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

Saturday, 26 September 2015

Pope, UN sabotaging development goals with climate mitigation focus


OTTAWASept. 25, 2015 /CNW/ - "By promoting the unfounded idea that humanity controls Earth's climate, Pope Francis and UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon are sabotaging many of the most important goals of today's UN Sustainable Development Summit," said Tom Harris, Executive Director of the Ottawa, Canada-based International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC). 
"As described in yesterday's ICSC news release, "Pope on wrong side of history on climate change," (click here to view), efforts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions to 'stop global warming' cause unintended consequences that counter the social justice and environmental protection efforts of the UN and the Catholic Church."
ICSC Strategic Advisor and Founding Chairman Terry Dunleavy of New Zealand advised, 
"Pope Francis and Mr. Ban should pay more attention to the UN's My World survey that shows what the public consider important. 
"The 8.4 million people polled to date say that, in comparison with most of the other UN post-2015 development agenda—issues such as health promotion, hunger alleviation and access to clean water, sanitation, and affordable energy—they care little about climate change." 
Dr. Tim Ball, former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg explains, 
"Most of the public, especially the poor, recognize that solving the problems we face today is vastly more important than trying to affect future climate."
"The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) reports demonstrate that much of what we thought we knew about climate change is either wrong or highly debateable." 
Tim Ball is an ICSC science advisor and author of the 2014 book The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science
"Yet, based on the assumption that climate science is 'settled', politicians foolishly want to phase out the use of inexpensive coal for generating electricity in developed nations and prevent poor Africans from using this resource to produce the electricity they need for poverty alleviation."
Ball concluded:
"World leaders attending today's Summit must insist that climate mitigation be completely removed from the UN's post-2015 development agenda."
___________________
To arrange interviews with ICSC participants (listed here), contact:   Tom Harris, Executive Director, ICSC
Ottawa, Canada
Email: tom.harris@climatescienceinternational.net 
Phone: 613-728-9200
http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/

Friday, 25 September 2015

Global warming policies are the real threat to the world's most vulnerable people

Global warming policies are the real threat to the world's most vulnerable people


Pope on wrong side of history on climate change


Press Release From:  

Tom Harris, Executive Director of the Ottawa, Canada-based International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC).

Palm oil: Future biofuel or ecological disaster?
OTTAWASept. 24, 2015 /CNW/ - 
Rather than simply follow the United Nations on climate change, Pope Francis must consider whether U.N. climate policies are doing more harm than good. Based on a theoretical hypothesis about climate change, the Pope is unwittingly supporting a movement that works against the Catholic Church's social justice and environmental protection efforts."

Dr. Ian D. ClarkUniversity of Ottawa earth sciences professor, gives an example.

