Thursday, 31 December 2009

Car rally and Protest March in Canberra - Urgent

Hi Everyone,
This is a plea to assist Peter Spencer on his hunger strike to get Kevin Rudd to take notice of the fact he has offered to pay millions of dollars to other countries for locking up their forests, but he will not look at paying Australian farmers for the trees locked up by force in Australia as part of our Kyoto agreement. This issue is linked with the fact CO2 is being called a pollutant, fraudulent climate science has occurred and just processes are being suppressed. They are all done behind the scenes to assist the Green religion.

To bring Peter Spencers case to court would assist Australians everywhere and severely dent the Green religions hold over politics and not just in Australia either.

Peter is in Day 39 of his hunger strike. He has tried to get a court resolution and cannot even get a hearing. He is financially crippled and will have his property taken over by the the local sheriff very shortly.
All this when he has committed no crime - just seeking Just terms compensation as decreed under the Australian Constitution.

A group of strong supporters are organising a Coo-ee Car Rally to Peter’s farm on Monday January 4, then onto Canberra for a March at 10.30 am

Here are the details –
The COOEE DRIVE in support of Peter Spencer.

Bus leaving Lismore Sunday 3rd Jan' contact 'Jimmy Harvie' phone 66248290 to obtain details of departure time, cost etc.

Another Bus leaving Coffs Harbour 4PM Sunday contact Jeanette Jones on 02 66524240 or 0411628310.
Our 50 seater has air con--toilet etc $50 per person--picking up Port Macquarie turn--Taree--Nabiac--Hexham then Maitland for pick-up, to Muswellbrook and down the New England Highway.

Another bus leaves Inverell at 6.30AM Sunday 3rd Jan' --ring Lloyd Fleming--Inverell--02 67225303 for further information and towns they will be passing through.

Destination Peter Spencer's property 'Saarahnlee' Shannon's Flat to give our personal support to Peter---Hopfully attracting major media exposure---then we want everyone to assemble behind Old Parliamment house (Magna Carta Park) in Canberra on Monday at 10.30 am and walk past Parliament House to the Lodge
Returning home Monday night.

If nothing else please join this walk with banners, placards etc.

Please support this COOEE DRIVE if you live in Wagga / Bathurst / Dubbo / Griffith / Leeton / anywhere in the 2SM listening area.

Please organise a bus from your area and join the many others to say the Injustice to Australians must stop.

Please also support 2SM & 2GB broadcasts in your area, as the on-air broadcasters, including 2SM broadcasters Grant Goldman, Carter Edwards, Poppy Savakis and others have been giving phenomenal support, giving over their entire shows to highlight Peter’s desperate battle as well as airing stories from other country farming families.

Many Groups are contacting their networks to share this information so pass this on to your friends etc if you can.

Please consider supporting Peter by either joining the Cooee Rally, meeting at Canberra, listening to 2SM or all of it.

Ideas for Slogans you could bring on placards.

Just Terms not property theft
Justice 4 Peter
Pay for Kyoto Carbon lockup
End Kyoto Carbon Theft
Pay 4 overseas forests and steal Australians
We want a royal commission into Kyoto & Just Terms
Talk to Peter Spencer Mr Rudd.

Contact Alistair McRobert on 0264 545141 if you have questions about the March


Leon Ashby

Wednesday, 30 December 2009

Get the U.N. Out of the Climate Business

The Mankato Free Press from Mankato MN has an opinion piece today by Mark Friedman entitled: "Climate skeptics ignore weight of evidence." Referring to a previous opinion piece by Darryl Biehn, he writes:
"He has done research, but evidently from biased sources. What do scientists in the field who really know the debates have to say? According to that radical lefty rag The Wall Street Journal, Dec. 7 edition, a survey of 3,000 earth scientists found that 82 percent agree that human activity is “a significant contributing factor” in rising temperatures. Among those who actively publish in the field, 97 percent agree. Yes, there can be conformity in science, but to pressure scientists to come to an unacceptable conclusion is much like herding cats.

Well, Mark, Science isn't about numbers, science is about testing and proving or disproving an hypothesis:

The Scientific Method

The scientific method has evolved over many centuries and has now come to be described in terms of a well-recognized and well-defined series of steps. First, information, or data, is gathered by careful observation of the phenomenon being studied. On the basis of that information a preliminary generalization, or hypothesis, is formed, usually by inductive reasoning, and this in turn leads by deductive logic to a number of implications that may be tested by further observations and experiments (see induction; deduction). If the conclusions drawn from the original hypothesis successfully meet all these tests, the hypothesis becomes accepted as a scientific theory or law; if additional facts are in disagreement with the hypothesis, it may be modified or discarded in favor of a new hypothesis, which is then subjected to further tests. Even an accepted theory may eventually be overthrown if enough contradictory evidence is found, as in the case of Newtonian mechanics, which was shown after more than two centuries of acceptance to be an approximation valid only for speeds much less than that of light.

If it was a pure numbers thing, would say we see your 3,000 scientists and raise you by 30,000.

Cartoon from Joanne Nova's Climate Skeptics Handbook - Hands Up Who thinks greenhouse gases have no effect and therefore we all need new jobs? Anyone?

Mark goes on to say:

I do not have space to address scientific issues brought up, such as whether warming happens before or after carbon (dioxide) increases, or the solar cycle hypothesis.

Well, Mark, one of the big scenes in Al Gore's award-winning Movie "33 Inconvenient Untruths" is where he shows two graphs, one above the other and says: "Do these graphs
go together? ...It's complicated!"

And Complicated it was, because, if he had shown the two graphs together, we would have seen the proof that warming happens before the increase of Carbon Dioxide.

Look at the science, Mark. Don't rely on scientists who push the flawed hypothesis that man made Carbon Dioxide Emissions cause Global Warming. As the above cartoon shows - don't rely on scientists depending on the flawed hypothesis for their jobs!

Incidently, Mark, your aforementioned lefty rag, The Wall Street Journal (link in title), on the same day you published your opinion piece, published:

In the aftermath of the Copenhagen Climate conference, it is clear that the United Nations-driven process is a bust, and that any similar process requiring economic suicide and massive wealth transfers will go nowhere. It is long since time to drop this charade, take the question of climate change out of the hands of the U.N., and implement more reasonable policies.

Gee, Mark! There's a genuine Lefty Remark!

Monday, 28 December 2009

Climate change: Will our grandchildren revile the 'lost decade'?

From by unnamed opinion writer:

The first decade of the 21st century dawned with a global strategy to fight climate change but ended in chaos and the UN system in tatters while greenhouse gases spewed with few constraints. "Future generations will rue the years of inaction," Steve Sawyer, a veteran observer who heads the Global Wind Energy Council (GWEC), a Brussels green industry association, says grimly.

Steve Sawyer - from the Global Wind Energy Council (GWEC) - hardly an unbiased opinion.
What was the strategy to fight climate change? Climate has changed from the beginning of time without our help. Do you know something that I don't. What was this so-called strategy to fight climate change? Trading in derivitives?

In 2007, in its landmark Fourth Assessment Report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a blunt warning. Without swift action to slow, halt and reverse the growth in emissions, the world was on course for between 1.8 and 4.0 degrees Celsius (3.2-7.2 degrees Fahrenheit) of warming, the UN's top climate scientists said.

Well, not quite right. The IPCC's 4AR words weren't as definite as that, rather they said very likely. (Their interpretation of very likely is 90% probability.) The IPCC has admitted that they have not found any evidence that increases in man-made CO2 causes warming.

The ice-core samples show that, over hundreds of thousands of years, rises in temperature have forced rises in atmospheric CO2.

Who said a few degrees warming was a bad thing? The medieval warm period (MWP) was warmer than today. The MWP was a period which saw such significant events as Norman conquests in Britain and Sicily, the earlier Crusades and the signing of the Magna Carta.

This period is often what we think of when someone mentions "medieval culture." It is sometimes referred to as the "flowering" of medieval society, thanks to an intellectual renaissance in the 12th century, such notable philosophers as Pierre Abelard and Thomas Aquinas, and the establishment of such Universities as those in Paris, Oxford and Bologna. There was an explosion of stone castle-building, and the construction of some of the most magnificent cathedrals in Europe.

Trade in luxury items as well as staples flourished; towns were granted charters of privilege and even established anew by feudal lords with alacrity; and a well-fed population was beginning to burgeon.

