In 2010, then-PM Kevin Rudd spoke to 4BC and he was asked about climate change. About four kilos into his answer, Rudd said this:

.. .you ask about the science. Look, I think we need to put all this into context. The International Panel of climate change scientists is made up of four thousand scientists around the world, humourless guys and girls in white coats, okay. These are not politicians. These are scientists. They’ve concluded in their most recent report that climate change a) is happening, and b) it is ninety per cent certain that it is caused by human factors.

Then he went on. And on …

And when they say ninety per cent certain, that is of the highest probabilities that they can give based on the evidence available. Therefore, what they conclude is we’d be mad to countenance the risk of not acting, absolutely mad. And in Australia, you have the Chief Scientists, the CSIRO, the Bureau of Meteorology saying it’s happening, and we must act. And because Australia is among the hottest and driest continents on earth, where the impacts of climate change are being felt first and hardest, we’ve got to therefore, act at home, and act internationally, and that’s what the Government’s doing.

So, yes, that’s why you measure Rudd’s answer by weight.

Today, the IPCC has released its latest report.

The Guardian is still in full-on Armageddon mode. Reef dead. Timelines put on action. Tick tock. Blah blah.
You know the score …

This is half (half!) the day’s coverage, and includes a reference to and pic John Hewson, saying that a government loss in Wentworth could help the government change its mind on climate policies. Of course, nowhere does Hewson declare his tickets on the climate gravy train, including his role as chair of the Asset Owners Disclosure Project that surveys, rates and ranks the world’s largest asset owners in terms of their management of climate risk (although this is not listed on the AODP website; he has also held other climate-related positions that are rarely if ever disclosed).

Loyalty is such a rare commodity, although it might be a consequence of being the member for Wentworth. Moving on …

You would have seen coverage of the IPCC everywhere, and from that it is clear that no longer is the organisation “made up of four thousand scientists around the world, humourless guys and girls in white coats, okay. These are not politicians. These are scientists”.

No. That’s not true, anymore, if it ever was. They are activists and revolutionaries who want to change your life. Like getting rid of met from your diet, a plan they first flew a first weeks ago, noticed that nobody was paying attention or laughed at the idea, and then moved on, but it remains in the IPCC report.

The good news is that yesterday (8 October) Scott Morrison ruled out providing more money to the global climate fund. That’s the global slush fund from rich countries to boondoggle poor countries so they don’t have to work.

How we are meant to pay for this as we phase out coal-fired power and other fossil fuels is a mystery. But the magic pudding economics of the IPCC and the Greens persists.

The Guardian noted:

Morrison repeated his claim that Australia would meet its Paris emissions reduction target “in a canter”, despite environment department figures showing emissions increased 1.3% in the year to March 2018, suggesting Australia is likely to miss the target.

What does that means?

It means that Australia, which emits 1.3 per cent of global emissions, may miss the target by 1.3 per cent. Which mathematically is three-fourths of no one cares. Except the writer sat the Guardian. So, no one important. Sorry Murpharoo.

Asked if Australia would be held to the target to reduce emissions by 26% to 28% from 2005 levels, Morrison said: “No, we won’t … we’re not held to any of them at all. Nor are we bound to go and tip money into that big climate fund. We’re not going to do that either. I’m not going to spend money on global climate conferences and all that nonsense.”

With that attitude, he might just win.

On the report itself: if you’ve run out of tranquilisers, try the IPCC. It is awful and written in the style that has made the UN the undertaker for language.

If you want alarmism, try The Guardian. Fairfax. The ABC. The usual suspects. When you want a more level-headed understanding of climate science, you go to Watts UP With That.

Watts Up With That

WUWT is the most viewed site in the world on global warming issues, and takes its role seriously – and not just by the coincidence that its founder is called Watt and that is awesomely serendipitous.

A few days ago, WUWT dissected a report in the Guardian by Graham Readfearn.

And it has looked at the raw data used in the HadCRUT Temperature Dataset and found it was “effectively useless”. That would depend, however, on what the purpose was.

The audit finds more than 70 areas of concern about data quality and accuracy.

But according to an analysis by Australian researcher John McLean it’s far too sloppy to be taken seriously even by climate scientists, let alone a body as influential as the IPCC or by the governments of the world.

Yet it was.

It is also very worthwhile reading the comments from each article.

If you’re reading and commenting on WUWT you are taking this seriously, and asking the right questions, and while you may not be a climate expert, if you understand the comments on WUWT, you know more than most writers at The Guardian.

But you knew that already.