"By promoting the idea that carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions must be reduced to prevent dangerous climate change, climate activists encourage the expanded use of biofuels. The result is that, in 2011, 6.5% of the world's grain went to producing fuel instead of food, contributing to food price spikes that are a disaster for the world's poorest people." 
"Biofuels need enormous amounts of fertilizer which ends up in streams and eventually the ocean where it promotes the growth of microorganisms such as algae. This depletes oxygen resulting large 'dead zones' in which no amphibians or fish can survive." 
"The demand for biofuels also causes serious problems for indigenous land owners in developing nations." 
Clark continued, pointing to February 2015 open letter to the European Parliament from 197 civil society organisations from AsiaAfrica, and Latin America which asserted: 
"The destruction of forests and fertile agricultural land to make way for oil palm plantations is jeopardising the food sovereignty and cultural integrity of entire communities who depend on the land as their source of food and livelihoods."
Clark added: 
"Providing palm oil for biodiesel, again largely driven by the climate scare, had led to the replacement of virgin forests with monoculture plantations, greatly reducing biodiversity over vast regions. Pope Francis should do nothing to encourage these violations of social justice and environmental protection."
New Zealand-based consulting engineer Bryan Leyland, an alternative energy expert and ICSC's Energy Issues Advisor, explains another issue that should concern the Pope.
"The international focus on reducing CO2 emissions makes it more difficult for developing countries to finance the construction of vitally-needed power plants. For example, South Africa was able to secure a $3.9 billion loan in 2010 to build the Medupi coal-fired power station only because developing nation representatives on the World Bank board voted for approval. The U.S. and four European nation members abstained from approval because of their worries about climate change. They seemed to want South Africans to use wind and solar power instead, sources too expensive for widespread use even in the wealthiest nations."
Leyland concluded,:
"Rather than hypothetical future climate change, the Pope should help focus the world's attention on the millions of Africans who suffer severe respiratory illnesses and extreme poverty because they lack an electricity supply – a supply that could be easily obtained from their fossil fuel reserves that rich people in Western countries don't want them to use." 
Strategic Advisor and ICSC Founding Chairman Terry Dunleavy of New Zealand explains yet another unintended consequence of the climate scare.
 "Because of the nonsensical belief that humans control climate as if we had a global thermostat, only about 7% of the almost $1 billion USD spent daily across the world on climate finance is dedicated to helping vulnerable people cope with climate change today. The remainder is spent trying to stop phenomena that might someday happen. This is immoral, in effect valuing the lives of people yet to be born more than those in need today." 
ICSC chief science advisor, Professor Bob Carter, former Head of the Department of Earth Sciences at James Cook University in Australia adds:
"Because he has been misinformed by his scientific advisors, the Pope supports the replacement of fossil fuels with renewable energy. Such an action would work directly against the Church's social justice and environmental concerns, especially when one considers the impact of the hundreds of thousands of industrial wind turbines (IWTs) that are being constructed worldwide."
"The American Bird Conservancy estimates that by 2030 well over 1 million birds, including endangered species such as eagles and hawks, will be killed in the United States each year by wind turbines. Spain's Ornithological Society estimates that the 18,000 wind turbines in that country could be killing six million or more birds and bats every year."

"Without subsidies, the real cost of electricity from wind power is about three to four times that of a modern coal-fired electricity station. Denying poorer nations the means to construct environmentally-friendly and cost efficient coal-fired power stations precludes their development and reinforces the economic subjugation of their most vulnerable citizens. Why would Pope Francis support burdening the poorest people in the world with such discriminatory policies and heavy financial loads?" 
Harris describes Ontario's IWT tragedy as a warning to the U.S. 
"Despite constructing 6,736 IWTs, only 4% of our power came from wind energy in 2013 and 1% from solar, yet together they accounted for 20% of the commodity cost paid by Ontarians. So, as the government closed down the 25% of our electricity that used to come from coal, power rates have soared, mostly affecting the poor. Why would the Pope want Americans to repeat Ontario's mistakes?"
"Besides a significant loss in property value for homes near IWTshealth concerns aboundA particularly tragic example is occurring in West Lincoln, Ontario. There, just as in dozens of other counties, the government is breaking an election promise to not permit IWT construction in regions where there is strong public opposition. Wind developers have received approval to install at least seventy-seven 3 Megawatt IWTs in the West Lincoln region, each as tall as a 61 story building, some so close to residential areas that families will be driven from their homes."
Harris summarizes, "In all of these cases, climate mitigation takes precedence over the urgent needs of the present. Pope Francis must distance himself from the U.N.'s climate scare, not march with it."

Tuesday, 22 September 2015

CLIMATE CHANGE--THE U.S. IS IRRELEVANT

Here is NZ Climate Truth Newsletter No 344

 Cheers 
Vincent Gray


Guest Writer Kerry Brown, ESQ, St. Petersburg.
The USA is completely powerless to decrease global CO2 emissions. In fact there will be significant increases in global emissions regardless of what onerous regulations we put in place. Why you ask?