Back to MYsinchew:

By century's end, hundreds of millions could be at threat from drought, flood, storms, rising seas, disease, malnutrition and homelessness.


If we reduce the plant food CO2, we could see world famine.

Are global temperatures still rising? Or could we be heading to another little ice age?

Back to MYsinchew:

In the end, the critics were sidelined. The conference gavelled the Accord through without even putting it to a vote. UN credibility lay in ruins..

Well, there's UN democracy for you - gavelled the Accord through without even putting it to a vote. And the UN wanted to create a UN-led World Government at COP15!

But wait! Didn't UN credibility lie in ruins before the opening of COP15? Wasn't the UN credibility shattered with the leaking of the ClimateGate emails?

Acting Alone on Climate Change

Philip Bowring commented in the New York Times 27/12/09.

Some extracts:

...Australia has one of the highest per capita carbon emissions in the world and has been suffering from an extended drought, probably related to global warming.

(Click on above graph to see how small Australia's contribution is.)

or, more likely related to ENSO.Australia has one of the lowest per square kilometre carbon dioxide emissions in the world.

Good, too, because, despite those unpleasant facts just days before Copenhagen, the Australian Senate rejected an ambitious emission-trading scheme (ETS) designed to cut pollution by making emitters pay.

Perhaps, Philip, the ETS was a scheme that would have enriched derivative brokers, a scheme open to fraudulent transactions bot a scheme that woud have done nothing to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

Philip goes on to talk about emissions cuts around the world.

Emissions of CO2.

Philip, can you point to one bit of evidence that shows CO2 to be the cause of warming?
Is a few degrees of warming a bad thing?
Are you sure it is still warming?

Sunday, 20 December 2009

YOU HAVE BEEN CONNED! Drs. Miskolczi and Zagoni respond to the Department of Climate Change

Miklos Zagoni is a Physicist and Science Historian at Eotvos Lorad University, Budapest
Dr Zagoni is an associate of Dr Miskolczi - He is a physicist, IPCC 2007 AR4 WG1 reviewer, governmental climate adviser. Recently he lost his job because of his scientific conviction.
He is a well-known science writer from Hungary. He participated in the Hungarian Academy of Science’s climate change project and was the expert-reporter of three documentary films on that project. His list of publications, interviews, papers, and book chapters on the issue is more than 200 items (most of it in Hungarian).

Doctor Zagoni responds to the Department of Climate Change:

Thanks for the great move --- the Australian Government starts to take us seriously.

Their answer is wrong and irrelevant. It (does) not include(s) a refutation or counter-data to Miskolczi's results.
All of their statements on past events are speculations, hypotheses:

- No one knows what was the atmospheric integrated water vapor amount during glacial or inter-glacial times.

- There is simply no data about water vapor content in the air from 1850, so their statement on this is a simple lie.

- During the past sixty years (when we have atmospheric humidity data), this quantity decreases, about 1%. This fall was enough exactly to counter the increase in CO2.
Some further details.

-- Dr. Miskolczi's physical and mathematical apparatus is able to compute the greenhouse effect on any atmopsheric compositions. If the Australian Government, or their experts are able to provide us with the integrated vertical column amount of the water vapor and the temperature distribution of the atmosphere in galcial / or interglacial, / times, we are able to produce the greenhouse effect of those atmospheres. Assumptions on 50% or any warming response is nothing else then pure speculation.

-- There are no absolute humidity data since 1850. As this is the most important greenhouse gas, the statement that to total amount of GHG's has increased is groundless.

-- Since 1948 (from the beginning of airplane measurements), in the first two decades the water vapor content has decreased, later showed some stabilized circumstances, and in the last twenty years it has increased a while. Over the whole period an about 1% decrease has happened. The whole process maintains a greenhouse effect equals to the theoretical unperturbed equilibrium, within 0.1 degree Celsius difference.

-- There is no known observation inconsistent with Dr. M.'s results.

Yours, sincerely,

DOCTOR MISKOLCZI RESPONDS to the Climate Change Department

The government's comment on my results are irrelevant. They are free to check and refute the paper if they can. Probably they have the resources to do so. -- NASA could not do it here in the USA for more than five years.

Anyway, no need to bring in the reputations of journals or the opinion of mostly government paid scientists. You may show them my resignation letter from NASA (attached). They should read this if they want to comment the freedom of publication of new climate change related results.

In addition attached please also find a summary of the publication history of my paper. In case you need, I also have the detailed e-mail communication with the editors (history.txt) .

And my last comment is related to the attached sceptic.pdf figure. Show this to them. They may see that no one need to develop a complex greenhouse theory to challenge the IPCC consensus. Data from the most reliable sources indicate that the atmospheric IR absorption is constant in the last 61 years, while the CO2 increased by about 25 per cent. The only thing you need to create such a figure is the correct computation of the atmospheric absorption. Probably your government - supported scientists can do that. Ask them to do it - instead of just talking, let the numbers talk. This would not cost millions of dollars. If they have their results then we shall have something to talk about. Until then I consider the AGW as a lie which serves as a main reason to tax the people on their use of energy.

best regards,

Dr. F. M. Miskolczi

Saturday, 19 December 2009

YOU HAVE BEEN CONNED! Department of Climate Change response to Climate Sceptics Party television advertisements

The Government has responded to our ads:

Can carbon dioxide cause dangerous climate change? YES

Well, actually, that is an unproven hypothesis and the IPCC themselves say that, after 20 years, they have no proof. The Department of Climate Change should not make sweeping statements without supporting data or peer-reviewed papers. They should put up or shut up.

They say:

Miskolczi’s paper was not published in a high impact peer-reviewed journal.

The leaked ClimateGate e-mails show how hard the Gorians worked to suppress papers that didn't support the unproven hypothesis of man-made CO2 emissions causing global warming.

It happened in the case of Ferenc Miskolczi's paper as well.


Some years ago this Hungarian physicist, then working for NASA, discovered a flaw in how those constructing the IPCC climate models deal with the issue of the atmosphere’s boundary conditions. In order to progress this research Dr Miskolczi eventually resigned from NASA claiming his supervisors at NASA tried to suppress discussion and publication of his findings which have since been published in IDŐJÁRÁS, The Quarterly Journal of the Hungarian Meteorological Service.

Miskolczi's paper has been out there since May, 2007 (and obviously the Department of Climate Change and our Chief Denier- sorry Chief Scientist are aware of it) and yet there has been NO published peer rebuttal of the paper.

It seems a little petty to go through all the Department's errors, but they say:

Since the start of the industrial era greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have increased in response to humans burning fossil fuels. As a result, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is now higher than at any time during the last 800,000 years (at 385 parts per million in 2008).

Well, if we look at the mid 1940's to the mid 1970's, CO2 increased at a regularly increasing rate whilst temperatures plummeted. So much so that Time and NewsWeek had featured articles suggesting we were heading for another ice age. Were we being conned then? I know we are now!

UPDATE: See next post - Responses by Dr Miskolczi andd Dr Zagoni

Friday, 18 December 2009

COP15 - Your True Colours - Socialism is alive and well!

You know the Copenhagen Climate Summit (COP15) is a complete sham when the likes of Venezuelan President, Hugo Chavez gets a standing ovation. I wonder how many people from the Australian COP15 delegation clapped him on? In fact, Chavez brought the house down after quoting everyone from Karl Marx to Jesus Christ in his 25 minute address.

According to, Chavez said “there was a silent and terrible ghost in the room and that ghost was called capitalism” and the crowd went nuts – the applause was deafening. Chavez wound up by concluding “our revolution seeks to help all people...socialism, the other ghost that is probably wandering around this room, that’s why the way to save the planet, capitalism is the road to hell...let’s fight against capitalism and make it obey us.” That’s when this twisted Marxist got a standing ovation so maybe our bench warmers at COP15 did after all applaud him?

Liberal Senator, Nick Minchin, was hammered by the Government and the left leaning media for suggesting that man made climate change is a leftist socialist conspiracy.

Back on NOV 20, Finance Minister, Lindsay Tanner said Senator Minchin was "out there in his fatigues . . . chasing all these conspiracies" and "incubating a kind of rural militia from backwoods Montana in the Senate".

