All Scientists are Sceptics ~Professor Bob Carter

Whenever someone asserts that a scientific question is “settled,” they tell me immediately that they don’t understand the first thing about science. Science is never settled. Dr David Deming

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

Tuesday, 1 March 2011

Bob Carter and the people's revolt.

Letter from Professor Carter:

People’s Revolt against Carbon Dioxide Taxation


You will almost certainly have heard the news that last Wednesday, February 23, Prime Minister Gillard announced on behalf of her Multi-Party Committee on Climate Change an in-principle commitment to introduce a carbon dioxide tax in Australia on July 1, 2012, to be replaced by an emissions trading scheme several years later.

The result of all such schemes is an immediate and significant increase in the cost of living (the precise cost depending upon the level at which the tax is levied per tonne of carbon dioxide emitted).  The tax will achieve absolutely no measurable effect on future climate.. It is not an environmental good measure, but a revenue raising measure that will hurt poor people most (i.e., the tax is regressive). In fact, in such terms, it is simply a con

There have been immediate and spontaneous protests against the tax from persons and groups across Australia. You may recall, also, that a previous plan to introduce a similar Emissions Trading Scheme was defeated three times in Canberra, the final time in the Senate in part because of a massive people’s protest that was registered from across the country to politicians in Canberra.

As summarised in the attached briefing document, plans are afoot to continue with present protests against this new tax, and, if necessary, to launch yet another (fourth) wave of protests to Canberra,
should that prove necessary.

I invite you to consider participating in this protest by signing up to become a member of an informal action group in your town, area or region. The appropriate email address to write to is contained in the “What Can I Do?” section of the attached briefing document by Professor Bob Carter, who is a long-time opponent of Canberra’s unrealistic “stop climate change” policy plans.

Finally, (i) please feel free to forward this message, and the briefing document, to any other persons that you think might be interested in it; and (ii) I apologize if this turns out to be a multiple copy of the letter (in which case, of course, please discard it), but hope that you will agree, given the importance of the matter, that it is better for you to get multiple copies than to receive none.

Kind regards.


Bob Carter
================================



Carbon dioxide tax – a People’s Revolt?
AGW politics in Australia – end-February, 2011

POLITICAL BACKGROUND
  1. Three years ago, majority public opinion in western nations believed IPCC warnings that dangerous AGW was being caused by human carbon dioxide emissions. Accordingly, even right-wing governments whose leaders remained privately sceptical were forced to join in the public demonisation of carbon dioxide, and to prepare (unnecessary) policy measures against human-caused emissions (e.g., the Howard government).
  2. A gathering shift of public opinion, already underway during 2009, became focused into a large shift between November 2009 and March 2010, as the successive Climategate and various IPCCgate scandals broke.
  3. An IPA survey of Australian public opinion in April, 2010, found that 35% of respondents believed that “the world is warming and man’s emissions are to blame”, 28% believed “the variation in global temperature is just part of a natural cycle” and 39% were “unsure” or “don’t know”. That survey was repeated this month (February, 2011), and, surprisingly, detected no change whatever in opinion despite the occurrence over the last 6 months of several major natural climatic disasters in Australia. The fact remains, though, that this poll indicates that 67% of Australians do NOT believe that human activity is causing dangerous global warming.

    Other recent online polls, however, suggest that an even larger majority of public opinion is now openly sceptical about dangerous AGW. For example, 89% of online respondents answered NO to the question “Would you support a climate tax”, as published in The Age on February 11th. Another poll, in the Herald-Sun, and with more than 30,000 respondents, received an 85% NO to the question “Do you support a price on carbon (sic)?”.
  4. With very few exceptions, the media (and especially ABC and SBS) have campaigned hand-in-glove with environmentalists to spread the message of AGW alarm since about 2001 (date of the IPCC’s 3AR).

    Though at the start of 2010 even “wet, Green” newspapers such as the Guardian and London Times felt obliged to cover Climategate and ensuing scandals, as the months passed nearly all media sources have reverted to their baseline position of direct propagandizing on behalf of the IPCC and its supporters. In particular, the producers of TV current affairs, documentary and news programs exhibit a complete inability to separate politically motivated science spin from meaningful research results, and display also an utter naivete in their addictive dependence upon what they portray as definitive science authority (e.g. IPPC, national science academies).
Worldwide, the media response to recent climatic disasters, egged on by IPCC-related researchers (see, for example, two recent model-based papers in Nature), has been to concentrate on the message that these are a result of human-induced warming - Climategate being now long put aside. Remarkably, The Australian is currently still running editorials in support of “putting a price on carbon dioxide”.

