We are a shoe-string operation. Unfortunately no BigOil funding! Help expose the hoax.

Donations:
Westpac BSB 035612, Account No. 239469


All Scientists are Sceptics ~Professor Bob Carter

“It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is; it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.” – Richard Feynmann

Perhaps the most frustrating aspect of the science of climate change is the lack of any real substance in attempts to justify the hypothesis ~Professor Stewart Franks

A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at: http://thepeoplescube.com/lenin/lenin-s-own-20-monster-quotes-t185.html#sthash.aTrSI3tG.dpuf
A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at: http://thepeoplescube.com/lenin/lenin-s-own-20-monster-quotes-t185.html#sthash.aTrSI3tG.dpuf
A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at: http://thepeoplescube.com/lenin/lenin-s-own-20-monster-quotes-t185.html#sthash.aTrSI3tG.dpuf

Sunday, November 23, 2014

Memo to all Duped Alarmists

Opinion by Michael Spencer
It would seem to me that you all seem to thrive on hearing bad news constantly, delivered by a small and select coterie, and refuse to contemplate the possibility that there could be lots of good news.  In fact, my experience to date with people who believe in the falsified AGW hypothesis has one thing in common: such people refuse to look at possible alternatives.  Thus an equally-famous quote from one of the co-founders of Greenpeace, Paul Wartson, who said: “It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.”

Dare I suggest it seems that some sort of quasi-religious fervour has replaced any scientific searching for truth?  And that anyone daring to suggest anything that runs contrary to that quasi-religious belief system is automatically branded ‘a denier’ in the same way as extreme religions brand anyone who does not comply with their notion of orthodoxy as being ‘a heretic’, with all the overtones this implies - and one could be forgiven to comparing such actions as being akin to the actions of ‘the authorities’ in Mediæval times.  (Or perhaps the ISIS death cultists doing their evil things in the Middle East right now!)  ‘Groupthink’ anyone?

Harsh words perhaps, but I fear this is not too far from the truth of the matter!

But yes!  There is good news of which it appears quite clear Alarmists all seem to be blissfully (?) unaware!  And it’s no wonder this is so if you rely on the general Media for your information because, after all: Good news does not sell newspapers” - well-known old adage, and proven true over time.  Furthermore, you are unlikely to get any contrary news from anyone who is riding a most comfortable ‘gravy train’; after all there is another adage: It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.” (Upton Sinclair, 1935)

So, why can’t Alarmists start to look at a few facts for a change?  And yes!  I know you will say that everything that does not agree with your belief system is ‘misinformation’.  So, let me just suggest perhaps an occasional contrary viewpoint that you can then proceed to prove wrong could really spice things up!

Try some of these, just by way of example:

1.  Levels of atmospheric CO2 follow temperatures and not the other way around - as promoted - famously {or deceptively [ED]} - by Al Gore:

LINK
So - if this empirical data from ice cores is true, why is it that CO2 today is supposed to do the opposite, and thereby cause the global warming about which you seem to be so terrified?  (Click on the LINK for more information!)

2.  Given that atmospheric CO2 levels have been increasing, how come that an amalgamation of the three most ‘authoritative’ terrestrial data sources together with the two satellite records shows this result:



And if just the satellite observations are used (and these have not been subject to ‘homogenisation’ - translation: cooking the books):



It's a couple of months further on since that graph was made!

3.  The hottest-ever Summer of 2014 sounded wonderful as announced by Climate CouncilChief Tim Flannery et al, but only if past history is ignored, just by way of this example:


LINK

Do you think I’m just making this up - real records are available!  (Click on the LINK!)

And then there’s been the ‘homogenisation’ of data - this means ‘cooking the books’ to make facts fit theory and not the other way around as it should be in real science.  (And click on this LINK!)