Even Opposition Leader, Malcolm Turnbull put the boot into his colleague on NOV 30 saying that “If we put the party back together in accordance with Nick Minchin's wishes, then we will end up becoming a fringe party of the far right. John Howard's broad church is being shattered by Nick Minchin."

But you have to wonder when just about every country represented at COP15 gives a rat bag like Chavez a standing ovation, denouncing capitalism, our very way of life, and then maybe, just maybe, people like Nick Minchin are right. Be afraid, Australia. For if the Marxist poison should spread here, our unique Aussie way of life is what is really at risk. COP15 has finally been exposed for what it really is - A push for world socialism.

Over to you.

Thursday, 17 December 2009

Al Gore - It's not an Inconvenient lie! I misspoke!

Dear, oh Dear, Al.

From some-one who says he invented the internet, you have made another big blunder!

The Times-on-Line dated 17/12/09:

Al Gore tries to cool ‘climate spin’ by correcting claims of North pole thaw

The clarification said that Mr Gore “misspoke” on the polar ice prediction and that he meant that the cap would be nearly ice-free.

Scientists have criticised Mr Gore for basing his talk on unpublished data, rather than relying on the latest peer-reviewed studies. Most researchers agree on a 20 to 30-year time-scale for near ice-free conditions in the Arctic. Mr Gore’s office, however, stood by the choice of data. It said that the US Navy research unit was in a stronger position to give predictions as it had unique access to measurements of ice volume by submarines.

Golly, Al, and the polar ice is growing! What were you thinking?

Lord Monckton to tour Australia

Lord Monckton in Australia

16 Dec. 2009

Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, Christopher Lord Monckton has agreed to come on a lecture tour in Australia in late January 2010. Professor Ian Plimer will accompany Christopher Monckton on a whirlwind tour of the mainland capital cities starting in Sydney on January 26th and finishing in Perth on February 8th. Unfortunately we cannot fit in Tasmania and the Northern Territory. Lady Juliet Monckton will come as well, in part to monitor Lord Monckton’s health.

Prof. Plimer says the following of Lord Monckton: “although I modestly state that I am a good performer, he is superb and I have seen him fielding a very hostile BBC and other networks. He has the ability to change thinking……”.

Given the now generally- acknowledged lack of understanding among the Australian general public of the underlying reasons for a “Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme” and the likely effects thereof, it is critical that the public gets a chance to hear a globally-recognised presenter to explain the rational understanding of the whole issue. Lord Monckton is the ideal person to carry out this task and to also put it to the mass media.

The itinerary is still to be detailed, but what has been agreed with Lord and Lady Monckton so far is:

Sydney January 26 & 27, Newcastle the 28th, Brisbane 29th, Noosa 30th & 31st, Melbourne Feb. 1st & 2nd, Canberra 3rd, Adelaide 4th & 5th, Perth 8th.

As you can understand, the cost of this exercise will be very substantial as we have to (and from) fly Lord Monkton to Australia, all his domestic travel and accommodation plus a “stipend” of $20,000. Our aim is to cover these costs from donations from individuals, appropriate associations and corporations; we expect the required total to be of the order of $100,000. We would like to keep the cost of admission to Monckton’s lectures at around $20 so as to maximise the number of people that will come to hear him.

We have had a number of offers of the order of $1,000 and would prefer donations to be of that order, but of course any amount is very welcome. Should there be a surplus, this, depending on the amount, will be given to Lord Monckton and/or the Climate Sceptics Party which is assisting with this project.

Your donations should be directed to:
Westpac Bank – Lord Monckton Tour account
Bank BSB: 035612
Account: 253068

Thank you in advance for your support of this nationally important project.

Case Smit BSc CIH(ret) CP(Env) FAusIMM
Noosaville Qld. 4566
07 5473 0475

John Smeed D.MechE FIEAust CPEng RPEQ
Noosa Heads, Qld. 4567
07 5474 8928

UPDATE - Lord Monckton at Copenhagen.

Russians confirm that UK climate scientists manipulated data to exaggerate global warming

From The UK Telegraph by James Delingpole dated 16/12/09

James tells us that ClimateGate just got much bigger!

Feast your eyes on this news release from Rionovosta, via the Ria Novosti agency, posted on Icecap.

Controversy arose after various allegations were made including that climate scientists colluded to withhold scientific evidence and manipulated data to make the case for global warming appear stronger than it is.

Climategate has already affected Russia. On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.

The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory.
Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country’s territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports. Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations.

The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.

What the Russians are suggesting here, in other words, is that the entire global temperature record used by the IPCC to inform world government policy is a crock.


Comments on the above from

To Denmark, From Russia, With Lies

Global Warming: Russian analysts accuse Britain's Meteorological Office of cherry-picking Russian temperature data to "hide the decline" in global temperatures. Is Copenhagen rooted in a single tree in Siberia?

Michael Mann, a Penn State meteorologist, wrote in Friday's Washington Post that "stolen" e-mails from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit still don't alter the evidence for climate change.

Mann, a creator of the discredited hockey-stick graph used in reports from the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to show man-made warming, attacks climate skeptics, including former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, saying they "confuse the public."

Chutzpah has been redefined.

As Ronald Reagan used to say, facts are stubborn things. The fact is that imminent man-made climate disaster has been shown to be a massive fraud driven by manipulated data and deliberate suppression of facts to the contrary.

Vegetarian mafia descend on Copenhagen

Lucy Knight writes (17/12) in Qld Country Life:

THEY'RE waiting for unwitting passengers stepping off the train and heading for the climate talks - the vegetarian mafia thinking they can solve the world's pollution problems by turning everyone off meat.

Funny little people, often dressed as chooks or cows (or last night, a prawn) and are everywhere handing out show bags full of paraphernalia espousing a veg-filled, meat-free diet. They claim western diets need to be re-thought because emissions from livestock are killing the planet.

They say livestock emissions are the most potent source of greenhouse gasses, arguing livestock produces more greenhouse gases than the world's transport sector.

These funny little people should read DR Gerrit van der Lingen's paper published on the NZ Climate Science Coalition Web-site.

Dr Lingen explains why emissions of methane from cattle and sheep should not be part of any emissions trading system. According to MAF, 98.7% of agricultural methane comes from ruminant enteric fermentation, released by burping; and is part of a natural closed loop that has nothing to do with fossil sequestered carbon.

Even Alarmist Tim Flannery, as Lucy Knight points out
, "debunked a lot of the common arguments used against livestock in the carbon and climate debate at an environmental forum in Sydney."

And, if we don't eat the cattle, what would happen then?

Wednesday, 16 December 2009

Launch of New Publication - Non-Scientist

The Brilliant Jo Nova has done it again!

She has created a parody of the New Scientist "as they do the unthinkable and try to defend gross scientific malpractice by saying it’s OK because other people did other things a little bit wrong, that were not related, and a long time ago. Move along ladies and gentlemen, there’s nothing to see…"

The more I see of the deniers, (ClimateGate deniers) the more I wonder how anything that these clowns wrote ever got peer-reviewed.

Fair Dinkum!

Carbon compo hunger strike

From The Canberra Times 16/12/09 by John Thistleton

Hot, desperate and angry, Peter Spencer has a strong voice for a man who hasn't eaten in 23 days.

He's on a hunger strike, perched on a wind-monitoring mast on his Shannon's Flat property north of Cooma.

He won't come down until Prime Minister Kevin Rudd admits the Australian Government owes farmers like him $100 billion for capturing carbon in their soil.

Dangling from his wooden platform 10m above the ground, he looks like another lunatic in the climate change circus.

Except Mr Spencer is a resourceful businessman and farmer supported by a formidable legal team headed by Sydney barrister and one-time Malcolm Turnbull rival, Peter King.

See Leon Ashby's PowerPoint Presentation attached to our report here:

Bradfield Boy on Community Radio re Saturday's Protest/

As usual link in title.

Bill Koutalianos and Phil Davis of Truth Movement Australia talking on Australian 9/11 Truth Movement.

Podcast and Youtube.

Copenhagen negotiator accuses Rudd of lying

Report on ABC News Site.
From one of our members - Anne:

Mr Di-Aping said he had high expectations of Mr Rudd, but claimed that throughout the negotiations the Australian Government has not matched its actions with its rhetoric.

"The message Kevin Rudd is giving to his people, his citizens, is a fabrication, it's fiction," he said.

