Saturday, 30 October 2010

Dr. Tim Ball interviewed by Michael Coren

Tim Ball has a Bachelor of Arts with honours from the University of Winnipeg, a Masters from the University of Manitoba and a PhD from the University of London, England - The Doctoral Thesis was on Climatology so he graduated from the faculty of science with the thesis specifically on Climate.

Talking about the time when Canada was covered with an ice sheet 25,000 years ago, he asks:
"Did Barny Rubble drive cars to cause that to melt?"
"They were peer-reviewing each others work; it was a totally incestuous system.."

 "Richard Lindzen said it best; he said the consensus was reached before the research had even begun."

Thomas Huxley: "The great bane of hypothesis is an ugly fact
Tim also answers the BIGOIL lie.
"All scientists are sceptics, if you're not a sceptic, you're not a scientist."
On Climategate: "To me, it's the biggest scandal in history.."
"This is a deliberate attempt to pervert science for political purposes.."

"Phil Jones and Ben Santer  - those guys were doing the climate corruption side of it.."
"Falsifying the historic record - changing it .."
"I've chaired commissions of soil erosion and hazardous waste - How dare they say I don't care about the environment!"
Michael Coren: "There are mainstream journalist..who say - I want some answers please.." Very few in Oz, Michael. Wait for the treason trials.

Maurice Strong: "The problem for the planet is the industrialised nations and isn't it our responsibility to get rid of them."
"That assumption that if CO2 goes up, the temperature goes up, we now know that's wrong.." 
"...the temperature changes before Co2; CO2 is not driving temperature change; yet that's the fundamental assumption in their hypothesis.." 
"...not only was the data cooked, but the evidence shows the opposite..." 
"...a sceptic is a natural scientist who would challenge that hypothesis.." 

Thursday, 28 October 2010

Revisiting the Elimination of the MWP Scam

In the beginning there was an AGW Plan. Doctor David Deming wrote a paper and IPCC Lead Author Jonathan Overpeck thought that David was in sympathy with the Alarmist scammers. Overpeck emailed Deming saying that they had to get rid of the MWP. Phil Jones referred to it in the Climategate emails.
David gave evidence to the Senate enquiry, although as he hadn't archived the email, didn't mention Overpeck. Later, Overpeck put his hand up as the author.

Not long after, Mann et al produced the flawed "hockey stick" graph. As we know, this was exposed by McIntyre and McKittrick. It made a mockery of the old  Garbage-In Garbage-Out (GIGO). When Canadian phone numbers were entered, THEY produced the hockey stick - so Garbage-In, HockeyStick-Out (GIHO?)

Ever since then, the charlatan IPCC scientists have been trying to justify the MWP, to eliminate the MWP in order to incorrectly show that the late twentieth warming was unusual (although Phil Jones in a BBC interview admitted it wasn't.

Although we constantly have proof the the MWP happened ( inter alia here, here and here.) it seems the fraudulent IPCC scientists are preparing to "eliminate" it again.
     Michael Mann tries to "eliminate" the MWP.   

Sexta-feira, 22 de Outubro de 2010

The ClimateGate Secret Meeting

A usual reader of the blog sent me yesterday an interesting news from a Portuguese newspaper. It deals with the classic Medieval Warm Period problem, in the most green Portuguese newspaper. I immediately recognized one of the worst environmental journalists in Portugal, dealing with one of my favorite issues. Interestingly enough, Ricardo Trigo, a portuguese climatologist, was trying to explain the pseudo-science behind climate change and global warming, confusing things like Greenland's vikings and Maunder's Minimum.

But what really interested me in the story was a reference to Phil Jones, the person in the center of the ClimateGate controversy. And references to a conference in Portugal, regarding the Medieval Warm Period. I spent some time trying to figure out what had happened. Turned out that I had not read the news with attention: the conference had happened a month before! 

More here. Boy, these guys don't know when to lie down, do they? I wonder if they are already shredding e-mails and reports.



'Carbon tax-hungry govt, media ignore true facts about climate'

An interview on Russian TV re Climate Fools Day.