Recent natural climate-related disasters, including bushfires and floods in 2010, and floods and cyclones so far this year, have surely demonstrated in spades the value of a society being prepared in advance for climatic disasters, and adapting to them as they develop.

Yet scarcely a single influential politician or media writer/presenter in Australia has supported, or even discussed, the needed, truly precautionary and cost-effective approach of preparation + adaptation with respect to climate change.
  1.  Senior business figures have nearly all become resigned to what they see as the inevitability of a carbon dioxide tax/ETS – subservient to Green and political intimidation, they have (mostly) found creative ways in which to profit from the prospect of “carbon trading”. Indeed, some industry sectors, especially alternative energy providers and the financial community, have always been amongst the most vigorous lobbyists for a carbon dioxide taxation/ETS policy.
Therefore, very few businessmen, wealthy individuals or philanthropic organisations have so far been prepared to put money into challenging IPCC “science” or the Green intimidation that goes with it. Hopefully, the sheer cost and pointlessness of what the government is now proposing might stimulate business organisations to start taking more interest in the independent scientific evidence.
  1. Most federal National MPs/Senators and probably a majority of Liberal ones understand that Green-IPCC-inspired AGW hysteria is a contrived issue. But they remain terrified of the “poison pill” aspect of arguing against AGW alarmism. That the alarmist-inclined Greg Hunt is still Liberal spokesman on climate (and known to be backed by Malcolm Turnbull and others) is also a very big political problem for the Coalition.

    The internal schism in the Coalition has, perhaps inevitably, resulted in an ineffectual and politically damaging “keep our heads below the parapet” approach, accompanied by the maintenance of a transparently irrational “half-pregnant” policy for reducing carbon dioxide emissions through means other than taxation or trading (though some of the mooted measures could be defended as “no regrets” ones independently of warming worries).
  2. Meanwhile, global temperatures have failed to increase; the Chicago Carbon Exchange has collapsed; devastating corruption and ineffectiveness has been demonstrated for the barely-functioning European carbon dioxide trading system; US politicians have dropped the idea of carbon dioxide cap-and-trade legislation; both India and the US Congress have announced that they will not use IPCC advice for future setting of their national climate policy; and NZ Deputy Prime Minister John Cullen has recently announced that "having lower carbon (sic) emissions" was a 2007 “fad”.

    Yet IPCC advice remains the sole justification advanced by the Australian government for their present, equally fad-inspired policy.
  3. February 23rd saw the announcement by the government’s Multi-Party Climate Change Committee that a carbon dioxide tax will be legislated to commence on July 1, 2012. In any objective, let alone international, context, this continued planning for the introduction of an economically damaging and socially strongly regressive carbon dioxide tax in Australia is simply weird.

