems that desperately require attention. I'm still an environmentalist, I'm still a
Green and I'm still campaigning to stop the destruction of the biodiversity of the world. But money will be wasted on trying to solve this global warming "problem" that I would much rather was used for looking after the people of the world.

Yet it is Dr. Bellamy and not Al Gore that is attacked by alarmists and deep green journalists like George Monbiot as being out of touch.