"It does not relate to the facts because his actions are climate change scepticism in action.

Later, they quote the Governor of California:

In Copenhagen, Governor of California Arnold Schwarzenegger told delegates that leaders and ministers will not be able to find a solution on their own.

"They need to co-operation (sic) the activists, the scientists, the universities," he said.

China's negotiator says Kevin Rudd lied to Australia

Tuesday morning on Good Morning America Governor Schwarzenegger said that people were saying "fix the economy first." Arnie was saying you can do both. Like California, Mr President? The greenest state is the brokest state!


The Courier Mail picked up the same story,1,26493376-952,00.html

Mr Rudd arrives in Copenhagen tonight and will argue for rules that allow polluters to grow but force all countries to be held accountable for their greenhouse gas emissions but he is expected to encounter tough opposition.

China and the United States are the world's two biggest carbon (dioxide) emitters.

What this story doesn't tell you is that the US is one of the Developed countries, whereas China is described as a LDC (Less Developed Country) so, although China is now the biggest emitter of CO2 and the US comes in at No 2, the US will have to pay compensation to the LDCs including China!


From Britain's Daily Express.

Really we shouldn't have to go past their reason 1:

1) There is “no real scientific proof” that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from man’s activity.

This is backed up by reason 3:
Warmer periods of the Earth’s history came around 800 years before rises in CO2 levels.

Reasons 8 and 9 go against Rudd and Wong's trust the "science."

8) The IPCC theory is driven by just 60 scientists and favourable reviewers not the 4,000 usually cited.

9) Leaked e-mails from British climate scientists – in a scandal known as “Climate-gate” - suggest that that has been manipulated to exaggerate global warming

Skipping to 33 and 34, the concentration of atmospheric CO2:

33) Today’s CO2 concentration of around 385 ppm is very low compared to most of the earth’s history – we actually live in a carbon-deficient atmosphere

34) It is a myth that CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas because greenhouse gases form about 3% of the atmosphere by volume, and CO2 constitutes about 0.037% of the atmosphere


From the Australia Institute.

The CPRS is stalled in the Senate because the Coalition doesn't want it, the Greens don't want it, Nick Xenophon doesn't want it and Steve Fielding doesn't want it. Their objectives and their objections are all quite different, but the government has managed to unite them in their opposition to its scheme. Although the parliamentary politics of the CPRS might have been explosive, it's hard to see the public caring quite so much. Can you imagine a rally in favour of the CPRS? 'What do we want? Unambitious targets and a complex trading scheme! When do we want it? We want the legislation passed ASAP but we are OK with the scheme not commencing until 2011 with serious reduction targets to come into effect after 2020!'

The Minister for Climate Change has done a great job of getting the leaders of big environment organisations, big business groups and even some in the Liberal Party to support her so-called Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. Her challenge now is to convince the public to do the same. But recent polling shows that she hasn't been too successful in explaining her scheme to the people, or in convincing them of the need to rush the legislation through the Senate.

She hasn't been successful in answering any questions. She keeps refering to the "Science." I think she means the hypothesis. There is an unproven hypothesis (Oxymoron - like carbon pollution) that CO2 causes global warming. The "science" actually tells the reverse. Ice core samples porve that warming causes atmospheric CO2 to rise.

Rather than building a strong case for the CPRS over the past 12 months, the government has instead focused on defending it from those who would question it and, although the Minister has a reputation for never looking rattled, she certainly doesn't have a reputation for answering the hard questions. Like a tail-ender blocking the way towards a drawn test match, the Climate Change Minister has met question after question with indecipherable jargon. She has never really tried to score any runs, seeming more concerned to protect her wicket. But ambitious change in an area as important, and contestable, as climate change will never make it through the Senate without a champion who is playing to win.

The political argy-bargy will continue over the coming months and many questions will be fielded. Will the Government re-introduce its legislation in February? Will the Prime Minister debate the new Opposition Leader? Does serious climate change policy have to start with a carbon price? Does carbon price mean Carbon Dioxide emissions price? Why does the MSM show visible steam or pollution coming from chimneys when CO2 is invisible?

But one thing is clear—if the government wants to bring the public with it on this issue, it needs to start talking in a language that we can all understand.

It's going to be a long hot summer.

Al Gore's Inconvenient Lies

Al Gore has been caught out again.

"Speaking at the Copenhagen climate change summit, Mr Gore said new computer modelling suggests there is a 75 per cent chance of the entire polar ice cap melting during the summertime by 2014." (UK Telegraph)

He claimed to have based his latest "ice-free arctic" prediction on talks with climatologist Dr Maslowski, of the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, Californa.

Alluding to Dr Maslowski’s work, he said: “These figures are fresh, I just got them yesterday. (UK Telegraph)

So, Gore says "new computer modelling" and "Yesterday."

What does Al Gore's office say?

Following Dr Maslowski’s comments, Mr Gore’s office later said the 75 per cent figure was one used by Dr Maslowksi as a “ballpark figure” several years ago in a conversation with Mr Gore.

The story is also in today's Australian:

UPDATE One year ago

Thursday, 12 November 2009

Is Kevin Rudd a liar or a fool

I have previously asked was Kevin Rudd a traitor? Will he sign away our sovereignty by signing the COP15 treaty.

Now I ask, is Kevin Rudd monumentally incompetant or a liar?

During his Media blitz last week, he spoke to Adelaide radio 5AA's Leon Byner that he hadn't read the draft treaty.

Here is this man who has been appointed a "friend" of COP15. This will mean he will act at Copenhagen to get other nations to sign the treaty. He wants us to believe that he hasn't read it.

Believe it or not! There is an extract of Leon Byner's interview in this discussion between 2GB's Alan Jones and Andrew Bolt.

While we're at it, listen to Minister Wong contradict herself in the following 4BC interview with Michael Smith:

Wednesday, 11 November 2009

Is Kevin Rudd a traitor(2)?

David Evans has written a letter to Mr K Rudd that begins:

Open Letter to the Australian Prime Minister

Dear Gullible Kevin

The banks want us to trade carbon.

The big financial institutions saw you coming, didn't they? Make you feel all important and “progressive”, save the planet, lead the move to save humanity from disaster. No you patsy, they are just taking Australia's sovereignty and locking in a profitable carbon trading scheme for themselves. A world “emissions” currency manufactured from thin air, world government, and worldwide wealth redistribution based on imaginary carbon “crimes”. There will be no escape.

You are rushing to sign away our wealth and impoverish us, because you wouldn't take a couple of hours to understand the science of global warming and it's weak points. You never audited it did you? Just jumped into the scam feet first. “Oh, all those people said it was right”, you smirk, “and those who don’t believe are so…evil and inferior!” That's the thing about scams Kevin, they always rush you so you don't have time to check it out properly, you just have to get in right away. All those admirers telling you how smart and compassionate you are, for swallowing an unaudited tale about wind and clouds, invisible trace gases, and will-o-the-wisps

Now, I think that David is giving Kevin the benefit of the doubt when he intimates that Mr Rudd doesn't realise that he is signing away Australia's sovereignty. As a Fabian, I think Mr Rudd is fully aware of what he is doing. The left's ideal of World Government could come true at Copenhagen. Even if some of the major Western Governments don't sign, the less developed countries will want to sign on because they have been promised billions of "guilt money" from the countries that have been "carbon (dioxide) polluting for years.

The rest of David Evans' letter:

Smartest man in the ALP, but you cannot understand what the “boneheads” in the National Party already know? The alarmist theory is based on an assumption made in 1984, when there was insufficient data. The chronology is important. That assumption was disproved beyond reasonable doubt in 1999, after the IPCC had been set up, Kyoto was signed, a huge bureaucracy was in place to deal with carbon emissions, carbon trading plans were hatched, and the western climate establishment was lavishly spending billions looking to blame carbon dioxide for global warming. Too much at stake for the bureaucracy and government scientists to turn back. Hence the fracas.

Here’s a clue Kev, find out about “feedbacks”, especially those involving water—clouds, water vapor, humidity, evaporation, rain, and so on. How does the Earth respond when it is warmed a little by our carbon dioxide? Does the Earth amplify the warming, tripling it due to water feedbacks as the carbon dioxide theory claims? Or does it dampen the warming, as any stable system would do, as recent radiosonde and satellite data indicate?