4.  Sea levels are rising and Pacific and Indian Ocean Island Nations are going under water!

Really?  Do yourself a favour and check out the Landsat photographs of Earth from Space since 1984.  I’m making it easy for you; here’s a link to Kiribati - often reported to be disappearing beneath the waves.  Just click on the LINK for this photograph:


Go and look anywhere you like!  Dubai is interesting, because the sand-islands weren’t there in 1984 - you can see them ‘grow’!

Can you see Kiribati being swamped?  You might be smarter than I, because I can’t see any change. So, tell me I’m wrong!

5.  Look what the dreadful CO2 is doing: it’s ‘greening’ the planet.  This must be true because the CSIRO says so ...... (Click on this LINK!)



6.  Wild weather is getting more frequent!  Again, oh, really?  Check the facts - click on the links:


LINK
Link

Hmmmm ..... They don’t seem to be increasing, nor do they seem to be more intense.

7.  The ice is melting in the Arctic!

Really?  Go and take a look:


link
link

Try every source at once then - includes Antarctica:
Source

I could go on ....

8.  Perhaps you think that wind turbines are a wonderful way to reduce ‘carbon [sic] emissions’ in electricity generation, and thereby ‘save the planet’?

Source                                                         Source

Consider these nasty facts: wind turbines do not appear as if by magic!  They have to be manufactured.  There’s lots of steel, and cement to make the concrete for the bases.  To manufacture these items requires large amounts of CO2 released during that processing - there is no other way. 

 And then there’s the manufacture of the mechanisms, the blades, the magnets, the wiring, the delivery and construction, etc..  All of these things involve considerable ‘carbon [sic] emissions’ - there's no avoiding this!  Very conservatively, it will take at least 15 years before a turbine could possibly just break even!  And then there's the ‘minor’ problem that if the wind doesn’t blow - either strong enough, or too strong - the turbines don’t work, so there has to be a constant back-up running, including to provide heating in freezing conditions.  Of course, there is also another ‘minor’ (?) problem of the massive killing of wildlife - birds and bats (and aren’t environmentalists supposed to concerned about such matters?), to say nothing of the problems for both livestock and humans caused by infra-sound.  (Don't believe this?  There’s a standing offer for people to spend a holiday living in one of the now-abandoned farm-houses to test this out for themselves.  It’s a fair offer!)  And then there’s the fire risk as these things burst into flames quite regularly as their bearings give up - what a wonderful thing to happen during our bushfire period.  I could go on.  (Click on photos for interesting stuff!)

Of course, there’s solar power.  Wonderful, if only the sun would shine with equal intensity 24/7!  Unfortunately, no amount of wishful thinking can alter that fact.  (Yes!  I know!  ‘One day’ we'll be able to store the energy!  One day .... )

9. Why not look at modern nuclear power?  How about something that, unlike the uranium heavy water reactors (like Fukushima) about which you most probably are terrified, is available, cheap, controllable/safe, abundant, and clean.  “Wait a minute I almost hear you think!  Surely that sounds just like the ‘green renewables’ about which we are so enthused - if only they would work!”

Do you know that the Americans had this technology operating back in the 1960s, and that it was de-funded ‘for political reasons’ at the time?  Do you know that the Norwegians turned their first one on in April, last year?  What?  Didn’t hear about it?  (Refer to the adage quoted above!)

Do you know that Australia is known to have about 18% of the World’s supply of the relevant element - and no!  It's not uranium, and it's far more plentiful.

And do you know that the technology involved can ‘digest’ the existing waste that worries so many?  And do you know that there are reactors that can be air-cooled (no ‘Fukushima’ worries there); will shut down automatically in the event of a malfunction - no ‘melt down’ risk; and no need for the massive pressure domes to guard against accidents, etc.?

Sounds too good to be true?  How about opening your minds to check out what I’ve been telling you?

And, by the way, there’s a new material about to be manufactured in Victoria that can deal with radionuclide pollution, oil spills and oil contamination, PCB plastics waste, and yes! even can digest and break down the very CO2 about which any alarmist is so worried.  No nasty chemicals; completely natural, organic, microbial action, with the ultimate residual material a particularly fine fertiliser.  (And you are just going to love the material from which it is derived!)