Global warming sceptics in the UK have gathered to mark what they've dubbed 'Climate Fools Day'. On this date two years ago, snow fell in London as the British Parliament was debating a bill to tackle global warming. It was the first such early snowfall for over eighty years. Activists claimed the ironic coincidence was just more proof that the bill is a waste of billions of tax-payers' pounds. One of those doubting the reality of climate change is Reverend Philip Foster, who joins us now live from London.

Quote from the Reverend Phillip Foster: "....the 'Consensus' so called, science does not work by consensus, science works by sceptical looking looking at the evidence..."

Monday, 25 October 2010

Climate Fools Day

Climate Fools Day got a mention in a comment to a story on today's Climate Spectator.

There is a protest this Wednesday for all Brisbane:

Climate Fools Day Rally in Brisbane
This Wednesday 27th October
12 noon, King George Square in front of city hall.
Look for Tim Wells, Malcolm Roberts.

More info contact Tim Wells:

And More from Viv Forbes:

The Carbon Sense Coalition today called on Australians and Americans to join the world in celebrating Climate Fools Day on October 27th. (See link in title above)

The Chairman of “Carbon Sense”, Mr Viv Forbes, said that Climate Fools Day was named by protestors outside the British House of Commons on 27th October 2008 when the house was debating the Climate Bill.

Forbes explained:

“As the first October snow in 70 years blanketed the House (and a big swathe of Europe), MP’s droned on about the need to fight global warming.

“For six hours MP’s reassured one another about the desperate need to be the first government in the world to saddle its unfortunate people with a burden estimated at £15 billion a year. As snow continued to blanket Westminster, only two MP’s questioned the huge cost and dubious benefits from the energy taxes and green energy rorts they were imposing.

“Christopher Booker of the Daily Telegraph noted gloomily:
“If the Bill's intent is taken seriously, the cost of cutting our CO2 emissions by 80 per cent would cripple our economy, closing down much of what remains of our industry and rendering most motorised transport impossible.”

“Nigel Lawson said in the House of Lords at the time:
 “The Bill will go down in history, and future generations will see it, as the most absurd Bill that this House and Parliament has ever had to examine".

“The weather gods were the first to draw attention to the stupidity of the Climate Fools in Westminster. Weeks of icy weather froze the whole of Britain, wind turbines froze, solar panels were covered in snow, but coal, gas and nuclear power stations running at full power for 24/7 averted calamity. Power lines broke, stopping electric trains - on one line in Scotland the only train running was an old steam train burning coal.

"And ignoring the consensus predictions of global warming, a Snowy Owl, native of the Arctic Circle, arrived in Cornwall in December 2009, heralding another cold winter in which the sea froze on the Dorset coast.

“Luckily, the appalling foolishness which started at Westminster has not spread far, but sceptics world-wide will be celebrating Climate Fools Day to ensure the suicidal example of once-great Britain is not followed anywhere else.

Forbes said that word on Climate Fools Day had already reached Siberia because Siberian swans, which usually reach Britain in November, flew into Gloucestershire on 18th October, 2010.

“Winter usually follows the swans, and Westminster is again likely to be blanketed in snow when Climate Fools Day protestors again gather outside the British Parliament.

“Maybe our politicians should abandon their computerised climate models and take up bird watching?”

Siberian Swans arrive early in England for Climate Fools Day.

Saturday, 23 October 2010

ThankHeavens for Bob Carter

Czech Republic President Vaclav Klaus has previously said that "environmentalism is a religion" and, in an answer to the questions of the U.S. Congressmen, a "modern counterpart of communism" that seeks to change peoples' habits and economic systems.

On Friday, in an opinion piece in The Spectator entitled "Thank heavens for Bob Carter, "The Australian professor deserves thanks and praise for repudiating the heretic-hunting climate orthodoxy."

He again refers to the undemocratic 'experiment' that was communism. (I wonder if Mr Klaus is aware of Julia's undemocratic Carbon (dioxide) Tax Committee?) He likens the Warmist arguments "to the arguments of the former politicians, journalists and public intellectuals in Communist Czechoslovakia."

It is evident that science plays no part in the current public policy debate, neither in Kyoto, nor in Copenhagen, nor at the United Nations General Assembly or the EU summits. There is just the pretence of science and the wishful thinking that there exists an undeniable scientific consensus.