    In response to the Prime Minister’s announcement, Tony Abbott has rightly called for a “People’s Revolt” against the ridiculous intention of compulsorily reducing the living standards of all Australians, with especial impact on poorer persons, in return for no identifiable environmental benefit.
  4. My own response to the renewed plans for carbon dioxide taxation are contained in an article published in Quadrant Online on Feb. 28th, see: http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2011/02/gillard-ignores-the-science
Conclusion
Should the tooth fairy suddenly appear, we all have ideas as to where advertising etc. might be deployed, and where we could benefit from paying for individual services such as co-ordination of publicity.
But until then concerned citizens are on their own without funding resources, and have only until July 1st to achieve a reversal of the current political intent. What might they do?
CURRENT ACTIVITES & POSSIBLE STRATEGIES
Many hard-working people and groups have spent and continue to spend many waking hours pondering the AGW issue and are already working hard to combat hysteria about it. Of course, there is strength in this very diversity, but there is also great (and currently unrealised) strength in better co-ordination and focus – especially given the inexorable time line that confronts opponents of a carbon dioxide tax or emissions trading scheme.
Obvious strategies to oppose the tax include organizing lectures by knowledgeable scientists or others, holding regular “tactic discussion” meetings in you particular area, writing letters to the editor or phoning in to radio talk back shows, preparing fact sheets and participating in public protests or demonstrations.
Local action groups could include well informed people who can: rapidly marshall any needed opposing arguments and facts; put opinion pieces and letters to the Editor together quickly; access media sources to disseminate the information. Each group would organise its own editors and helpers, and decide how best to attack particular issues in their area as they arise.
If all else fails, and the government remains committed to the introduction of carbon dioxide taxation in late June, then (as was done successfully in 2009), people nationally will be asked to let politicians know of their opposition to carbon dioxide taxes/ETS by means of direct faxes, phone calls or emails to their representatives in Canberra. (You may recall that the last time that the Senate attempted to pass ETS legislation, Canberra was swamped by an alleged more than 300,000 individual protests, which must have contributed to stopping the bill).
If you are interested in helping to apply these, and other, means towards the goal of stopping the introduction of a carbon dioxide tax/ETS in Australia, then please consider signalling your interest to the email address listed in the section below.
COMMUNICATIONS LINKS
There are a number of established Australian web-based communication and information sites in place, through which the rapid dissemination and public promulgation of information about global warming and related scientific and political issues is already achieved. They include:
The Australian Conservative (John Styles) - http://australianconservative.com/
The Australian Climate Sceptics (Leon Ashby) - http://landshape.org/news/
The Carbon Sense Coalition (Viv Forbes) - http://carbon-sense.com/
JoNova (Joanne Nova) - http://joannenova.com.au/
Jennifer Marohasy (Jennifer Marohasy) -http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/
Lavoisier Group (Ray Evans) - http://www.lavoisier.com.au/index.php
IPA (Chris Berg) - http://climatechange.ipa.org.au/
AEF (Max Rheese) - http://aefweb.info/
Aus Climate Science Coalition (Max Rheese) - http://www.auscsc.org.au/
KEY ALARMIST POINTS THAT NEED TO BE COMBATTED
A slide set is being prepared that addresses each of the major arguments that are currently used by the alarmists to further their cause. The content of this slide set will cover the following points.
  1. There is nothing unusual about either the magnitude or rate of change of warming in the late 20th century and today.
    SLIDE 1.1 – 6 My climate record of Pacific Ocean temperature
    SLIDE 1.2 – Antarctic Ice core temperature record, last 400,000 years
    SLIDE 1.3 – Greenland ice core temperature record, last 10,000 years
    SLIDE 1.4 – Greenland ice core record, last 50 ky, rate of temperature change
  2. Current levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide are low by geological standards, increasing them does not produce dangerous warming; carbon dioxide is an environmental benefice.
    SLIDE 2.1 – A carbon dioxide level of 380 ppm is low in comparison with geological history.
    SLIDE 2.2 – The relationship between carbon dioxide and temperature is logarithmic
    SLIDE 2.3 – Carbon dioxide, an aerial plant fertilizer, is an environmental benefice.
  3. There is nothing unusual about the global number or magnitude of tropical storms, nor about the amount of sea-ice at the north and south poles.
    SLIDE 3.1 – Summary of (global) energy in tropical storms