See!  I said there is good news .....

There’s lots more; I’ve mentioned that our planet is greening, and plant growth is increasing, but you most certainly will not know anything about these things unless and until you are all prepared to open your minds and look!

Perhaps instead of opposing things, could it perhaps be better rather to propose them!

Just a thought ......

But then, I’ve probably just wasted my time typing this up because if past experience is any guide you won’t look, and you won’t listen, and you will just continue to listen to the same people who have been telling you the same things for years, such as “The computer models project ....” and “97% of climate scientists say ....”


Well, the computer models haven’t done too well so far, and the “97%” is pure fantasy when you examine the basis of that claim.


So here’s a famous thought with which to leave you:



And another relevant comment from Thomas Paine:



Sincerely,

Michael Spencer

Interstellar: Hollywood leaves AGW in a gravity well.

by Anthony Cox


Hollywood has been a staunch supporter of AGW. In fact with Russell Crowe’s Noah any suggestion Hollywood had an open mind on the subject went down the gurgler as fast as that flightless turkey could sink.

But now, despite DiCaprio’s grotesquely hypocritical alignment with the UN [if Noah had been on DiCaprio’s monster luxury ship they would never have got off], with Interstellar being full of hilarious puns and critiques of AGW, it seems the AGW mania in Hollywood may not be all black hole rubbish after all.

Interstellar is set on a doomed Earth with a blight which eats all plants. It’s caused by nitrogen which in itself is a wickedly witty reversal of the role played by the trace gas, CO2, in the AGW fantasy. Nitrogen is 80% of the Earth’s atmosphere and along with oxygen the bulk of the atmosphere. The point being made is that the idea that humans through their tiny emissions of an already tiny trace gas could destroy the planet is simply nonsense compared with what nature can do.

Our hero Cooper, who is an astronaut, has a hilarious run in with 2 education officials who berate him for his son’s disputation of the validity of the Moon landing.


Secondly, a prominent alarmist, Lewandowsky, who is an educator, has prepared a notorious paper which asserts those who doubt AGW are also likely to doubt the Moon landings. That in the future it is the educators who are now the ones denying the Moon landing is a rather neat reversal of Lewandowsky’s stupid idea and a pointed indictment of the capitulation of education to the lie of alarmism today.

Prior to meeting the Lewandowskys of the future Cooper had managed to capture a drone powered by solar which had been wondering aimlessly for decades. Again the joke is multi-layered. The drone is an Indian military one. The point is even if solar can be successful as an energy source it will not be a ‘pure’ energy source as the renewables are presented by alarmism.

Secondly India, like China, which has just hoodwinked Obama and all other alarmists with their deal about emissions which allows them to increase emissions until 2030 when their population stabilises, isn’t going down the renewable path at all. India is investing heavily in coal, like China, and also Thorium, a great energy source, already proven, which has been ignored by the alarmists.

Thirdly, the drone ridicules the efforts of alarmists to get a solar powered plane in the air on a continuous world flight. These efforts began in 2003 and are going nowhere fast. Interestingly one of the alarmists involved in the Quixote Solar Impulse plan is a psychiatrist. Lewandowsky is a psychologist.

Anyway Cooper serendipitously discovers a plan to rescue humanity from the blight and is signed up for the rescue of earlier missions.

Before going on his mission Cooper says: just because man was born on Earth doesn’t mean he has to die here. It’s a great statement which contradicts the Ludditism of the alarmists who pretend to love new technology such as renewables but are really anti-technology as much as they are really anti-human. The alarmists would like humanity to die on Earth.

Finally after some superb set pieces such as the wave planet and the gravity well, Cooper meets Dr Michael Mann, the best of us all. The name choice can’t be a coincidence. Mann in the movie is a lunatic who has colluded with kindly Dr Michael Caine’s plan to distract humanity from their fate by only pretending there was a chance for humanity on other planets.