But the banks want carbon trading. Carbon emissions will be the biggest “commodity” market soon, bigger than oil. Carbon traders will trade back and forth, creaming off a few percent on all those government issued permits created out of thin air, and the rest of us will be compelled to pay for them. Brilliant Kev! Why not a carbon tax if you justwant to reduce carbon emissions?
And it's no use asking shiny-pants over in the opposition, because he used to be head of Goldman Sachs in Australia. No wonder he wants carbon trading.

Dr David Evans

PS Find out the basic numbers that show the global warming agenda is driven by financial interests:

The money behind trading carbon emission permits will be colossal. The proposed system bears remarkable similarity to the paper money system: permits are manufactured out of nothing, given value by government decree, traded at a profit by big banks, and then the rest of us are compelled to pay for them. The same sort of game by the same people.

The assumption that was made prior to 1984, about feedbacks, that provides two thirds of the warming in climate models, but which was shown beyond reasonable doubt to be false by 2000:

The future of climate is bogus statistics to justify emission trading, taxes, and world government, and it has already started (see photos):

The global temperature rises and falls in cycles of a bit less than thirty years, and has done since the dawn of time. We had cooling from 1940 to 1975, and there were cries of global cooling in the mid 70’s. We had warming from 1975 to about 2002, and there were cries of global warming. Looks like we’ve started the next cooling phase, to about 2030. Aren’t the politicians who inflict carbon reduction on the voters going to look like chumps as the temperatures goes down naturally for the next two decades?

More about the missing hotspot, the lack of evidence for the idea that carbon dioxide caused most of the recent global warming, and about the author at

Sunday, 1 November 2009

Is Kevin Rudd a traitor?

Listen to Lord Christopher Monckton in the above youtube. Copenhagen has a treaty, which, if signed, will erase Australia's sovereignty and that right will be usurped by a World Government.

A sovereign state is often described as one that is free and independent. In its internal affairs it has undivided jurisdiction over all persons and property within its territory. It claims the right to regulate its economic life without regard for its neighbors and to increase armaments without limit. No other nation may rightfully interfere in its domestic affairs.

There are strong indications that Mr Rudd wants to be Head of this world government. It has been said by the warmistas that we are at a tipping point! We truly are, but not the way that they say.
As Lord Monckton says, it is almost midnight. Don't let tomorrow dawn on our loss of sovereignty. Don't let Mr Rudd sell our nation down the river. Write to your representative; tell your neighbours, go to the window, open it and yell: I'm sick and tired of this and I'm not going to take it anymore!

Update 1.

Alan Jones talks to Christopher Monckton:

Update 2.
Christopher Monckton talks to 4BC:

Update 3.

Lord Monckton appeared on the US Glen Beck programme and explained about more of the Copenhagen treaty:

Some Points:

Treaty does not mention “governments,” just government – ie the World Government.

They are going to close down the free market -par 36 of annex 1.

They are going to take powers in that treaty to operate in an interference of and control of all financial markets world-wide

They are going to take a tax of 2% on every financial transaction in the Annex 1 (ie major world) countries.

Update 4.

Courtesy of Anthony Watt's great blog "Watt's up with that?" here is a complete transcript of the last part of Lord Monckton's address at Bethel University in St. Paul, Minnesota:-

At [the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference in] Copenhagen, this December, weeks away, a treaty will be signed. Your president will sign it. Most of the third world countries will sign it, because they think they’re going to get money out of it. Most of the left-wing regime from the European Union will rubber stamp it. Virtually nobody won’t sign it.
I read that treaty. And what it says is this, that a world government is going to be created. The word “government” actually appears as the first of three purposes of the new entity. The second purpose is the transfer of wealth from the countries of the West to third world countries, in satisfication of what is called, coyly, “climate debt” – because we’ve been burning CO2 and they haven’t. We’ve been screwing up the climate and they haven’t. And the third purpose of this new entity, this government, is enforcement.
How many of you think that the word “election” or “democracy” or “vote” or “ballot” occurs anywhere in the 200 pages of that treaty? Quite right, it doesn’t appear once. So, at last, the communists who piled out of the Berlin Wall and into the environmental movement, who took over Greenpeace so that my friends who funded it left within a year, because [the communists] captured it – Now the apotheosis as at hand. They are about to impose a communist world government on the world. You have a president who has very strong sympathies with that point of view. He’s going to sign it. He’ll sign anything. He’s a Nobel Peace Prize [winner]; of course he’ll sign it.
And the trouble is this; if that treaty is signed, if your Constitution says that it takes precedence over your Constitution (sic), and you can’t resign from that treaty unless you get agreement from all the other state parties – And because you’ll be the biggest paying country, they’re not going to let you out of it.
So, thank you, America. You were the beacon of freedom to the world. It is a privilege merely to stand on this soil of freedom while it is still free. But, in the next few weeks, unless you stop it, your president will sign your freedom, your democracy, and your humanity away forever. And neither you nor any subsequent government you may elect will have any power whatsoever to take it back. That is how serious it is. I’ve read the treaty. I’ve seen this stuff about [world] government and climate debt and enforcement. They are going to do this to you whether you like it or not.
But I think it is here, here in your great nation, which I so love and I so admire – it is here that perhaps, at this eleventh hour, at the fifty-ninth minute and fifty-ninth second, you will rise up and you will stop your president from signing that dreadful treaty, that purposeless treaty. For there is no problem with climate and, even if there were, an economic treaty does nothing to [help] it.
So I end by saying to you the words that Winston Churchill addressed to your president in the darkest hour before the dawn of freedom in the Second World War. He quoted from your great poet Longfellow:
Sail on, O Ship of State!
Sail on, O Union, strong and great!
Humanity with all its fears,
With all the hopes of future years,
Is hanging breathless on thy fate!

Tuesday, 27 October 2009

Why the ETS is useless - 2

Not only do we, the Climate Sceptics Party think the ETS is useless, so also do members of the three major parties. Barnaby Joyce, Ron Boswell and other Nats have expressed their opinion, quite a few Labor parliamentarians also realise that the whole thing is a scam but are constrained by their party. I was at a meeting last week with Liberal Member for Tangey, Dennis Jensen, who gave his opinion of this rotten tax and now, we have Cory Bernardi plainly telling us why the ETS is useless.

Sunday, 11 October 2009

Puppets and Pay-offs in Carbonia”.

11 October 2009
“Puppets and Pay-offs in Carbonia”.

The Carbon Sense Coalition today claimed that Malcolm Turnbull was wrong to negotiate on the Ration-N-Tax Scheme and the opposition should reject it.

The Chairman of “Carbon Sense”, Mr Viv Forbes, said that the backbench were right in rejecting Penny Wong’s flawed legislation – they are reflecting the interests of the real Australia outside the urban greens and the Big Business Councils.

“Even if a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing and real leaders will explain that clearly.”

He explains:

“Malcolm Turnbull says that business wants the “certainty” of the Ration-N-Tax Scheme. There can be no certainty on the amount of damage a Ration-N-Tax Scheme will do to jobs and industry. The only certainty is that it will not affect the climate. The only way to get a “certain” outcome is to reject this bill entirely.

“Those calling for “certainty” are mainly the voices of vested interests.

“For example, the “Carbon Market Expo” to be held soon on the Gold Coast boasts that ‘more than 70 businesses will have exhibits’. They include carbon bankers, brokers, accountants, auditors, asset managers, investment managers, consultants, controllers, certifiers, verifiers and registries; emissions trading, carbon offsets and carbon rewards groups; forest service and green fleet firms; recruitment, R&D and PR advisers; infrastructure and engineering contractors; University academics and of course all the well travelled bureaucrats from the federal, state and local “climate smart” departments.

“Similar lobbies service the alternative energy and carbon sequestration “businesses”.

“Despite their totally mercenary aims, these people paint visions of “Carbonia”. This is a mystic land where only green carbon is permitted to exist, where nymphs and gnomes skip through sylvan forests of indigenous vegetation, where gentle breezes and warm showers are never disturbed by snow storms or heat waves, where floods, droughts and bushfires are unknown, and where a planned economic depression has ensured there are no nasty farms, factories, mines or motor engines.

“None of these green “businesses” could exist without taxes on real industries using carbon fuels - food, travel, electricity, steel, cement, chemicals and manufactured goods. Increased costs for consumers of these essentials are certain. Is this the “certainty” the Liberals are promoting?