  1. China now consumes 45% of the world’s coal. (See, NY Times 8/16/14 editorial).
  2. China’s CO2 output has grown to 2x that of the US. It will increase as China is projected to double its output by 2040.(Huffington Post 12/5&15, 2014 citing the US Gov’t). US C02 emissions have only slowly increased even before the recent war on coal.
  3. China has built about 3 or 4 coal fired energy plants every month for the past 10 years and has separate plans to build 50 coal gasification plants estimated to produce 1.1 billion tons of carbon dioxide/year per Greenpeace as cited in the NY Times 7/23/14. (See also Eric Larson in Climate Central 1/27/14).
  4. The green group Kiko Network reports that Japan is going to construct 43 coal fired plants to replace nuclear power. We haven’t begun to talk about a growing India and other countries.
  5. Global temperatures have been essentially flat since 1998 contrary to the billion dollar computer models we taxpayers have paid for. (“Global Warming has stalled since 1998-Met Weather Office admits Earth’s temp has risen slower
    than 1st thought” Daily Mail January 8, 2013).
  6. Pope Francis in his recent encyclical on the environment stated, “I am concerned to encourage an honest and open debate so that particular interests or ideologies will not prejudice the common good.” How that will happen is problematic given that alarmists rarely accept offers to debate. In fact, instead of debate, the mean greenies have tried to go after the jobs of realists, such as Dr. Willie Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and Dr. Legates at the University of Delaware.
  7. There is not a 97% consensus among scientists and it’s one of many misleading assertions by the global warming zealots. See, D. R. Legates, et al., “Climate Consensus and Misinformation” (Science and Education, August 2013).
  8. If the US is irrelevant, why harm our citizens and our economy by making energy much more expensive and unreliable (energy for manufacturing and transport being key cost components of a product)? See the Associated Press article of 5/21/14, “Your Electric Bill Will Skyrocket with New Energy Regulations.”
The scare mongers are at the least, grossly overstating humans’ contribution to global warming and grossly understating the effect of solar, ocean and other natural cycles. At worst, there has been a corruption of science by an unholy alliance of green zealots, grant driven scientists, power hungry politicians, and a brainwashed/lazy media and populace all greased by billions upon billions of your hard earned money.
This essay has quoted mainstream media and environmentalist sources, save one. If you have an open mind, please visit the Heartland Institute.org for realist/skeptic science and opinions.We may also discuss what to do if global warming dramatically increases. Namely, shouldn’t we transfer our massive research and subsidy monies towards flooding mitigation and developing heat tolerant food crops?
My next essay will concentrate on the complex science of climate change. And why do we spend billions of dollars on subsidies that actually hurt the poor and wildlife? Another area to explore is the ample evidence of some benefits to a warming Earth.
Kerry H. Brown, Attorney,  kerryhbrown@gmail.com, 447 Third Avenue N. Suite 310, St. Petersburg, FL 33701,  727-823-1776

Sunday, 20 September 2015

Goldman Sachs, the AGW hoax and the World.

Source: "our" ABC
As previously posted on this blog, Christopher Monckton warned that the UN IPCC and the Alarmists would try to unseat  then PM Tony Abbott:
.....Australia we can’t do anything about because Tony Abbott is in office until after the December 2015 conference. So that means you all have to guard Tony Abbott’s back. Because the Turnbull faction, in conjunction with the UN will be doing their absolute level best to remove your elected Prime Minister from office before the end of his term and , in particular, before the end of 2015, so that they can get 100% wall-to-wall Marxist agreement. 
He also noted that, at the Canadian Elections (October 19th) David King, the Chief Scientistic adviser to the UK Government, and a member of the Climate Change Task Force announced:
.....there are two standouts. One is Canada. But don’t worry about Canada. They’ve got an election in the Spring of 2015 and we and the UN will make sure the present government is removed. He was quite blunt about it. 
The result so far: UN half victory - one standout removed (Malcolm Turnbull replaces Tony Abbott as Australian PM); and three weeks to see if they gain their second victory.