    SLIDE 3.2 – Summary of sea-ice cover in north and south polar regions.
  4. The recent weather/climate disasters have not been caused by human CO2 emissions.
    SLIDE 4.1 – graph of Queensland large cyclones versus time
    SLIDE 4.2 – graph of Brisbane River floods since the 19th century
  5. There is no evidence for an increased rate or magnitude of natural disasters, or their effect
    SLIDE 5.1 – Steady decrease in deaths associated with natural disasters
    SLIDE 5.2 – Normalised US hurricane damage, 1900-2000
    SLIDE 5.3 – No increase in the damage caused by normalised Australian climatic disasters
  6. Long-term average global sea-level rise is ~1.7 mm/yr (17 cm/C), but currently decreasing.
    SLIDE 6.1 – Long-term tide gauge records showing rise of ~1.5 mm/yr over the last 100 years
    SLIDE 6.2 – Decreasing rate of sea-level rise recorded over the last 20 years from satellites.
  7. Coastal planning requires knowledge of variable LOCAL, not global, sea-level change.
    SLIDE 7.1 – Variable local sea-level change around the Australian coast
    SLIDE 7.2 – Inflated sea-level rise planning targets for Australia, based on the IPCC.
  8. The deterministic computer models of future temperature have no forecast skill.
    SLIDE 8.1 – Lucia’s IPCC model projection versus measured reality
    SLIDE 8.2 – Akasofu’s graph of recovery from LIA plus multidecadal cycles
  9. The dangerous AGW hypothesis can be tested in many ways, and fails; here’s two tests
    SLIDE 9.1 – TEST 1 – Lucia’s recent summary slide of decreasingtemperature since 2001
    SLIDE 9.2 – TEST 2 - the missing atmospheric hot spot
  10. The precautionary principle is not appropriate, indeed it’s counter-productive.
    SLIDE 10.1 – recommendation of the UK Commons Committee of Science & Techology
    SLIDE 10.2 – yet to come
  11. There is no “majority of climate scientists” who argue that dangerous AGW requires urgent mitigation of carbon dioxide emissions; rather, there is a small, activist IPCC cabal.
    SLIDE 11.1 - summary of signed climate rationalist statements
    SLIDE 11.2 – yet to come
THE MESSAGES TO SELL & THE QUESTIONS TO ASK
From watching the media every day, we all understand that the two secrets of successful transmittal of political ideas are:
  • Stay on message, and repeat it endlessly; and
  • Try to be FOR something, rather than endlessly negative (in our case, against AGW)
Such tactics imply that the fewer and simpler the messages and questions the better. Here are what I view as the two most important messages. Note that the second is FOR something, and that that something is cost-effective, sensible and politically feasible.
  1. No scientific analysis is available that demonstrates that warming is more likely than cooling over the next few decades, and no cost:benefit analyses exist that show that mitigation is more cost-effective than adaptation to either warming or cooling, whichever might occur next.
  2. Therefore, all climate hazard, both natural and possibly human-caused, should be dealt with by a national policy of preparation for, and adaptation, to dangerous climatic events as they develop.
Recent natural disasters in Australia provide crystal clear examples of the value of such a policy. In particular, Queensland dealt so well with the recent Brisbane floods and Cyclone Yasi in large part because of the re-organisation of the emergency services that was undertaken based on lessons learned during and after the earlier cyclone Larry.
There are then two key questions for which an answer must be relentlessly DEMANDED. They have been asked by me in parliamentary committee in Canberra, in many public talks and most recently in a letter to Tim Flannery in the Australian last week – all without answer. They are:
  1. How many degrees of warming will be averted by a cut in Australian carbon dioxide emissions of, say, 20% by 2020?
  2.  What extra costs, including all flow-through costs, will be imposed on an average family by the taxation strategy that is aimed at producing such a cut, at, say, $25/tonne of carbon dioxide emitted.
The available informal estimates indicate that the answers to these questions are something like: (i) less than 0.001 deg. C by 2020; and (ii) more than $2000/Family-of-Four/year. What should be demanded, however, are “official” answers to these questions by CSIRO and the government rather than attempting to propagate my back-of-the-envelope estimates.
WHAT CAN YOU DO?
If you are in agreement with a substantial part of the analysis above, you may wish to help towards what Mr Abbot has termed a People’s Revolt aimed at convincing the present government not to proceed with the implementation of a carbon dioxide tax.
In order to register your interest in receiving future communications towards this end, please send an email with your name and contact details (email, phone number, nearest town and state) to thepeoplesrevolt@talkingclimate.ruralsoft.com.au. If you are prepared to play a more active role, then please indicate also:
(i) whether you would be prepared to act as a co-ordinator as a geographic (state, region or district) response group, and