Thursday, 21 October 2010

James Cameron - Hypocrite

Previously, I posted how James Cameron (Avatar) was scared to debate his position that we lives with less. Like Al Gore, he is a hypocrite. He does not practice what he preaches. He owns three houses in Malibu (10 times the average US home) with no Solar Panels, no windmills. A nicley produced short vid from the Not Evil Just Wrong producers Ann McElhinney and Phelim McAleer.

Wednesday, 20 October 2010

BBC Going cold on Climate Change?

Press coverage has cast further doubt on climate scientists' claims that man-made global warming is real and adversely affecting the planet.
Polls show that the public are becoming increasingly confused about the issue. Adam Fleming reports

Why GISS Temperatures Are Too High

 LINK to Steve Goodard's Real Science in title

The video below shows a world tour of the thermometer data – as an equal area projection. Not much warming on this planet.
GISS graphs are broken, there is no significant 21st century warming trend.

Tuesday, 19 October 2010

CLIMATE CHANGE: Explained by magnetism


From Thomas T S Watson  
My  book is now available on a CD: ISBN 9780646477220, at $30.00AU including p&h.

New Peer-Reviewed Study called "most decisive indictment of Global Climate Models (GCM's) ever."

New Peer-reviewed Paper

Anthony Watts (WUWT) reports a paper:


Empirical evidence for a celestial origin of the climate oscillations and its implications .

Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics (2010),doi:10.1016/j.jastp.2010.04.015

George Taylor, former Oregon State climatologist writes:

Nicola Scafetta has published the most decisive indictment of GCM’s I’ve ever read in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics. His analysis is purely phenomenological, but he claims that over half of the warming observed since 1975 can be tied to 20 and 60-year climate oscillations driven by the 12 and 30-year orbital periods of Jupiter and Saturn, through their gravitational influence on the Sun, which in turn modulates cosmic radiation.

If he’s correct, then all GCM’s are massively in error because they fail to show any of the observed oscillations.

There have been many articles over the years which indicated that there were 60-year cycles in the climate, but this is the first one I’ve seen which ties them to planetary orbits.

- George

Thursday, 14 October 2010

Unbalanced Broadcasters ABC√ and BBC?

A few short months ago, chairman of the ABC, Maurice Newman, said his team had displayed a group-think on Man-made global warming (AGW) (I believe he said "climate change" but I'm sure he meant AGW)
"He warned ABC staffers that he would not tolerate anyone suppressing information, citing the fact that a BBC science correspondent knew for a month before the scandal broke of damaging emails at the University of East Anglia in Britain highlighting the politicised nature of climate science but did not report them."

NEWS WATCH (ABC) has several reports showing that his team has failed.

 Where's Aunties Vigorous climate debate

"Missing -"pseudoscientific fraud"


In fact, the staff retaliated from their boss and said that they had their own position on climate change. In other words, they had decided to ignore the ABC's Editorial Policy.

The Editorial Policies are freely available to all staff and understanding of it is essential for all who have editorial responsibility for ABC content.  A copy of the Editorial Policies and the ABC’s Code of Practice can be downloaded from this page.

So, Although the Chairman asked his journalarmists to adhere to the ABC's code of Practice, they not only ignored him but actually did the opposite.

Now, this week the BBC is following suit.

That article makes a major mistake by the time it was two words into the article: Climate change

It is so hard to get this point home but the history is:

1) Man- Made ( or Anthropogenic) Global Warming AGW morphed into

2) Global Warming - and when the warming stalled 

3) Climate Change.

Us- AGW Sceptics -  looked at the science of AGW and found it wanting so

1)  we were AGW sceptics;   and then the man-made was dropped so they began calling us

2)  Global Warming Sceptics -at that time, warming was still happening so we weren't GW Sceptics;

3) Climate Change:  A misnomer -we believe climate changes, their religion does not.
When Michael Mann et al produced the Hockey Stick Graph, it was an attempt to show that Climate hadn't changed for 1000 years until man started using fossil fuel. In other words, it was an attempt to show that Climate doesn't change and so the true Climate Change Sceptics are the Alarmists. The AGW sceptics bellieve that Climate Changes, that Climate has always changed.

Back to the BBC.