“Let’s turn a spotlight onto the puppets in Parliament.

“The Labor Party dances to the fiddles and flutes of the green fairies, and their expected pay-off is election preference deals. The Liberals dance to the big bass drums of business who seek “exemptions”.

“Who cares that farmers are leaving the land in droves, fishermen are leaving the sea and factories are migrating to China?

“Senator Wong’s Ration-N-Tax Scheme must be rejected.”

Viv Forbes
MS 23, Rosewood Qld 4340 Australia
Phone 0754 640 533

Monday, 5 October 2009

Hurrah! Consensus! Less Tax!

Professor Carter will address a meeting at Newcastle's South's Leagues Club on 22/10/09 at 1pm,

Australian Global Warming Policy:
Sleepwalking to Disaster

Emissions trading will hurt the poor, damage the environment, invites fraud and is economically irresponsible.

Professor Carter says: "Emissions trading will hurt the poor, damage the environment, invites fraud and is economically irresponsible."

Well, there's another fraud! The three Moistketeers, Rudd, Wong and Sackett tell us that there is consensus on climate change (their deceptive term for man-made global warming.)

If there is consensus, there's no need for more scientific funding for global warming projects!. So, let's ask them to pull any global warming research or experimental money out of the budget.

How about that, Aruddis, Penwos and Sackethos?

“Man-made Global Warming does not Exist”.

Viv Forbes
5 October 2009

The truth is emerging – there is not a scrap of evidence that man-made carbon dioxide causes global warming. The IPCC has been devious and incompetent. Australia should boycott all further IPCC meetings and withhold future funding.

A mere 20,000 years ago, massive ice sheets covered much of the earth. The sparse population led a cold hungry existence.

Then, just 12,000 years ago, and there was dramatic natural global warming - ice sheets melted, sea levels rose and the warming seas expelled carbon dioxide. The warmth and increased carbon dioxide plant food in the atmosphere encouraged the spread of grasslands, forests and animal and human populations over lands once covered by thick, barren sheets of ice.

None of these dramatic changes were caused by emissions from the camp fires of the Cave Men.

Since then earth has experienced see-saw heating and cooling. The most recent warming phase started at the depth of the Little Ice Age about 300 years ago. There were no coal-burning steam engines, no oil-burning combustion engines and no cement plants, but still the planet warmed up.


Climate fluctuations continue in recent times, but not in step with man’s carbon dioxide emissions.

When industry declined in the Great Depression of the 1930s, CO2 emissions fell but temperatures rose to a peak.

Then during the immediate post war boom in industry, emissions soared but temperatures fell and there were fears of a new ice age starting.

Now, since the start of the new century, with emissions from China and India growing strongly, world temperatures are again steady or falling.

The message is there for those prepared to read – man’s production of carbon dioxide does not control world temperature.


In Australia, many long term temperature records show that for the last century rural temperatures were stable or falling, but temperatures recorded in the big cities show slight warming. There is ZERO global warming of the atmosphere, just a bit of urban heating near big cities. This heating is caused, not by carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, but by heat generated from increasing urban human activities – heaters, appliances, air-conditioners, cars, trains, planes, concrete and bitumen all pumping new heat into the air. And the temperature measuring spots that were once in bushy outer suburbs are now surrounded by cars, concrete and airports.

This urban heat causes hot air to rise, may generate a storm or two, and the heat is lost harmlessly to space.

Here is a picture of “global warming” in Winton, outback Queensland:

For more records from rural Australia, and one for Sydney see:

For the non-warming evident in the longest continuous temperature record in the world, see:

For the IPCC and its local lap-dog, the CSIRO, to continue promoting the man- made global warming scare in the face of clear contrary evidence is grossly improper and should be subject to independent review.

For a fuller report on the dishonesty and incompetence of the IPCC see:

Man-made global warming does not exist. Both the IPCC and the CSIRO should be challenged to justify their reckless and baseless climate scare-mongering.

Viv Forbes

The ETS - a consumption tax on everything

I was thinking the other day about the ETS. In case you don't know, it stands for Emissions Trading System - although it has been called, inter alia, Extra Tax Syphoning. It's meant to be the action section of the CPRS. So what's CPRS, you say?

Well, it's the highly deceptively named Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. So, why deceptive, you say? Well, the carbon refered to is actually Carbon Dioxide - CO2.

Carbon is used deceptively to make you think of black sooty coal. Do you know that Diamonds are almost pure carbon. Do you know that CO2 is colourless, tasteless and vitally essential to life? Why do the Newspapers and the TV show water vapour or steam coming from cooling towers when the talk about CO2 pollution?

So pollution?

Well, what is atmospheric pollution? From the NSW Government Department of Health: Air pollution occurs when the air is affected by chemicals or particles that are not normally present and have the potential to affect health.

Carbon Dioxide is definitely normally present in air. As to the potential to affect health, well. yes, it does, but beneficially.

I was thinking: "Do these clowns think?" Does Malcolm Turnbull think? Does Penny Wong think?
Even if you accept the "CO2 causes global warming" hypothesis; how can a tax on Carbon Dioxide reduce atmospheric CO2.

In the old days, budget day headlines were inevitably "Beer UP! Cigs UP!"

However, some clever pollies decided to CPI the tax on alcohol and tobacco and so, every three months there is a sneaky tax grab and you go to the lifeline sorry grog shop and find that there has been a hike in your favourite tipple. You shrug and buy it! Smokers must find the same thing.

I normally buy quality wines - 10 years ago at $9 a bottle! and to give you an idea, here's what's happen to my quality wine.

Date CPI Price
Mar-99 121.8 $9
Mar-00 125.2 $9.25
Mar-01 132.7 $9.81
Mar-02 136.6 $10.09
Mar-03 141.3 $10.44
Mar-04 144.1 $10.65
Mar-05 147.5 $10.90
Mar-06 151.9 $11.22
Mar-07 155.6 $11.50
Mar-08 162.2 $11.99
Mar-09 166.2 $12.28

So, I still buy my tipple. Why wIll the ETS - a consumption tax on almost everything - reduce CO2 emissions?

The alcopops tax farce proved that the tax did little to reduce usage - just made some people smarter - a bottle of vodka and a bottle of Fanta - instant alcopop!

Even if you believe in AGW, why push a tax?

Saturday, 26 September 2009

Investigative Journalism

Letter sent to MSM.

Investigative Journalism.

From Nepal's "Himal" October Edition: "Journalists are cynical by nature, and it is perhaps understandable that some in India continue to retain a certain degree of scepticism about climate change – over whether it is truly taking place, being exaggerated or, worse still, whether it is little more than a conspiracy concocted by a handful of vested interests for unclear purposes."

However, it appears the Australian journalists have accepted only one side of the man-made global warming (AGW) debate incorrectly called "consensus." The "consensus" is from scientists on the public purse whose jobs and grants would disappear if the AGW hypothesis was proven to be false.
Senator Fielding asked simple questions of Senator Wong. She and her scientific advisors could not give answers. The political body IPCC which was formed to show that CO2 causes AGW have failed and in recent correspondence say that they rely on the US Environmental Protection Agency naming CO2 a pollutant.
The EPA's Head, Mr Al McGartland, says he is managing the issue on PROBABILITY. Mr McGartland offers no science that proves that CO2 is a pollutant. His case is founded on computer modelling that have been proven to beflawed.
Nepal can recognise the job of journalists. Where are our investigative journalists?