(ii) any special skills that you might be able to offer towards preparing materials or organising or attending meetings etc. in your area.
It goes without saying, but nonetheless needs to be noted, that your personal details and interests will not be passed on or divulged to anyone outside the group.
We are, of course, aware that several regionally based and one national (Climate Sceptics Party) group are already active in networking and provision of materials to “climate sceptics”. If any such group wishes to participate as part of The People’s Revolt network, then just let us know. If not, we appreciate that diversity confers strength as well as co-ordination, and we will be more than happy to simply work alongside existing groups, and help them in any way that we can.
Should you register an interest, you will be included in a summary listing of “helpers” that will be organized by state and district. Shortly beyond that, you can expect to hear again from a nearby co-ordinator, to be consulted about activities that you might plan to be involved in, and to be provided from time to time with supporting material and information.
All such local groups will be encouraged to make their own autonomous decisions for action, though perhaps guided by some of the principles outlined in this paper. Please be very clear that this document is not concerned with setting up rigid committee or other structures, but rather is simply intended as an encouragement and help towards loosely networked action for all who wish to be involved
A THANK YOU
Finally, thank you very much to all who have contributed ideas, enthusiasm and support towards the development of this briefing document.

Professor Robert (Bob) M. Carter
February 25, 2011

Author of Climate: the Counter Consensus 



16 comments:

  1. Excellent post and thanks especially to Prof Carter and to all those at TCS for their previous and ongoing hard work.
    Pat Kelly

    ReplyDelete
  2. A document like this one, supplied by Bob Carter, is invaluable in summarising the basis of a realistic approach to countering the assertions of those proposing AGW. He has summarised so much, in such a clear manner, that we now have easy access to a vast amount of material in reduced format.

    The resources available to those arguing the tenuous proposition that human emissions have any effect on climate change are immense. The Department of Climate Change costs us $180m per year, to work against our economic interests, and present a case devoid of any scientific basis. It is estimated that $90bn has been spent on presenting the failed case of AGW, and they are not about to give up, despite polls showing that the majority of Australians are no longer fooled.

    The fact challenged Tim Flannery has once again been inflicted on us at taxpayers’ expense, to talk nonsense about global warming.

    We are without resources, other than those supplied by our own energy, and from our own pockets.

    I hope this is one battle the unconscionably directed taxpayers’ funds do not win.

    Best wishes,

    Jock Lenehan

    ReplyDelete
  3. How old are all you climate skeptics? You dont really care about the planet's future do you, as you will be dead in a few years.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Actually, anonymous, do you notice that we are not scared to use our names) we would like to hand it on to young people who are not so stupid as to follow blindly false info that they are fed but would be able to look at the science and see the truth.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Yes, Anonymous. My name is David. These last climatic occurrences probably are 'The worst you have ever seen' however us 'older people' (I am 55) have actually witnessed and experienced droughts, floods, bush fires and cyclones. We have also seen the land and the planet survive them and people adapt to them and other changing climatic situations. Open your mind, some books and read them and stop believing what you are being 'spoon fed' by those who have a financial gain in the business of Climate Change. It is just a business. Grow up a little and start to act responsibly by opening your mind to the real information. It is out there and we do care...for you and other younger ones that can't see the truth. Good luck for your future.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I notice that Crikey has some garbage printed today with this blog mentioned among nasty comments about talk-back; even slighting the ABC. Is that how you found your way here Anony-mouse?
    If you cared about the planet's future, you should google the little ice age and see if you shouldn't prepare for a chilly period, say an anonymous lifetime?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Because you are probably lazy and did not bother to read the above before you placed your ANONYMOUS comment, you probably missed this in the middle of the post. Check some of these links and then come back and comment -

    There are a number of established Australian web-based communication and information sites in place, through which the rapid dissemination and public promulgation of information about global warming and related scientific and political issues is already achieved. They include:
    The Australian Conservative (John Styles) - http://australianconservative.com/
    The Australian Climate Sceptics (Leon Ashby) - http://landshape.org/news/
    The Carbon Sense Coalition (Viv Forbes) - http://carbon-sense.com/
    JoNova (Joanne Nova) - http://joannenova.com.au/
    Jennifer Marohasy (Jennifer Marohasy) -http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/
    Lavoisier Group (Ray Evans) - http://www.lavoisier.com.au/index.php
    IPA (Chris Berg) - http://climatechange.ipa.org.au/
    AEF (Max Rheese) - http://aefweb.info/
    Aus Climate Science Coalition (Max Rheese) - http://www.auscsc.org.au/

    ReplyDelete
  8. It's always disappointed to be confronted by people who clearly have no interested in actually being educated on the subject matter.