From the link above, we learn that the BEEB is no different from the ABC:

"The BBC has been repeatedly accused of bias in its reporting of climate change issues."

Well, we will have to wait and see if the BBC is more successful in getting even-handed reporting regarding the AGW hypothesis.

From the ABC's example, I don't think so!

Water plan is commonsense underallocated

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

Dear sir / madam
The Murray Darling basin plan is not scientifically sound.
Its basic assumptions on the environment are wrong. There is no CO2 caused climate change.
Rainfall and temperature vary naturally, but with floods and the Murray now flowing nicely, the rhetoric about a devastating dry future continues daily.
The planning needed by our governments is to have bigger and deeper dams built along with water diversions from Northern Australia (where 6 times the Murray Darling average flow runs out to sea each year.)
Australia's rainfall records show cyclical patterns of greater and lesser rainfall in approximately 11 year and 22 year cycles. In wetter years the Murray Darling is not overallocated.
Instead our politicians and beauracrats are commonsense underallocated. Most of them do not have minds flexible enough to find ways to solve these issues without reducing peoples water allocations and destroying small rural towns.
Blind Freddie could see we could pipe water from Lake Argyle to the Murray Darling for under $5 billion .
We could build and pipe water from a Bradfield type scheme in North Qld for under $4 billion, but instead of these ideas our leaders destroy rural communities in a $4-6 billion water buyback scheme.
Where is the sense in that? To me it looks like deliberate gradualism to destroy our primary industries.

Leon Ashby
President The Climate Sceptics

Saturday, 9 October 2010

The Earth really doesn’t care about what is done to or for it.

The cover of the US Summer 2010 issue of the American Scholar quarterly carries a cheeky assertion: “The Earth Doesn’t Care if You Drive a Hybrid.” The essay inside is titled “What the Earth knows”. What it knows, according to the author Robert B. Laughlin, co-winner of the 1998 Nobel Prize in Physics, is this: What humans do to, and ostensibly for, the Earth does not matter in the long run, and the long run is what matters to the Earth. We must, Laughlin says, think about the Earth’s past in terms of geological time.
For example. The world’s total rain precipitation in a year is about one meter – “the height of a Labrador dog.” About 200 metres – the height of the Hoover Dam - have fallen on the Earth since the Industrial Revolution. Since the Ice Age ended, enough rain has fallen to fill all the oceans four times. Since the Dinosaurs died, rainfall has been sufficient to fill the oceans 20,000 times. Yet the amount of water on Earth probably hasn’t changed significantly over geological time.
Damaging this old Earth is, Laughlin says, “easier to imagine than it is to accomplish.” There have been mass volcanic explosions, meteor impacts, “and all manner of other abuses greater than anything people could inflict, and it’s still here. It’s a survivor.”
Laughlin acknowledges that “a lot of responsible people” are worried about atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels. This has, he says, “the potential” to modify the weather by raising average temperatures several degrees centigrade and that governments have taken “significant, although ineffective,” steps to slow the warming. “On the scales of time relevant to itself, the Earth doesn’t care about any of these governments or their legislation.”
So buy a hybrid (I won’t), turn off your air conditioner (I won’t be), sit in the dark (I won’t) - such actions will “leave the end result exactly the same.” Someday, all the fossil fuels that used to be in the ground will be burned. After that, in about a millennium, the Earth will dissolve most of the resulting carbon dioxide into the oceans (the oceans have dissolved in them “40 times more carbon than the atmosphere contains, a total of 30 trillion tons, or 30 times the world’s coal reserves.”)
The dissolving will leave the concentration in the atmosphere only slightly higher than today’s. Then “over tens of millennia, or perhaps hundreds” the Earth will transfer the excess carbon dioxide into rocks, “eventually returning levels in the seas and air to what they were before humans arrived on the scene.” Sure, this will take an eternity as humans relate, but a blink in geological time.
It seems, Laughlin says, that “something, presumably a geologic regulatory process, fixed the world’s carbon dioxide levels before humans arrived” with their SUVs and computers. Some scientists argue that “the photosynthetic machinery of plant seems optimised” to certain carbon dioxide levels. But “most models, even pessimistic ones,” envision “a thousand year carbon dioxide pulse followed by glacially slow decay back to the pre-civilization situation.”
Laughlin believes that humans can “do damage persisting for geological time” by “biodiversity loss” – extinctions that are, unlike carbon dioxide excesses, permanent. The Earth did not reverse the extinction of the Dinosaurs. Today extinctions result mostly from human population pressures – habitat destruction, pesticides etc – but “slowing man-made extinctions in a meaningful way would require drastically reducing the world’s human population”, not carbon pollution. Which will not happen.
There is something like a pathology of climatology. To avoid mixing fact and speculation, Earth scientists are, Laughlin says, “ultra conservative,” meaning they focus on the present and the immediate futures. “[They] go to extraordinary lengths to prove by means of measurement that the ‘globe is warming now, the ocean is acidifying now, fossil fuel is being exhausted now, and so forth, even though these things are self-evident in geological time.”
Climate change over geologic time is, Laughlin says, something the Earth has done “on its own without asking anyone’s permission or explaining itself.” People might cause climate change, but major glacial episodes have occurred “at regular intervals of 100,000 years,” always “a slow, steady cooling followed by abrupt warming back to conditions similar to todays.”
Six million years ago the Mediterranean dried up. Ninety million years ago there were alligators in the Arctic. Three hundred million years ago, Northern Europe was a desert and coal formed in Antarctica. “One thing we know for sure,” Laughlin says about these convulsions, “is that people weren’t involved.”
Nor will a Carbon tax or Cap & Trade scheme make any real difference. I suspect the real motivation for wanting a “price on Carbon” is money, as there’s a lot of “Green to be made” in being Green.
Speak without fear and question with boldness.