Geoff Brown
Climate Sceptics Party

Friday, 25 September 2009

ABC Bias

Audience & Consumer Affairs
GPO BOX 9994

24th September 2009

Dear Sir,

Complaint under the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Code of Practice

I am the President of The Climate Sceptics political party and I hereby complain in accordance with the requirements of the ABC Code of Practice and in particular, but not limited to, sections 3.2, 4.4 and 5.3 of the Code about the program on your radio station, the details of which are set out below:
Radio National, AM
AM with Tony Eastley, report by Sarah Clarke
24th September 2009
8 AM:

Man-made, or anthropogenic, global warming [AGW] is the theory that greenhouse gas (especially carbon dioxide) emissions principally from the burning of fossil fuels is causing dangerous warming of Earth. There is no evidence whatsoever to support this theory other than the output of unstable and highly speculative computer models. The underlying science of climate is not sufficiently understood to remotely justify the making of highly speculative extrapolations based on computer models of inadequately understood processes. This is simply illustrated by the fact that planetary temperatures have been stable or reducing over the last eight or more years contrary to the projections of these models whilst the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere has continued to rise unabated. There exists a large and growing body of scientific evidence which is contrary to this theory. The ABC has not been presenting this contrary evidence and has been making quasi-religious assertions that the science is settled when it is not. It has been only presenting information in favour of AGW without any critical analysis of that information or attempt to balance that information with relevant examples of the contrary evidence.
The information presented in the above program in favour of AGW consisted of the following points:
1. Increasing melting by glaciers in Antarctica and Greenland
2. Increasing temperatures in the Antarctic Peninsula
3. Antarctica and Greenland contribution to rising sea levels of 1.4 millimetres per annum
4. Comment by Tony Mohr of the Australian Conservation Foundation saying “this is happening much quicker than previously thought” without a balancing comment.
The evidence which is contrary to the information presented in the above program consists of the following:
1. The overall ice-mass of the Antarctic is increasing:
Davis, C.H., Li, Y. McConnell, J.R., Frey, M.M. and Hanna, E. 2005. Snowfall-driven
growth in East Antarctic Ice Sheet mitigates recent sea-level rise. Science, 308, 1898-1901.
Monaghan, A.J., Bromwich, D.H., Fogt, R.L., Wang, S.-H., Mayeweski, P.A., Dixon,
D.A., Ekaykin, A., Frezzotti, M., Goodwin, I., Isaksson, E., Kaspari, S.D., Morgan, V.I., Oerter, H., Van Ommen, T.D., Van der Veen, C.J., and Wen, J. 2006. Insignificant change in Antarctic snowfall since the International Geophysical Year. Science, 313, 827-831.
Van de Berg, W.J., van den Broeke, M.R., Reijmer, C.H., and van Meijgaard, E. 2006.
Reassessment of the Antarctic surface mass balance using calibrated output of a regional atmospheric climate model. Journal of Geophysical Research, 111, 10.1029/2005JD006495
2. The overall extent and thickness of the Antarctic sea-ice is increasing:
Thickness distribution of Antarctic sea ice
Anthony P. Worby
Australian Antarctic Division and Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Center, Kingston, Tasmania, Australia
Cathleen A. Geiger
Department of Geography, University of Delaware, Newark, Delaware, USA
Matthew J. Paget
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, Canberra, ACT, Australia
Michael L. Van Woert
Office of Polar Programs, National Science Foundation, Arlington, Virginia, USA
Stephen F. Ackley
Department of Earth Science and Environmental Sciences, University of Texas at San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas, USA
Tracy L. DeLiberty
Department of Geography, University of Delaware, Newark, Delaware, USA
From: Worby, A. P., C. A. Geiger, M. J. Paget, M. L. Van Woert, S. F. Ackley, and T. L. DeLiberty (2008), Thickness distribution of Antarctic sea ice, J. Geophys. Res., 113, C05S92, doi:10.1029/2007JC004254
3. The Antarctic deep sea is getting colder:
4. There is a geological difference between the Western and Eastern Antarctica:
ANTARCTICA: Freeze-Dried Findings Support a Tale of Two Ancient Climates
A surprising cache of ancient plant material adds evidence for divergent climate histories of the East and West Antarctic ice sheets over the past 14 million years
Excerpt: These findings appear to be contradictory at first glance, but in fact they buttress an evolving view among scientists that the two major features of the continent, the western and eastern ice sheets, have experienced vastly different climate histories. Data from the Dry Valleys reveals an East Antarctic Ice Sheet that is high, dry, cold, and stable, at least in its central area. And the ANDRILL cores suggest a more volatile West Antarctic Ice Sheet that is subject to the changing temperatures of the sea in which it wades. "It reaffirms the fragility of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet [WAIS] and the stability of the central part of the East Antarctic Ice Sheet," says Peter Barrett, a sedimentologist at the Victoria University of Wellington (VUW) in New Zealand, who advised the ANDRILL project.
From: Science 30 May 2008: 1152-1154
DOI: 10.1126/science.320.5880.1152
5. Even so the Western Antarctica has experienced an increase in snow cover since 1850:
A doubling in snow accumulation in the western Antarctic Peninsula since 1850
Elizabeth R. Thomas
British Antarctic Survey, Cambridge, UK
Gareth J. Marshall
British Antarctic Survey, Cambridge, UK
Joseph R. McConnell
Desert Research Institute, Reno, Nevada, USA
From: Geophys. Res. Lett., 35, L01706, doi:10.1029/2007GL032529.
6. One of the main reasons for the warmer conditions on the Western side is that it is under-pinned by volcanoes:
7. Temperatures over the Antarctica have not been increasing:
And the satellite data is confirmed by data from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology sites in Antarctica;
8. In respect of Greenland the supposition that glacier melt is accelerating is disputed:
Recent Ice-Sheet Growth in the Interior of Greenland, Ola M. Johannessen, Kirill Khvorostovsky, Martin W. Miles, Leonid P. Bobylev, Science Express on 20 October 2005 Science 11 November 2005: Vol. 310. no. 5750, pp. 1013 � 1016, DOI: 10.1126/science.1115356
Richard A. Kerr, Galloping Glaciers of Greenland Have Reined Themselves In, Science 23 January 2009: Vol. 323. no. 5913, p. 458
9. The Greenland conditions are also not unusual compared with the first part of the 20thC:
Chylek, P., M. McCabe, M. K. Dubey, and J. Dozier (2007), Remote sensing of Greenland ice sheet using multispectral near-infrared and visible radiances, J. Geophys. Res., 112, D24S20, doi:10.1029/2007JD008742
10. As to rising sea levels; generally sea levels have been increasing since the end of the Little Ice Age in 1850 when increased solar intensity caused a general warming of the Earth, however, that rate of sea level increase is now reducing:
In this paper Ablain et al find since 2005 a reduction in the increase of sea level rise of 2 millimetres per annum which exceeds the supposed increase of 1.4 millimetres increase from the supposed melting of Antarctica and Greenland glaciers as reported in the AM programme.
This finding contradicts the ‘official’ version of sea levels in the paper by Rahmstorf [2007] which in turn has been shown to be statistically at error by Australian scientist, Dr David Stockwell:
11. The latest Australian Antarctic study finds no disturbance in the Antarctic ice-pack:,25197,25648336-11949,00.html
12. And finally a recent paper by Australian Professor Cliff Ollier explains why the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are not collapsing:
By not presenting this contrary evidence the ABC has contravened the following sections of its Code of Practice: Sections: 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, 4.3, 4.4, 5.2, 5.3.
Pursuant to Sections: 3.3, 5.4 of the Code of Practice the ABC must make a correction as soon as practicable and preferably within 28 days of the receipt of the complaint.
This complaint is made within 6 weeks of the specified broadcast so all tapes and records of the program should still be extant.

I look forward to your response.

Yours faithfully

Leon Ashby
PO Box 721
Mt Gambier
South Australia. 5290
President, The Climate Sceptics
Ph: 0887235550

Anthony Cox
PO Box
New South Wales. 2290
Secretary, The Climate Sceptics
Phone: 0412474915

Not Evil Just Wrong - Still Wrong

World Premiere Coming to your home if you want!

Wednesday, 23 September 2009

It’s Time to Ditch the Emissions Trading Scheme.

1. It’s Time to Ditch the Emissions Trading Scheme.

By Viv Forbes

It is time for Australian politicians to ditch the Emissions Trading Scheme and dismantle the expensive Global Warming Empire they have created.

The scientific case has collapsed and the political coalition has evaporated, but still the major political parties continue to serve vested interests and fish for Green preferences.

The case for action on global warming is essentially this: “Man’s emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing dangerous global warming”. This scare has been disproved in triplicate.

Firstly, both long term and short term temperature records show that CO2 does not control temperature. This destroys the whole basis for the global warming hysteria.

Secondly, recent temperature records show that, despite constantly increasing aerial CO2, world temperature is falling, not rising alarmingly.


Thirdly, it is clear that global cooling is a far bigger threat to all life on earth than global warming – there are many benefits of a warmer world with plenty of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

The global political support is also collapsing, although few politicians will yet admit it.

