The Carbon Dioxide Scam.

                       The Carbon Dioxide Scam.

by Terence Cardwell

No doubt after the recent cyclone Ita the alarmists will be coming out of the woodwork crying out that the sky is falling and the world is coming to an end. Along with the IPCC’s latest report, which had nothing new to report only to repeat the 1990s catch cries of rising temperature, rising seas, no rain, droughts, increased cyclones, people starving because they cannot grow food, melting Himalayan mountains, shrinking Arctic and Antarctic polar caps, dying polar bears, dying barrier reef, dying forests in Brazil and Indonesia, new records set hot, cold etc. etc.

They pump it out like an endless conveyor. But then again, why not?

This was all started by some clever people in the United Nations who worked out how to extract large amounts of money from governments all over the world. Prior to this the United Nations had a great deal of trouble keeping its head above water and continually chasing countries to pay their obligations of money to the United Nations.

But since they ran this, the world’s biggest scam, they are literally rolling in money. Billions of dollars given by gullible and naïve governments, including Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd who handed over 57 billion of dollars of your money. Yet no one did anything about it.

No wonder they can afford all those websites pushing global warming/ come climate change.

Also the Climate change commission which was sacked, and then came back as a self- appointed not for profit (what a con) Climate Council led by the king of con men Tim Flannery. Another out of  the box, the Climate Authority. All pushing the scam and lies.

Tim Flannery for example has made many dire (the sky is falling) predictions but NOT one of them ever eventuated. He was the man than caused four states to spend over six billion dollars on useless desalination plants that have never been required and cost a million dollars a year each to maintain.

One wonders exactly what did they and their labor government cohorts get out of it. You can be sure it wasn’t just ’retirement’ which they probably welcomed with open arms so that they could enjoy the fruits of their labours.

The IPCC went on again about rising seas, like they did in 1993 and the seas have not risen 40mm and nor will they. They said the global temperature will rise sharply, again just like they said in 1993. In fact it has drifted down fractionally over the past eighteen years.

They repeat that we must change to ‘clean’ energy just like they did in 1990. The result since then - an absolute catastrophic waste of billions of dollars spent on solar and wind energy that was an immense failure plus losses of billions of dollars given to the U.N.

The other experiments with roof insulation, hot rocks programme, clean coal power stations, Wind generators, solar farms and pumping CO2 underground, the Carbon tax and tax credits have all ended up as total disasters or complete failures. To the cost of more billions of dollars.

More money than our entire inherited deficit was spent on these, and tens of billions of dollars given to the United Nations. Your money!!!

Now they are buying carbon credits, so we can run our industries, from places like Nigeria who couldn’t give a damn what we do. But they are overjoyed at taking our money.

So what is the end result of all this?

Well we know it was supposed to reduce the manmade CO2 and thus prevent Global Warming and save the planet. Ooops I forgot that word didn’t work so now it is manmade climate change.

As if we don’t have a change in climate every day.

So what was the result of all these scams and billions of dollars after some 35 years. ZERO. Nothing. The carbon dioxide content has risen fractional and the world’s average temperature has gone down slightly.

Every one of the alarmists predictions were miserable failures and never occurred. The forests did not die, although they are being decimated by logging and palm oil plantations. But the alarmists and Greenies never did a thing about that.

The polar caps are the largest they have been for years; they also decrease in summer with the melting of the sea ice which the alarmists try to use as a proof of warming. The barrier reef is in excellent condition overall but the greenies keep trying.

Cyclones and storms we have had forever and in spite of what the alarmists say they are actually less than the beginning of this century. If you doubt it have a look at the Internet graphs.

The list goes on but at the end of it all this false hypothesis depends on one thing only. All the above and other theories are caused by manmade (anthropogenic) carbon dioxide.

The whole hypothesis is like a inverted triangle where all these predictions are based on one thing -------man made carbon dioxide.

So if we prove that the hypothesis that manmade carbon dioxide is causing climate change is a lie and a scam then the rest of the statements become null and void.

No one questions that we have climate change—every day. Sometimes it is good. Sometimes it is bad. Other times it can be terrifying with even new records set. But the clear and obvious factors will become apparent that we do not affect the weather with ‘Manmade’ carbon Dioxide and we can do nothing to control the weather.

Keeping in mind that pollution of any form is obviously objectionable but carbon dioxide is not pollution and is an essential part of everyday life. Although the alarmists take pleasure in saying it is- another weak deception.

According to the alarmists own figures the total carbon dioxide in the air was 360 parts per million and they say it has risen to 390 parts per million in 50 to 100 years.

What they don’t say is that the past record for atmospheric carbon dioxide is that it has continually been rising and falling over the past thousands of years. At times it has been five times greater than it is now with no detrimental effect whatsoever.

Let’s put this atmospheric carbon dioxide into perspective. We will be generous and call it 400 parts per million for simplicity.

Fill a 12 litre bucket with water and add a teaspoon full of water to that bucket. That is how much total carbon dioxide there is in the atmosphere---one teaspoon full.

But wait according to the alarmists that is not causing global warming –ooops –climate change.

No- it is only the carbon dioxide that is emitted by man that is causing climate change.—We have yet to find out the difference!!!!- must be the way we breath.

So how much is this manmade carbon dioxide- must be a lot.