Thursday, 7 October 2010

Climate Change CON er...(sorry) COMmittee

Source: The Australian's Joe Kelly. Now Joe Kelly, in The Australian (Link in Title) writes: "The government says members of the multi-party committee should be committed to establishing a price on carbon, and its deliberations will be in secret until an agreement is reached."

Mr Combet will Chair the Committee.

Liberal MP Dennis Jensen said the government was effectively ruling him out of the committee, adding: “I'm probably the most highly qualified scientist in this place.
He said he was being ruled out because he didn't believe in a carbon price. (See Royal Society or Royal Commission) Dennis writes in Quadrant on-line:" Admission to the Gillard government’s climate change committee is very similar to admission to the former Soviet Union’s parliament, only people of one view need apply! In the case of the Soviet Parliament, in order to stand for election, you needed to be a member of the Communist Party (perhaps this is why the premise for the committee has so much appeal to Gillard, given her previous membership of the Socialist Alliance – a group who were essentially communist in outlook). In order to get onto the climate change committee, not only do you need to be a signed on anthropogenic global warming believer, but you also need to believe that the only way that you can address the problem is not only through abatement of carbon dioxide emissions, but you need to apply a price on carbon dioxide."
Back to Mr Combet. He said on Sky News it was “complete rubbishthat the committee required its members to have a pre-ordained position. So, Mr Combet, as Federal Parliament's only Scientist, would you accept Dr Jensen on your committee? Would you accept Barnaby Joyce on your committee?
And while we are asking the questions, how about evening up the balance of the scientists, how about adding Professor Robert M Carter, Doctor David Evans and Professor Ian Plimer?
Or was your statement about a pre-ordained position a porkie?

Please excuse the wind noise (it's not Baked Beans!)

Picturesque Vinalhaven Island in Penobscot Bay on the coast of Maine is usually tranquil. That was before the arrival of three giant wind turbines. The community was given some information and they voted for the Wind Turbines. They thought that they would get cheaper "greener" energy. Residents were told that ambient noise would muffle the turbines.

The New York Times quotes resident
Art Lindgren:In the first 10 minutes, our jaws dropped to the ground. Nobody in the area could believe it. They were so loud.”

More from the New York Times:
"They are among a small but growing number of families and homeowners across the country who say they have learned the hard way that wind power — a clean alternative to electricity from fossil fuels — is not without emissions of its own.
Lawsuits and complaints about turbine noise, vibrations and subsequent lost property value have cropped up in Illinois, Texas, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Massachusetts, among other states."