After Mann is dispatched, ironically by his own lack of scientific knowledge, some black hole and fifth dimension gobble-gook gets Cooper home to meet his elderly daughter and a gravity distorted ending.


The movie is long but views well. It’s no masterpiece though with obvious issues, scientific or otherwise. 2001 it isn’t. But, with its sly digs at the ratbaggery of alarmism, let’s hope it creates a trend of satirising the stupidity and lies of alarmism in Hollywood.

Saturday, November 22, 2014

Raving Ratbags Driving Alarm Agenda.


Chris Mooney,  for the Washington Post, writes

There’s growing evidence that global warming is driving crazy winters

Back in 2012, two researchers with a particular interest in the Arctic, Rutgers' Jennifer Francis and the University of Wisconsin-Madison's Stephen Vavrus, published a paper called "Evidence linking Arctic amplification to extreme weather in mid-latitudes." In it, they suggested that the fact that the Arctic is warming so rapidly is leading to an unexpected but profound effect on the weather where the vast majority of us live -- a change that, if their theory is correct, may have something to do with the extreme winter weather the U.S. has seen lately. (bold added)
In the Conclusions to their paper, Francis and Rutgers
In summary, the observational analysis presented in
this study provides evidence supporting two hypothesized
mechanisms by which Arctic amplification – enhanced Arctic
warming relative to that in mid-latitudes – may cause more
persistent weather patterns
in mid-latitudes that can lead to
extreme weather...(bold added)
Suggested? May have something to do with? May cause more persistent weather patterns?

As one of the comments to the article said:
Plausible mumbo jumbo is still mumbo jumbo. At best it is an educated guess based on faulty information.
Meanwhile climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer asks
‘In what universe does a cold winter, a cool summer, cold lake water, and an unusually cold fall air mass result from global warming?’
Roy writes:
It has become axiomatic (and fashionable) that any change we see in nature is caused by global warming climate change. 
Global warming was going to make snow a thing of the past. Until someone looked out the window and decided global warming causes more snow. 



The Hockey Schtick blog makes a similar point:
Flashback: Climate scientists said warming decreases lake-effect snows 
...but have conveniently changed their tune with the recent record-breaking lake-effect snow in the Buffalo area to claim global warming increases lake-effect snowfall.
The Alarmists were looking everywhere for the missing heat and have come up with 66 excuses for their failed GCMs. (66 different reasons for the missing heat? Hardly a consensus!)

Now they are contradicting themselves. They once said:
Global warming, the heating of the atmosphere by increased amounts of industrial gases, is now accepted as a reality by the international community. 
 However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event". 
"Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said.
So Global Warming used to mean "no snow," but now means "more snow."

The Lunatics are running the "Climate Science" agenda.






Friday, November 21, 2014

The Science is Settled?

Another Issue of "Carbon Sense” prepared for 
The Carbon Sense Coalition by Viv Forbes 
and volunteer helpers. 

22 November 2014

Climate Research needs Re-direction


Governments are running huge deficits, but still spend billions on “climate research” especially trying to model the effect of the atmosphere and its trace of carbon dioxide on surface temperature. Benefits are hard to find. It may have improved weather forecasts by a day or so, but official long-term predictions have not improved in the last fifty years. This is because carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is not the main driver of weather or climate.




“What is referred to reverently as “climate research” is mainly just grubby advocacy supporting the political war on carbon. Why are we still funding scientists who believe that “the science is settled”? If they believe that they know the answers, what are they are doing with their research funds?”


Around the world there are five official weather data-bases, about 14 weather satellites (some say there are 88 of them!), 73 climate computer models, at least 30 research groups and thousands of academics receiving grants and attending never-ending climate conferences. Much of this torrent of public money is now focussed on trying to torture a climate confession out of one normally un-noticed and totally innocent trace gas in the atmosphere – carbon dioxide.

