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