This is part of the technology promoted by the Greens. As a warning, before it becomes a problem to you, hear some of the disgruntled residents of Vinalhaven.

Read also many stories from Vinalhaven News.

Coming soon to an area NEAR YOU! Courtesy of Climate Change Minister Greg Combet and his Coalition Pseudo Deputy Prime Minister RED Bob Brown.

Tuesday, 5 October 2010

Mann -oh Mann! Penn State or State Penn

In a report in the Washington Post, under the headline:

Cuccinelli reissues global warming subpoena to U-Va.

We learn that Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli has sent a demand for documents related to a work of a former university climate scientist.

The scientist was Michael Mann, one of the ClimateCrew, who is infamous for his disgraced "hockey-stick" graph.

Cuccinelli has limited his demand to the e-mails and documents related to one state grant Mann received. This is a result of the fact that an Albemarle County judge had quashed a previous request by Cuccinelli re grants using federal rather than state dollars.
Well, misuse of funds is misuse of funds!

But, of course legal jurisdiction is jurisdiction
. We have had a PennState U investigation into a PennState U professor. Let's see - Should the Banks investigate the increase in Bank Fees? Shouldn't any investigation be independent? Justice should be done and seen to be done.

So, we find that: "
Penn State clears climatologist Michael Mann"

If we had a Supreme Court judge who had been accused of taking bribes, who would adjudicate without bias? To have a panel of Uni Professors appraise the actions of a lead author of a highly suspect paper, is laughable.

The interesting thing is that, before Michael Mann et al prepared the disgraced "hockey-stick" graph, one of the IPCC lead authors, Jonathan Overpeck wrote to Dr David Deeming saying that, to promote the Anthropogenic Global Warming Hoax they had to get rid of the Medieval Warming Period. Well,

Guess What? MBH's Hockey Stick did just that!

Well, let's hope that an independent inquiry, instead of the in-house white-washes that he has experienced so far, nails Mr Mann to his one tree.

Coal or Crops? NO! Coal AND Crops.

Guest Post by Viv Forbes of the Carbon Sense Coalition.

Coal OR Crops? NO. Coal AND Crops.
The Queensland Government has announced plans to create a new category of restricted land called “Strategic Cropping Land” which bans all mining or development.

The Carbon Sense Coalition has lodged a submission opposing the proposal. See:

If Queensland’s politicians were really concerned about food security they would not have sterilised millions of acres of grazing land under scrub clearing bans, conservation zones, heritage areas, wild rivers, national parks and other anti-farming bans.

Nor would they have encouraged the diversion of cropping land from producing food for humans to producing ethanol for cars; or used false global warming dogma to justify covering food producing land with feral forests of carbon credit trees.

It seems that the Queensland government has a secret plan to destroy Queensland’s primary industries, all motivated by suicidal Green hostility to the production of carbon fuels and foods, mainly coal, cattle and sheep.

Queensland has always relied on both mining and farming. To undermine mining on the pretence of helping food production is false and destructive.

This is not about crops or food – it is just another chapter in the Green war on carbon fuels whose goal is to prevent development of new coal mines and power stations.

The hidden tragedy of this silly policy is that we will never know which protected paddock is underlain by a treasure house of coal or minerals.

With modern machinery and knowledge of soils and plants it would be very easy to replace the food lost in the tiny area of crop land likely to be disturbed by coal mining.

The choice is not “Coal or Crops”.

A sensible policy is “Coal AND Crops”.


Monday, 4 October 2010

Climate trust needs verification

Letter to the Editor

Dear Sir / Madam, May I alert readers to the inconsistencies of people wanting a CO2 tax in Australia.

They trust IPCC conclusions while ignoring IPCC climate scientists who do not accept that CO2 causes dangerous global warming. (e.g. Richard Lindzen, John Christy, Vincent Gray, Ross McKitrick, Miklos Zagoni, Bill Kininmonth etc.

They trust IPCC reports while dozens of "IPCC statements " have been proven false (e.g. a claim glaciers in the Himalayas would be gone by 2035, an impossibility.)

They trust satellite data while satellite recording equipment is getting more faulty, recording higher temperatures than those actually occurring. (e.g. a USA town was recorded by a satellite at over 600 degrees C - another impossibility)

They trust the IPCC but cannot name one IPCC scientist who can show
CO2 will overheat the planet.