Canadians beware. They are after you as the last stand out.

The US and Al Gore has many links to Goldman Sachs.
  • Barack Obama, a popular young politician whose leading private campaign donor was an investment bank called Goldman Sachs;
  • The carbon-credit market is a virtual repeat of the commodities-market casino that’s been kind to Goldman;
  • (Goldman Sachs) owned a 10 percent stake in the Chicago Climate Exchange, where the carbon credits were traded;
  • Al Gore started up a company called Generation Investment Management with three former bigwigs from Goldman Sachs - Asset Management, David Blood, Mark Ferguson and Peter Hanis.
Australia's new Prime Minister and Goldman Sachs:
(Turnbull) joined Goldman Sachs & Co in 1997 as Chairman of its Australian business, becoming a partner of the global firm in 1998. (LINK)

Source: Goldman Sachs conquers Europe
Are there other World Leaders with links to Goldman Sachs? Yes, many.



Thursday, 17 September 2015

Prime Minister Turnbull's path to his goal


1976 – Despite his leftist ideology, Turnbull shows a willingness to join whatever political party he thinks he can use as a vehicle for his agenda. He tells radio broadcaster David Dale that he wants to be Prime Minister by age 40. Dale asks “For which party?”, and Turnbull responds “It doesn’t matter“.

In 1982, the left-liberal former Prime Minister Billy McMahon retired from his federal seat of Lowe. He endorsed Turnbull to replace him, but Turnbull decided not to contest the marginal seat. Then, in 1983, Turnbull ran for Liberal preselection in the very safe Liberal state seat of Mosman, but again lost, this time to Phillip Smiles.

9th December, 1986 – British journalist Michael Davie writes about Turnbull’s left-wing tendencies in The Age newspaper, saying
“There was evidently a moment when he entertained ambitions about orthodox politics, when he stood for pre-selection first in Wentworth. and then in Mosman. He tells people now that he has moved to the left. This is just as well, since Labor is in office in both Canberra and New South Wales.”

1993 – According to former Labor Senator, Graham Richardson, Turnbull came into his office and asked for his help to join the Labor Party and get a safe spot on the NSW Labor Senate ticket. Journalist Annabel Crabb, writing in the Quarterly Essay, says:
“The mid-1990s found Malcolm Turnbull discussing, with various Labor figures including Keating, the prospect of his recruitment as a Labor parliamentarian. “Initiated by Keating!” protests Turnbull, who says he refused the approach. “Initiated by Turnbull!” insists Graham Richardson, who wrote that Turnbull asked him in 1993 for a Senate spot but legged it on being told about the tender delights of grass-roots ALP membership.” 
11th September, 1994 – Democrats Senator, and future Labor MP, Cheryl Kernot confirms that Malcolm Turnbull has discussed with her the possibility of forming a new party together that would split the Liberal Party.

February, 1998 – Turnbull approaches Kim Beazley at the Constitutional Convention, regarding a Labor seat in parliament.

Early, 1999 – Turnbull approaches John Della Bosca regarding gaining a Labor seat in parliament.

Late, 1999 – In the lead-up to the republic referendum, Turnbull approaches federal Labor Senator and shadow Attorney-General Nick Bolkus, asking about gaining pre-selection for Labor. Bolkus recalls: 
“Malcolm, on more than one occasion, raised with me how he could get preselection in the Labor Party. It wasn’t something that I raised with him. I must admit I never thought Malcolm would be comfortable in the faction that I’m part of, the left, but it was something that he raised with me on a couple of occasions… I can remember at least two when the matter was raised by Malcolm, a genuine inquiry, I think it was an honest inquiry at the time. You know, he would often reflect about how Labor, he thought, was not going all that well under the leadership of Kim Beazley at the time, and whether someone like him would be able to add value to us and so on, but it was very much something that he was raising. “

On the night of his republic referendum defeat, Turnbull approached former Labor Prime Minister Bob Hawke, with a desire to join the federal Labor Party and become a shadow Minister. Hawke claims Turnbull said: 
“Bob, the only thing I can do now is join the Labor Party.”