    I guess there must be a large number of these youths who remain safe and warm in their self-righteous delusion of 'saving the planet'. It's such a pity they don't realize just how badly they've been misled, and just how dangerous is the path that the minority Brown/Gillard government is trying to take us down. Not just damaging to the economy, but also in the divergence of planning away from mitigation for natural changes.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Climate change deniers may be slotted into either of two categories. Whether fossil fuel executives, fossil fuel workers, PR people, lobbyists or members of known political parties advocates, they all fit in either one category or the other. That is biased due to links within sectors of country that will go through over whelming changes in the coming decades. The other is a bigoted political ideology entrenched in ways of doing things of the past and based on an economy of old fossil fuel prosperity.

    Of these there are those who actually believe, against the vast preponderance of the peer-reviewed scientific evidence, that humans are not driving climate change. Even though over 90% of science based indicators testify to utter reversal of this dearly held shallow and flimsy belief.

    The remainder say what they will, careless or regardless of the facts because they have a personal interest in the outcome of the anti-global warming effort. These will do anything and say anything and leverage their outspoken mashed and confused ideas anyway they can. There facts are convoluted and based on the highly paid shock jock propagandists who hold whole cities hypnotised by false pronouncements of anger. Consider the sense of power they feel when can enrage over a 1/2 million listeners.

    The former can be forgiven their ignorance or their self-delusion. But the latter are subversives who ought to be treated accordingly. By their intentional interference in the public discourse, they subvert the democratic process - which depends profoundly upon the truth.

    Their disrespect for fundamental democratic principals betrays their true colours, which are neither red nor blue but the colour of and extent of their own money. They are highly self-centred and their view of our world - wastage. Extravagant in their own self-importance these would be kings parade themselves daily to the public on million dollar salaries. All are fluffed up peacocks preening their beautiful feathers to a gullible public.

    The devastation to which these people have already committed us exceeds by far all danger we will ever experience from terrorism or dreaded immorality.

    We will remember them. The fallen of our history not in their economic successes but rather those who in foresight dared to say to their own generation there was a coming storm. These are the real heroes of tomorrow - the prophets who were stoned by their own kind and of entrenched powers that attempted to silence them as fools.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anonymous ( I assume this is Mr Byatt or cooloola who boasts about posting here on the "Watching BY the deniers" site but sneaks in here as anonymous) has left a new comment on your post "Bob Carter and the people's revolt.":

    Climate change xxxxxxs may be slotted into either of two categories. Whether fossil fuel executives, fossil fuel workers, PR people, lobbyists or members of known political parties advocates, they all fit in either one category or the other. That is biased due to links within sectors of country that will go through over whelming changes in the coming decades. The other is a bigoted political ideology entrenched in ways of doing things of the past and based on an economy of old fossil fuel prosperity.

    Of these there are those who actually believe, against the vast preponderance of the peer-reviewed scientific evidence, that humans are not driving climate change. Even though over 90% of science based indicators testify to utter reversal of this dearly held shallow and flimsy belief.

    The remainder say what they will, careless or regardless of the facts because they have a personal interest in the outcome of the anti-global warming effort. These will do anything and say anything and leverage their outspoken mashed and confused ideas anyway they can. There facts are convoluted and based on the highly paid shock jock propagandists who hold whole cities hypnotised by false pronouncements of anger. Consider the sense of power they feel when can enrage over a 1/2 million listeners.

    The former can be forgiven their ignorance or their self-delusion. But the latter are subversives who ought to be treated accordingly. By their intentional interference in the public discourse, they subvert the democratic process - which depends profoundly upon the truth.

    Their disrespect for fundamental democratic principals betrays their true colours, which are neither red nor blue but the colour of and extent of their own money. They are highly self-centred and their view of our world - wastage. Extravagant in their own self-importance these would be kings parade themselves daily to the public on million dollar salaries. All are fluffed up peacocks preening their beautiful feathers to a gullible public.

    The devastation to which these people have already committed us exceeds by far all danger we will ever experience from terrorism or dreaded immorality.

    We will remember them. The fallen of our history not in their economic successes but rather those who in foresight dared to say to their own generation there was a coming storm. These are the real heroes of tomorrow - the prophets who were stoned by their own kind and of entrenched powers that attempted to silence them as fools.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Byatt: = the vast preponderance of the peer-reviewed scientific evidence, that humans are not driving climate change. Even though over 90% of science based indicators testify to utter reversal of this dearly held shallow and flimsy belief.=

    This is an unsubstantiated statement that goes against scientific reality.