It has suffered three major political reverses.

Firstly, the US Senate is not going to pass their Ration-N-Tax Scheme this year, probably not next year, maybe never.

Secondly, there is scant political support for capping carbon dioxide in Eurasia or South of the Equator. There are many countries lined up looking for billions of dollars in carbon credit handouts, but none want to cap or tax their own emissions.

For example, China has announced that it doubts the science and the economics of caps (but it is keen to build heaps of windmills and solar panels for anyone silly enough to buy them).

See: .

India will burn more coal, and will not accept caps, and Russia is only interested in selling carbon credits.

Finally, even in Europe, the citadel of global warming, public support is evaporating.

The British public is “tired, bored and resentful” of the hysteria and cost of the low carbon vision.


And two thirds of French voters oppose their new carbon tax (even though they have a huge nuclear power industry).

Both Australian political parties cite “pressure for certainty from big business” as the main justification for rushing into the Ration-N-Tax Scheme.

The sad fact is that a majority of big businesses look to benefit from the whole new tax-subsidise-and-trade empire that will be created. Banks, commodity traders, lawyers, accountants, regulators, academics, solar, wind and gas entrepreneurs, and the carbon sequestration lobby are all planning to profit from trading hot air certificates. They also see opportunities to profit from increasing energy prices or they need special subsidies and tax breaks to justify some foolish gambles they have taken in the alternate energy business.

And the hidden agenda of both major political parties is to gain or retain power by courting green preferences.

These are all grubby reasons for saddling ordinary Australians with a scheme that will increase the costs for everything, particularly electricity, food and travel, as well as destroying real jobs and slashing the value of their superannuation funds.

2. Carbon Dioxide is NOT a Pollutant.

The alarmists first tried to scare us with “Global Warming”. But the climate would not co-operate and earth started to cool. So they changed the scare headline to “Climate Change”. This allowed every flood, drought, storm and heat wave to be pointed to as evidence (but the media helpfully looks the other way when yet another of Al Gore’s global warming rallies gets hit by a snow storm).

But opinion polls are now showing that people are sick of hearing about “Climate Change” and are certainly not going to pay a carbon tax on that account. So a new rally cry was needed. The spin doctors and their astrologers were consulted and they advised “Most people are concerned about POLLUTION”.

So “Pollution” is the new hot button that will be pushed relentlessly in the days ahead. (If “Pollution” starts to falter, “Energy” is their next hot button – “clean energy”, “energy conservation” or “energy independence” – who can oppose such worthy aims?)

Penny Wong was ahead of the pack in deviously labelling her version of the Ration-N-Tax Scheme as “The Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme”.

There is not one iota of truth in this title. It is not about “carbon”, it is not about “pollution” and it is unlikely to reduce carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Our atmosphere contains the four gases on which all life depends: nitrogen, oxygen, water vapour and carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is the rarest, and the most crucial – “Life is a Carbon Equation”. Current levels of CO2 are lower than in most of earth’s past eras, and not far above the crucial 200 ppm level at which most plant growth ceases and most animal life starves.

No sensible person could reasonably describe any of the atmospheric gases as a pollutant or a poison. Anything on earth can be dangerous in excess, or can be used unsafely – try living in pure nitrogen, pure oxygen, pure water or pure carbon dioxide and you will not survive.

William Happer, Professor of Physics at Princeton University made a submission to the US Senate on “Climate Change” in February 2009. Part of his submission covered the role of carbon dioxide in the environment. It is a comprehensive and very readable submission. Here is his perspective on carbon dioxide:

Carbon Dioxide is not a Pollutant

“I keep hearing about the “pollutant CO2,” or about “poisoning the atmosphere” with CO2, or about minimizing our “carbon footprint.”

“CO2 is not a pollutant and it is not a poison and we should not corrupt the English language by depriving “pollutant” and “poison” of their original meaning.

“Our exhaled breath contains about 4% CO2. That is 40,000 parts per million, or about 100 times the current atmospheric concentration. CO2 is absolutely essential for life on earth. Commercial greenhouse operators often use CO2 as a fertilizer to improve the health and growth rate of their plants. Plants, and our own primate ancestors evolved when the levels of atmospheric CO2 were about 1000 ppm, a level that we will probably not reach by burning fossil fuels, and far above our current level of about 380 ppm. We try to keep CO2 levels in our US Navy submarines no higher than 8,000 parts per million, about 20 time current atmospheric levels. Few adverse effects are observed at even higher levels.”

Professor William Happer,
Princeton University,
25 February 2009

Professor Happer also notes that part of the reason for the green revolution of the twentieth century was increased CO2 in the atmosphere (and the increased warmth that caused the degassing of CO2 from the oceans). In the unlikely event that humans were able to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere, the results would be grim – reduced food production.

To read the full submission see:

3. Burning Fossil Fuels will not affect the climate

A numerate Canadian Geophysicist, Norm Kalmanovitch, has done a bit of figuring on the carbon dioxide produced by human use of carbon fuels, largely using IPCC’s own figures. The calculations below are based on Norm’s work:

The table below from the IPCC 2001 Third Assessment Report shows the annual increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide over the 1990’s to be 11,700 million metric tonnes of CO2 per year.

Throughout the 1990’s global CO2 emissions from fossil fuels were increasing on average by about 500 million metric tonnes of CO2 per year. This figure was calculated using the statistics on fossil fuel consumption from the BP Statistical Review of World Energy, 2009.

Therefore only 500 of the 11,700 million metric tonnes of annual increase in atmospheric CO2 can be from fossil fuels.

500/11,700 = 0.0427 or 4.27%.

This means that 95.73% of the increase in carbon dioxide came from natural sources.

The content of CO2 in the atmosphere is measured regularly in Hawaii. These measurements show that over that period, the increase in atmospheric CO2 was about 2.0 ppmv/year (parts per million by volume).

Since 95.73% of this is due to naturally sourced CO2, nature must be responsible for 95.73% of 2.0 ppmv/year or 1.9 ppmv/year, leaving 0.1 ppm of the increase to burning fossil fuels.

Therefore, even if we managed to stop all increases in the use of carbon fuels,
we will merely eliminate this 0.1 ppmv/year increase and the atmospheric concentration of CO2 will still increase by 1.9 ppmv/year.

Thus if the IPCC models are correct and increases in CO2 concentration cause increases in global temperatures, the Earth will continue to warm at catastrophic rates regardless of what we do to reduce emissions.

But if we do put a fixed cap on emissions from carbon fuels, it is far more likely that many of the world’s population will freeze and starve in the dark.

This is Norm’s conclusion:

Reality Check for the IPCC – Warming is not caused by humans.

“First of all, these calculations demonstrate that CO2 emissions from fossil fuels are not the primary source for the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration. In fact fossil fuel CO2 emissions account for less than 5% of the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration.

“Second and most importantly, the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration, regardless of source, is not causing an increase in global temperature as demonstrated by the past eight years of cooling with steadily increasing CO2 concentration and the ever increasing CO2 emissions from fossil fuels.

“This flies in the face of IPCC statements that the Earth is warming and this warming is caused by humans.”

Norm Kalmanovitch,
September 2009

4. Green Groups set up a war room.

US warmists, determined to force Obama’s Ration-N-Tax Scheme through a hostile Senate, have set up a “climate war room funded by more than 60 labor, business, faith, agriculture and environmental groups”. This control room will funnel ad money and slogans to grass roots operations in over 20 states. Unless we spark up, the regiments in green are going to snuff out the lights for all of us.

5. The Great Copenhagen Liar’s Conference.

In December this year, thousands of employees of the Climate Change Industry will burn tonnes of carbon fuel on travel and convert tonnes of champagne, canapés and caviar to carbon dioxide, all in the name of the lie that the earth is in a global warming crisis.

An American observer, Alan Caruba, pours a little truth with a touch of humour and a pinch of vitriol onto this conference, and concludes:

“Like the witches in Macbeth, for years the IPCC
has been stirring a cauldron of lies about global warming
and the world’s media, intoxicated by the fumes rising from the pot, have never ceased from telling us that the Earth is warming
when it is not.”
“The Copenhagen Conference is, like global warming, a hoax”

To read his full article see:

Viv Forbes
MS 23 Rosewood Qld 4340 Australia
0754 640 533