The major determinants of surface weather are latitude, earth’s rotation, the seasons, the sun with its variable radiations and orbital changes; and nearness to the oceans which maintain the water cycle, moderate temperatures and house massive volcanic chains.

Earth’s mighty oceans cover 70% of the surface. Evaporation of water and convection in the atmosphere transfer large quantities of solar heat from the surface to the stratosphere. This process creates clouds, rain and snow and also forms low pressure zones which are the birthplace for cyclones and hurricanes. Wind direction and strength are related to sun-generated convection in the atmosphere, the transfer of solar heat from the equator to the poles, and the Coriolis effect of the rotation of the earth. Carbon dioxide plays no significant part in these processes.

Oceans also conceal most of the volcanic ring-of-fire and are home to huge numbers of volcanoes, many of which are active. The mighty weather-changing ENSO/El Nino starts with a pool of warm water in the eastern Pacific. Carbon dioxide plays no part in creating such hot-spots, but periodic eruption of undersea volcanoes may do it. We know less about the floor of the oceans and their volcanoes than we do about the surface of Mars.

The community is getting little benefit from much atmospheric research and most climate modelling, and that money should be redirected to more productive areas.

Half of “climate research” money should be spent on improving the ability of public infrastructure to survive natural disasters.

The remaining funds should be spent on real climate research - mapping the floor of the oceans, with particular reference to locating active volcanoes; and investigating how volcanism, solar variations and cycles of the sun, moon, planets and solar system impact long-term weather forecasts and future climate. This work should preferably be done by contracting private operators; and the climate models in public hands should be handed over to practising meteorologists to see if they are useful for short-term weather forecasting.

For those who would like to read more:

73 UN Climate models are wrong:
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/climate-scientist-73-un-climate-models-wrong-no-global-warming-17

Where Was Climate Research Before Computer Models?

Why are there so many climate models:

Oceans important in past Climate Changes:

Super volcanos forming beneath Pacific Ocean:


Massive Hot Spot in Iceland:

Viv Forbes, 27/10/14


Warmists Watch Wrong Weather Warnings.

Climateers keep trumpeting alarms that glaciers and ice sheets are melting, thus threatening land-based life with rising seas and supporting their dubious claims that Earth faces catastrophic global warming.

Life on earth cannot be extinguished by a sun-warmed atmosphere or retreating ice – sea levels merely rise steadily as land-based ice melts, animals and plants migrate, and the slowly warming seas expel carbon dioxide. This allows the biosphere to thrive with more ice-free land in a benign, warmer, wetter, carbon-rich world.

The threats we should fear are the periodic violent eras of volcanism and the life-killing ice ages many of which start with massive snow/hail storms such as the one that suddenly extinguished the mammoths. This is why many ancient peoples celebrated the warmth of spring and worshipped the Sun God.

For too long the western world has been misled by alarmist claims that a tiny trace of carbon dioxide gas in the atmosphere will cause catastrophic global warming.



In the continuing drama of natural climate change, global temperatures are the result of far greater forces.  Climate research should focus more on the cycles of the sun and solar system and their effect on global climate and on the periodic eruptions along our vast sub-marine volcanic belts. These control the ebb and flow of ice ages and most of the many extinction events that Earth has suffered.

Most geological eras have ended with massive volcanism on land and in the long volcanic/tectonic rifts beneath the Pacific, Atlantic, Indian and Arctic Oceans. Outpouring of lava under the seas causes ocean warming and increased evaporation while the dust from land-based volcanoes darkens the skies, creating a frigid atmosphere. Warm seas and cold skies cause heavy precipitation of rain, hail and snow. The increased snow cover then reflects any solar energy that gets through the volcanic dust, thus maintaining surface cooling. That is how the life-killing ice sheets grow.