Turnbull also tells senior Labor staffer David Britton that he is “deeply pissed off with Howard” and that he had a “very different social agenda” to the then Prime Minister. He then allegedly asked Britton: 
“Don’t you think Kim Beazley would like somebody like me as his finance spokesman?”

2000 – On two separate occasions, Turnbull is said to have enthusiastically sought Labor endorsement on the grounds that he’d do a better job of leading the Labor Party than Kim Beazley. The alleged locations where this took place were dinner parties in Sydney and Adelaide.

December, 2000 – Turnbull changes tactics. He joins the Liberal Party, becomes a director of the Menzies Research Centre, and refuses to rule out running for pre-selection. Having already been beaten by the conservatives as an opponent, he will now try an alternative method – joining them and changing/sabotaging them from within. He wants both sides of the parliament controlled by so-called “progressives” to facilitate the furthering of that agenda and, of course, he still desperately wants to be Prime Minister to fulfill his unrelenting megalomania.

6th September, 2003 – NSW Labor Premier Bob Carr confirmed that, in the late 1980s, former NSW Labor Premier Neville Wran was “flogging” Turnbull to the NSW Labor Party machine as a possible state Labor leader.

5th October, 2003 – Turnbull makes explicit his intention to seek Liberal pre-selection for the federal seat of Wentworth, and he had been stacking the deck since July, at least. Most believe he made up his mind to run much earlier, and that speculation he would run for the Senate was merely a tactic to take attention away from his branch stacking in Wentworth. Commenting on Turnbull’s chances, former NSW Opposition Leader and former Wentworth MP, Peter Coleman, who knows Turnbull well, says: 
“Malcolm Turnbull carries a fair bit of baggage. He’s said some dreadful things about John Howard, not to mention the Queen, and he has also said some loving things about people like Neville Wran…”
Former federal Labor Minister Nick Bolkus, whom Turnbull had previously approached, multiple times, about getting Labor pre-selection, says Turnbull is less a threat to the Labor Party, than to the conservatives of the Liberal Party: 
“I don’t think we are as concerned as, for instance, Peter Costello might be, or Tony Abbott would be… I think probably Labor would welcome Malcolm Turnbull getting Liberal Party preselection.”

28th February, 2004 – Turnbull wins pre-selection in Wentworth by 88 votes to 70. Turnbull’s opponent, sitting member Peter King, calls it “the largest branch stack in Liberal history”

Turnbull wanted tom join Labor


21st September, 2008 – Turnbull loses his first Newspoll. It would be the first of 30 straight Newspoll losses.

16th September 2015 - The reasons Malcolm Turnbull challenged Tony Abbott: Lack of economic credibility, leadership that insults people’s intelligence - and 30 bad opinion polls in a row

H/t Jim,  from http://stopturnbull.com/

See also Christopher Monckton's warning on The Push to get rid of Abbott.

Sunday, 13 September 2015

Human CO2 is a tiny percentage of CO2 emissions. Sks wrong again.


Another debunking of one of UNSkeptical UNScience -SS's- so-called "Myths." This time debunking their #33
"Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions"The natural cycle adds and removes CO2 to keep a balance; humans add extra CO2 without removing any.


Debunking of all 178 will be found on this page - SS "Myths" debunked.

SS's Explanation:
Before the industrial revolution, the CO2 content in the air remained quite steady for thousands of years. Natural CO2 is not static, however. It is generated by natural processes, and absorbed by others.
Did SS check? Or just create their own history?

CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere over the past 400,000 years
Ernst-Georg Beck, in a paper published in Energy and Environment Vol 18 2007