Tuesday, 15 February 2011

Who's fooling who? They're all fooling you!

In today's  (15/2) Australian, in an article by Lenore Taylor and Mark Davis headed 

Climate cash goes up in smoke 
MORE than $5.5 billion has been spent by federal governments during the past decade on climate change programs that are delivering only small reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.
An analysis of government schemes designed to cut emissions by direct spending or regulatory intervention reveals they have cost an average $168 for each tonne of carbon dioxide abated.
Mark and Lenore seem to have calculated how much vital-to-life Carbon Dioxide has been reduced by the Government's plans. I would like to see their calculations. Meanwhile, the Gillard Government, in their election campaign said: "No Carbon (Dioxide) Tax." (August 2010)
Julia Gillard has said there will be no tax on carbon while she leads the federal government. The Deputy Prime Minister, Wayne Swan, said last week that if Labor won the election there would be no carbon tax during its three-year term.
Ms Gillard seemed to go a step further yesterday. ''There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead,'' she told Network Ten.
As an aside, have your seen or heard any of the Main Stream Journalists questioning the Government on this broken promise?

Practically all the Labor promises in the last two election campaigns have been broken and "no tax on carbon" is no exception. Meanwhile the Government are pushing the "benefits" of taxing carbon (dioxide.)  (from Business Spectator)
Prime Minister Julia Gillard on Monday reaffirmed a commitment to pricing carbon pollution, likening the move to key economic reforms of the 1980s and 1990s and saying the move would lead to a new technological revolution in Australia.
 People elsewhere are rapidly coming to the conclusion that the purported environmental benefits of carbon trading and carbon taxes are illusory is amply demonstrated by the rorting and collapse of carbon markets in both Europe and the US. [Click here and here]

Additionally, in March 2010, France ditched its proposed carbon tax. [Click here]. What reason did they give? The government said its energy tax was being postponed indefinitely in order not to "damage the competitiveness of French companies."
Do you think our government knows something the French don't? Personally, I'd like to know if they have any idea where most of our Aussie billions have actually gone, wouldn't you?

Below, a recent picture from NOAA showing how global warming is affecting the Northern Hemisphere. (The white bits are frozen.)
National Oceanic And Atmospheric Association (NOAA) Image.


So are we being told the real reason why certain sections want to reduce carbon (dioxide) emissions? Are we being told why the Climategate CRU lied and tricked up figures to try to show Carbon Dioxide causes dangerous global warming? Are we being told why Bob Brown tries to blame any weather event (hot, cold, wet, dry) on emissions of carbon (dioxide.)

Not according to Ottmar Edenhofer, professor of the Economics of Climate Change at the Technical University of Berlin, co-chair of Working group III of the IPCC and deputy director and chief economist at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact research  as well as Fellow of the Academy of Sciences in Hamburg, Germany. Dear old Ottmar let the cat out of the bag.

Just before the UN climate conference in Cancun (Mexico) in November 2010, Edenhofer acknowledged the IPCC's agenda was not environmental. To climate realists it was not surprising that the IPCC has had a hidden agenda. What is surprising is that one of their leading lights actually feels the whole man-made global warming juggernaut (dare I say "scam") now has enough momentum that he can openly boast about it.

“… we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy any more...”


Here is one of many references on the Net to Edenhofer's statement [Click here].  

Idea and significant contribution by KF 

Political Climate Insight

Letter to the editor by Leon Ashby - President The Climate Sceptics

 Political Climate Insight




Dear Sir / Madam,

                              Here is some irony with climate politics.

The "Green / alarmist" position assumes the debate is over but never has a face to face public debate with those sceptical.

They say they believe in free markets (to keep prices low) but corrupt the renewable power market (costing us more).

They say wind and solar renewables will replace  baseload  power but it has never been done.

They say Australia should get into renewable power as European countries begin to abandon the idea.

They want an Australian Carbon Tax & ETS despite the Chicago Carbon exchange collapsing.

They tout carbon dioxide storage underground as a solution without it being achieved commercially.

They claim the majority of people want a carbon tax while  the latest "AGE"  survey shows  89% are against it.

And now they will stage an "independent" climate commissions with a non independent  "Alarmist" chairman (Tim Flannery).

Does anyone see a similarity with climate policies and the emperors new clothes?

Leon Ashby
President The Climate Sceptics

True Unbelievers

An article in Saturday's Good Weekend Magazine by John van Tiggelen (See Update.). He examines both sides of the science of inter alia Evolution, Vaccination and Human Induced global Warming. In the latter he turns a blind eye to the evidence.

There is, in Science, a sharp line between scepticism and denial. Scepticism is useful; it's what makes science tick. A scientist never assumes anything, she sorts fact from theory by setting up hypotheses and testing them.Denial is something else. Whereas a sceptic may doubt the theory, a denialist throws out the evidence.
He goes on to say, referring to man-made global warming,
"....the evidence that humans are warming the planet is in."

Hello! Mr van Tiggelen. First you say "by setting up hypotheses and testing them.." and then go on "the evidence is in." 

IPCC has been shot to pieces
 Let's look at these in reverse order.

The evidence is in...Well, is the evidence in? The IPCC was set up more than 20 years ago with one sole purpose, to blame CO2 for runaway global warming. They have admitted, in a letter,  that they cannot. 20 years of international funds, billions of dollars spent on this InterGOVERNMENTAL - (ie political body not a scientific) - body, - and a not proven result.

So what about Mr van Tiggelen's other phrase: ""by setting up hypotheses and testing them.." 
Well, The hypothesis is that human-caused carbon dioxide emissions are causing dangerous global warming.  The hypothesis was falsified years ago by Professor RM Carter. (Here) Also falsified by ex-NASA physicist Ferenc Miskolczi.

Mr van Tiggelen then goes to introduce diversions, such as tobacco, rather than looking at the Climate Realists' science. And infers senility. Shame on you. Look at the science. Look at the denials of the IPCC Climate Cabal CRU.


UPDATE:

We must thank Mr John van Tiggelen who has generously contributed to our Lord Monckton tour fund. And, thank you John, a RECORD AMOUNT! As you said with your deposit, because we are worth it. Thanks you, Sir!