    Byatt; =‘The devastation to which these people have already committed us exceeds by far all danger we will ever experience from terrorism or dreaded immorality.”=

    The danger is that the rabid haters of essential vital to life CO2 have corrupted our children’s minds and education. Reduction in atmospheric cabon dioxide means reduction in food in growing populations. What the galloping greens want and what the carbon dioxide haters fail to see.

    There is a coming storm. When the world realizes (and it IS coming) that the carbon dioxide haters were misguided by corrupt scientists and the fools that follow them

    ReplyDelete
  12. Rapid haters of essential vital to life CO2 - yes we ALL would like to return a natural cycles of carbon.

    We are but the informed and the ones who listen not to the bevy of industrialists of billion if not trillion dollar industries catching the gullible in their own web of dependence.

    We are of the sane, the rational and those who want to see our following generations get off addictions and kick the bad the habits of our present generations. We seek to align ourselves with our earth's finite resources and use them them more wisely.

    We would say sorry to our earth - the habitation of over six billion people. We seek to go in harmony and live within our means - globally. We seek to green the earth and become the farmers of tomorrow. To return to things that enhance rather then destroy us all. We seek to stop rampant consumerism and over turn extremes of capitalist greed and to reform our governments to be there for the people rather then just be drivers of macro economics at the expense of our children.

    We seek to put an end to the evil lies spread by such sites as this.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Another Jelly-bellied Anonymous poster - full of flaws.

    Rapid (sic) haters....as fast as that?

    "billion if not trillion dollar industries catching the gullible.." The biggest dollar spend is with the disgraced scientists plying for government grant, governments who have been led astray by these same people. As an example, Phil Jones, who requested his colleagues to delete emails following an FOI request (incitement to commit a crime), has received £13.7 million to try to catch the gullible into their web of deceit.

    We would hate to have to say sorry to future generations if they were starving because vital-yo-life carbon dioxide had deprived the biomass of growth and the world was slowly starving.

    The evil lies of the people who say carbon to deceive the innocent gullible when they mean carbon dioxide. The deceit is to refer to CO2 as carbon to evilly imply that it is the pollution of old. The deceit of calling CO2 emissions "pollution" is beyond reproach.

    To even imply that it is only the 3% of CO2 emissions from humans and not 97% of natural emissions that is causing runaway global warming.

    We seek to put an end to the evil lies spread by the disgraced climategate caba'

    ReplyDelete
  14. Its not hard to see how Hitler harnessed the Hitler Youth and Mao incited the youthful Red Army. Now we've got Gore's Green Army. Hormonal, intolerant,and increasingly uneducated.

    ReplyDelete
  15. The Murray river is dry in 1915. Today it is drowning in water. Correct me if i'm wrong but weren't there only a few hundred cars in 1915? Maybe the horses drank the murray dry. And now we're going to have a co2 tax next year? Does that now mean we are going to be taxed on the CO2 we and our pets exhale? Does that mean the CO2 in soft drinks will be taxed? And what about the CO2 the trees emit at night when the sun is not around to power their CO2 day production, and they then produce CO2 at night? That's why the process is called photosynthesis. And yet Aussies still want this tax? Young people especially? I guess they are looking forward to starving on the dole. The fact that even 1% of the fools in this country support this tax is an indication of just how uneducated people are on this subject. But if the economy dies because of this hitler tax, proposed by hitler fans, we can always laze our days away by engaging in homosexual marriage that is so important to the greens and labors peoples. Yes this is a rant against the greenies. Why do Aussies want to appear so stupid to support such rot?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Anonymous: I sure hope you are doing your bit by not using electricity from the grid, not driving your motor vehicle, not using natural gas and certainly not burning any timber for warmth or food preparation. All of these activities release CO2 which you (and like people) misguidedly believe increase "dangerous climate change". I am glad you have shown the intelligent people of the world how short sighted your political views are. You have been suckered in by political guff much the same as the people of 1974 were suckered in to believing a great global cooling event was eminent. Do your research before your fingers commence their misguided tapping on the keyboard.

    ReplyDelete





All serious comments published after moderation.
Comments should be polite, and respect all views.
No bad language. Spam never makes it!