Atmospheric modellers have dominated the climate debate for too long. It is time to ask well-informed geologists about Earth’s ever-changing climate history which is written indelibly in the rocks. Instead of wasting billions on bigger computers for yet more atmospheric models, let’s do some factual research on volcanoes beneath the oceans. Then ask some astro-physicists about the possible influence of solar cycles, sunspots, cosmic rays, cloud formation, earth magnetism, rogue asteroids and movements of the solar system through the galaxy.

To believe that mankind can counter the effects of these powerful natural climate controllers by trading carbon credits and capturing a few sea breezes and sunbeams using green energy toys is, indeed, a sad sign of the modern climate madness.


For those who would like to read more:

Global Cooling?:

Volcano found under West  Antarctica:

Largest Volcano on Earth found under the Pacific Ocean:

Underwater volcanoes discovered in Southern Ocean:

Volcanic Carbon Dioxide:

Not by Fire but by Ice:
A book by Robert W. Felix, 2000, ISBN: 0-9648746-8-7, Sugarhouse Publishing

Viv Forbes, 14/10/14


Let’s Hear How They Will Do It. 

In January 2014 OECD Secretary-General, Angel Gurría, called for “a plan to achieve zero net greenhouse emissions globally.” Not to be outdone, Australia has an organisation named “Beyond Zero Emissions”.

Let’s hear how they will do it.

Try making steel without using coal and producing carbon dioxide.

Try making cement without producing carbon dioxide.

Try moving cattle road trains in the outback without producing carbon dioxide.

Try operating an aluminium refinery on wind power.

Try keeping electric trains, lifts and lights running on a still night without coal or gas backup.

Try powering a container ship with sails.

Try getting approval to build a nuclear power station or a new hydro-electric dam in Australia.

Try feeding the people of the world while burning half of the food crops as biofuel.

Try pedalling to the Paris climate-fest on a bicycle. 




The production of carbon dioxide is a direct measure of economic activity. To forcibly cut it must cause a recession. Russia, Poland, the Czechs, China, India, Brazil, South Africa, Japan and Canada have already recognised this truth.

The level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere today is well below the optimum level for plant growth.  Human production of carbon dioxide plant food did fall during the Great Depression and added to plant starvation and crop failures in those bleak years.

“Zero Emissions” is another selfish and destructive green slogan which, if pursued, will turn into a nightmare of jobless-ness, poverty and hunger especially for the poorer people of the world.


For those who would like to read more:

OECD Secretary-General Calls for Zero net Emissions Globally:

Beyond Zero Emissions:

The Lynching of Carbon Dioxide – the Innocent Source of Life (Includes evidence of the fall in production of carbon dioxide during the Great Depression:

Poland will Veto EU 40% reduction proposal:

Viv Forbes, 20/10/14


The Overflow Column

Obama Baloney


If Obama really believed the nonsense he is spouting about a trace gas threatening the future of the Great Barrier Reef, he and his gas-guzzling entourage would have stayed at home. Perhaps we could create a new national dish to commemorate his Brisbane speech and call it Obama Baloney. It would of course be organic (carbon based), as is the two and a half thousand km reef which he is worried may disappear. A low carbon future is the dream of deluded ignorance and the stuff of political chicanery.

John McRobert, Brisbane, Australia.



Finally,
A Lone Australian Farmer Fights back against Kyoto Theft. He needs our help:


Carbon Sense” is an independent newsletter produced for the Carbon Sense Coalition, an Australian based organisation which opposes waste of resources, opposes pollution, and promotes the rational use of all energy resources including carbon energy.

Literary, financial or other contributions to help our cause are welcomed. 
We get no government grants and unlike many of our opponents, we do not pose as a charity and in fact pay GST and income tax on our operations. We live on subscriptions alone.

For more information visit our web site at www.carbon-sense.com
If you would like to keep Carbon Sense operating, send subscriptions to 
Carbon Sense Pty Ltd, by post to the address below, or direct deposit to: 
Acct No: 553 077 331
BSB: 334-040

Please spread “Carbon Sense” around.

Authorised by: Viv Forbes, Chairman, MS 23, Rosewood   Qld   4340   Australia