Again using their figures, the atmospheric carbon dioxide increase from 360p.p.m to 390 p.p.m. we’ll round it off to 400 p.p.m. again for simplicity.

So the atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased 40 p.p.m in 50 years or (point) 0.8 p.p.m. increase per year, again for simplicity we’ll bump it up to 1 p.p.m. per year.

Now that equates to CO2 world emissions  per year -one teaspoonful per 4800 litres of water.

This includes ALL carbon dioxide emitted , including trees, plants, volcanoes, oceans, animals, wells, manmade and another one they came up with recently- CO2 from melting ice that had gas bubbles in it.

 But according to the alarmists only the manmade part of all that is causing climate change. So what percentage of total CO2 emissions is manmade CO2.?

Again by the alarmists figures manmade CO2 is 4% of all emissions so now our teaspoon of water becomes one teaspoon per 120,000 litres of water. per year.

That is the total worldwide manmade CO2 emissions going into our atmosphere.

So how much of this does Australia emit-----1.5% of total world emissions.

So our final teaspoon becomes—one teaspoon per 900,000 litres of water from Australia.

Carbon dioxide is also being absorbed by trees and plants that then emit oxygen. We breathe it in at 400 p.p.m. and breath it out at 1000 p.p.m. Carbon dioxide is used in drinks, manufacturing, fire extinguishers, etc .and is a totally harmless. It is inert gas that has no more heat reflective or transference characteristics than many other gases.

If you still believe that alarmists are right go back and do the figures again. They speak for themselves.

Terence Cardwell

Adam Bandt: More Bastardry.

by Anthony Cox

I met a fool in the forest, a motley fool!

The AG, George Brandis is going to either repeal or amend Section 18C of the RDA, the section which got Bolt and which is used by Islamists to stop legitimate criticism of the evils of Islam.

Naturally the Greens, the party of censorship and working against the best interests of Australia, has objected to Brandis’ proposed change. Adam Bandt, previously a multiple member of the Bastards Club, has come out claiming that sceptics having a right of speech is feudal.

Apparently Abbot’s restoration of the Royal Honours system means giving everyone the right to have their viewpoint is part of the feudal system. What can you say to that except to quote from Shakespeare:

I met a fool i’ the forest, A motley fool.

Bandt is a motley fool, brimming with puffery and vinegary vapours, and if he and his fellow fools had their way we would all be living in the dark in the forest. Bandt says: 

I mean, if someone said 'two plus two equals five', would you insist on giving them as much airtime in the media as someone who said 'two plus two equals four'?

Bandt means to say that the sceptics cannot add up and says the science of AGW:

has been through one of the most rigorous peer-reviewed processes it can go through.

And:

The science community is now essentially speaking with one voice.

This is a lie, a complete misrepresentation.

The idea of a consensus found its peer reviewed form in Cook’s egregious paper. This paper has been ridiculed throughout the blog community. That it was published is both an indictment of the peer review process and the calibre of those who support AGW. I replied to it here. Mr Cook turned up to debate and I replied to him:

In your paper you define the consensus position as being: "That humans are causing global warming." That consensus position is defined in your categories by category 1 of Table 2 which I have already quoted. The rest of your categories reflect varying degrees of lessor support for AGW [categories 2 and 3], or indifference to AGW [categories 4a and 4b] or active opposition to AGW [categories 5 to 7]. Only the first 3 categories could be defined as giving support for AGW. However, on the basis of the categories 1-3, of the original 11944 Abstracts from papers on climate you selected you discarded 8048 papers or 67.4% because they had no position. Of the remaining 4014 papers or 32.6% of papers 3973 or 99% of the remaining abstracts fell into categories 2 and 3. Only 41 or 1% expressed support for YOUR definition of the consensus that: "Humans are causing global warming." That’s 1% not 97%.

That’s 1% not 97%! Mr Cook did not reply further. So when Bandt says AGW science speaks with one voice we can say a couple of things. Firstly that voice doesn’t know what it is talking about. It cannot claim a consensus because it cannot do its sums right. And when Bandt talks about two and two equals five he is talking about AGW not the sceptics.

Secondly, the consensus is in fact with the sceptics with thousands of papers against AGW science and thousands of scientists and meteorologists with no vested interest, financial or ideological, in promoting the lie of AGW, being sceptical of AGW.

Thirdly AGW science actively seeks to censor, just as Bandt does, any opposing view. Bandt is not the only censorious bastard in the ranks of the AGW believers. People like Hamilton, Manne, Suzuki, Gore, and the ABC have all advocated suppression of and censorship of sceptics. People like Lewandowsky say sceptics have mental abnormalities. Or at least he tried to say that until his paper failed even the helpful peer review that alarmist papers receive. This failed paper still receives published status at Lewandowsky’s former university which tells you all you need to know about the Tertiary sectors commitment to alarmism.

The simple fact is if AGW was reputable, legitimate, evidenced science it wouldn’t need the bully boy tactics that bastards like Bandt employ. But because AGW is a failed theory it has to resort to these tactics which belong in Communism and other tyrannical societies. Of course the political party which Bandt belongs to has communists amongst its members so his despicable comments are consistent with that ‘pedigree’.

Let us hope Brandis keeps his nerve and resists the pressure from Bandt and other bastards of the left who do not have the best interests of this nation at heart.