They ignore findings of highly credible groups like Britain`s Royal Society (which has now agreed the climate science is inconclusive) to bring in a carbon tax.

They trust IPCC predictions of higher global temperatures - while global temperatures have been flat over the last 12 years.

They trust we can use 100% renewables to power Australia - when anything more than 15% will be impossible due to wind and solar power not able to generate power all day and everyday.

They trust the world will join Australia in a high Carbon price - yet USA's carbon price collapsed to ten cents a tonne because its worthless. They are leading our country to economic destruction based on false beliefs.

Let's have a Royal Commission
into the science to see if they are correct.

Leon Ashby
President The Climate Sceptics

Where’s my Global Warming Dude?

It's only weather, but,

Melbourne - Coldest September month in 16 years
Melbourne has had its coldest September in 16 years, with only one day this month above 20 degrees.

Adelaide - Coldest September in 18 years.
Warmer days ahead will provide Adelaide residents with a good thawing out after enduring their coldest September in 18 years, according to

The city had an average maximum of just 17 degrees, two degrees colder than the long-term norm, making it the coldest September since 1992 in terms of daytime temperatures. In fact, there was only one day which warmed to 20 degrees, on Monday the 13th, the fewest 20-degree days in September in 18 years.

Sydney - Coldest Winter in 13 years.
After their coldest winter in 13 years Sydney residents have just experienced their coldest September in five years, according to

From via

Sunday, 3 October 2010

Latest on Seal Level and Sea Ice and Global COOLING

The latest data from the University of Colorado shows that Sea Level is Falling In 2010: 'Since start of hottest year ever, sea level has fallen 10 mm'

Sea Ice is also increasing:

Geologist Don Easterbrook in his ICCC-4 announced paper, The Looming Threat of Global Cooling, noted the undeniable link between the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) shifting to its warm mode in 1915 and 1977 and global warming resulting both times. Conversely, in 1945 and 1999 the PDO moved to its cool mode and the globe cooled right along, despite a rapid increase in atmospheric CO2 during the period. What’s more, climate changes in the geologic record show a regular pattern of alternate warming and cooling with a 25-30 year period for the past 500 years. Easterbrook thereby concludes that we should “expect global cooling for the next 2-3 decades that will be far more damaging than global warming would have been.”

Royal Society or Royal Commission?

The Royal Society was like all the alarmist organisations and supported the "consensus" of man-made Global Warming. However there were 43 Fellows of the Royal Society who disagreed and said you are not representing the views of all of us. They pushed and the Royal Society issued a new report.

Download the guide here (PDF).

It begins and ends with: "There is strong evidence that the warming of the Earth over the last half-century has been caused largely by human activity, such as the burning of fossil fuels and changes in land use, including agriculture and deforestation."

But adds riders such as (The report) lays out clearly where the science is well established, where there is wide consensus but continuing debate, and where there remains substantial uncertainty."

And "It is not possible to determine exactly how much the Earth will warm or exactly how the climate will change in the future, but careful estimates of potential changes and associated uncertainties have been made. Scientists continue to work to narrow these areas of uncertainty. Uncertainty can work both ways, since the changes and their impacts may be either smaller or larger than those projected."

Professor Anthony Kelly, one of the 43 Fellows who called for the change, says he is reasonably satisfied with the new guidance. "It's gone a long way to meeting our concerns," he said. "The previous guidance was discouraging debate rather than encouraging it among knowledgeable people. The new guidance is clearer and a very much better document."

Professor Ian Plimer, author of the best selling "Heaven+Earth" is quoted by the Australian as saying that the society's statement was a "wonderful breath of honesty and fresh air from an organisation that has been politicised".

"Science is always uncertain," Professor Plimer said."Science doesn't work by voting. It is not a democracy, it works on evidence."

However, nothing seems to get through to the hard nosed Alarmists. New Climate Change Minister Greg Combet (Hey, Greg are you aware that climate has changed from the beginning of time?) foolishly said the Royal Society's switch would not have any influence on the government's push to put a price on carbon.

"The government accepts the climate science," Mr Combet said. "The debate has moved on."

Sounds a lot like the Flat Earth Society, Greg.

Leon Ashby, President of The Climate Sceptics, has been calling for a Royal Commission into the "science" of Man-made Global Warming. He is now joined by Dr Dennis Jensen, member for Tangey, who is, to the best of my knowledge, the only Scientist in Federal Parliament. You can read Dennis' reasoning on Quadrant Online. Dennis notes that Ms Gillard's "climate change committee is very similar to admission to the former Soviet Union’s parliament, only people of one view need apply!" However, when questioned in Parliament the Prime Minister "made the Orwellian statement that the committee was to have a completely open mind. On what, pray tell, Prime Minister?"

Read the full article at Quadrant (link above) or at Menzies House. Dennis concludes: "In conclusion, I believe that there needs to be a review of the issue. The review needs to be rigorous, not some kludged up Committee of Predetermined Outcomes. A Royal Commission into the science is required."

I believe that we have a fairly small window. We must write to Senators on both sides of the House and also the two leaders and our local member. The more emails they get, the more they will take notice. Think of the anti-ETS campaign which sunk a charge on Carbon (Dioxide) the first time.

Saturday, 2 October 2010

Warmists Terrorists bloody Video UPDATED

There is a depicable bloody video created by a mob called

The video shows Realists being blasted to bits by the fools who deny the science that shows that Co2 is not causing runaway global warming. Stories re this horrendous despicable video are here by James Delingpole, Anthony Watts "the most disgusting climate and carbon reduction video ever", Chris Horner "Just How Low Can Big Green Go?" and Paul Chesser "Blowing Up the Climate Skeptics"

See also related item on Drum Unleashed by Anthony Cox and Joanne Nova.

Killing climate realists is not a new theme...A public appeal has been issued by an influential U.S. website asking: “At what point do we jail or execute global warming deniers.”

How could any sane person think that this video could help their cause - even a cause so warped as the AGW scam created to terrify people.

And who's behind this ghastly video, who's behind the 1010 mob of warming terrorists?

Well, William McKIbben of infamy, and, surprise, surprise, the (UK) Guardian; ActionAid (Govt of UK 2nd largest funder in 2009); The Carbon Trust (surely #1 on the list of quangos-to-go); The Energy Saving Trust.

Well, I hope that they are proud!


Paul Chesser tells us that William McKibben backs away from this stupid, awful video

"Commenter Susan made me aware in my earlier blog post that's Bill McKibben, a partner with, has issued a statement that claimed his group had nothing to do with their gross-out, kill-the-deniers video, and called it "disgusting." From his statement, which he issued after learning about the video after he (surprise!) climbed off a plane in Boston:

Climate skeptics are going to make a big deal of this. The video represents the kind of stupidity that really hurts our side, reinforcing in people's minds a series of preconceived notions, not the least of which is that we're out-of-control elitists. Not to mention crazy, and also with completely misplaced sense of humor....

UPDATE: See Tim Blair.

UPDATE: From Green Hell Blog.

Sony, Kyocera bail out of violent climate video outfit

October 4, 2010
Sony and Kyocera Mita are no longer listed as sponsors of the violence-advocating 10:10 climate group. (h/t Paul Chesser)

If you can't stand the heat, how will you feel about an Ice Age?

On Climate Spectator, Sophie Vorrath, in an article headed:

Drawing on inspiration

Sophie reviews a book of cartoons by Judy Horacek.

Sophie writes "How do you solve a problem like climate change?" Well, Sophie, Climate has been changing since the beginning of time. I think you are trying to say "How do you solve a problem like man-made global warming?" It's true that man's using of fossil fuels has contributed to increased atmospheric CO2. What is not so certain is whether increased CO2 causes runaway warming. There is not one peer-reviewed paper proving this, however, there are at least 800 peer-reviewed papers (eg Lindzen, Miskolczi etc) showing it not to be true.


As to Judy Horacek's reference to the "Last Glacier," many glaciers are now growing - See

The political body - the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has been exposed as fudging results and using non peer-reviewed Alarmist articles.

What we need is a Royal Commission into the supposed "Science" of man-made Global Warming to seek the truth. Write your Senators and youe local member calling for a Royal Commission