Friday, 31 December 2010

Why can`t we get the facts of the CO2 hoax debated

Letter to the editors - by Leon Ashby - President, The Climate Sceptics

Dear Sir /Madam,
                             With the internet, today's voter is becoming more informed on facts that contradict what our local, state and federal Political leaders often advocate.
This then raises questions that I believe voters want answered in public (rather than fobbed off through the media.)

For example:  Scientific research is being published showing health problems to residents living within 2 km of large wind turbines. Logically I would think this information should cause a re-evaluation of any wind-power farm plans.
Also; low doses of fluoride in water has been documented to cause severe health problems for a percentage of the community. This info gets ignored by health ministers.
Then there are now 6 published scientific papers by world leading scientists that have water tight evidence against the idea that CO2 causes dangerous Global Warming, but they are
ignored also.
Next we have SE of SA forest industries doomed to closure if the State forest resources in the South East is sold to international interests. An economic catastrophe aimed at our foreheads.
Finally the MDBP wanting to cut water allocations in the Murray Darling system by up to 37%. Another unnecessary economic tragedy being proposed on bad logic and weak evidence.

In a real democracy our leaders would conduct public meetings to answer questions and publicly release the actual scientific or economic evidence on which they are basing their decisions or answer on a web site any detailed question a member of the voting public raises.

Obviously our leaders will not face these things.
So isn`t that a dictatorial system we are now in?

Leon Ashby
President The Climate Sceptics

Thursday, 30 December 2010

Everything you want to know about the AGW hoax but were afraid to ask

I have just found (thanks to Patrick) one of the best sites to help fight the warmistas.

I can't guarantee that it is all OK as it will probably take years to read everything. The items that I've clicked on however are asll the real deal - Richard Lindzen 1992;  Patrcik Michaels 1999; Chris de Freitas 2007; Lord Lawson 30/12/2010 etc etc

The Other Side of the Global Warming Debate:
The Myth that a Consensus among Scientists really exists supporting the Man-Made Global Warming Theory.

Monday, 27 December 2010

Man-made Global Warmimg Causes Global Freezing

It must be So-o-o hard to be a true believer and read all the "It's only cold cause it's so hot"stuff.
(See also:

The Northern Hemisphere is having it's third cold winter in a row. The warmists have been telling us that Northern winters will have less cold more mild and warm days. Here is a collection of confused reports -

Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past Monday, 20 March 2000

Britain's winter ends tomorrow with further indications of a striking environmental change: snow is starting to disappear from our lives.
Sledges, snowmen, snowballs and the excitement of waking to find that the stuff has settled outside are all a rapidly diminishing part of Britain's culture, as warmer winters - which scientists are attributing to global climate change - produce not only fewer white Christmases, but fewer white Januaries and Februaries.

Global warming 'will give Britain longer, colder winters' as melting sea ice plays havoc with weather patterns (UK Daily Mail)
Melting ice will cause blasts of cold air to be funnelled over Britain during winter months. Britain will be hit by longer and colder winters in coming years because of global warming, scientists have said.  (Thanks Les)

Potsdam Climate Institue Now says to Expect "Warmer Colder" Winters

The Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) and the German media are now in full panic mode. They can no longer get their stories straight.
Desperate to stem the flood of doubt now sweeping Germany, as the country is gripped by its harshest December in 100 years, including record snowfalls in Potsdam, the hyper-alarmist PIK and the German media are now throwing all they’ve got to explain away the embarrassing cold. (Via P Gosselin's No Trick Zone)

Northeast US blizzard proves global warming, or something 

As the snow piles up over the Northeast, it is clear that global warming or climate change has caused this storm.  (Ryan Maue - WUWT)

And let's not forget the Moonbat -

Cold Burn

Yes, the extreme cold in the UK right now really could be a result of global warming.

Coldest December since records began as temperatures plummet to minus 10C  bringing travel chaos across Britain

  • Millions begin the big Christmas and New Year getaway early as the AA urged motorists to beware of the ‘worst driving conditions imaginable’
  • Quarter of train services disrupted, travel warning in Kent
  • Experts warn of a backlog of up to 4 million of parcels which could remain undelivered this Christmas
  • The NHS issues an urgent appeal for blood donors as concerns grow over shortages
  • Councils reveal plans to share grit amid fears the cold snap could last until January 14 
  • Odds shortened even further on a ‘White Christmas’ in some parts of the country next Saturday

Bundle Up, It’s Global Warming

NYT's Climate Astrology:  'Overall warming of the atmosphere is actually creating cold-weather extremes' -- Written by Judah Cohen ( 

How sad: Cohen's astrological science to infest AMS: 'Cohen was appointed Associate Editor of the Journal of Climate, a peer-reviewed publication of the AMS' (Wonder if Cohen will be fair minded in reviewing skeptical papers?)
(Thanks to Marc Morano)

What did they say a few years ago?    NASA:GISS -

GISS Clueless In 1999 : Warmer Winters Linked To Greenhouse Gases

June 2, 1999
Why are winters warming up so much faster over Northern Hemisphere continents than over the rest of the globe? A new study by NASA researchers in the June 3 issue of the journal Nature is the first to link the well-documented large degree of North America and Eurasia winter warming and the associated wind changes to rising greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere.
(Thanks to Steve Goddard)

What did they say a few years ago?    WWF -

Ski champions demand climate action in Poznan

“From the European Alps to the Asian Himalayas, the US Rockies and the Central American Andes, global warming means milder winters and less snowfall”, the petition said. “Ice and snow are particularly vulnerable to the impacts of global warming, and as avid skiers and snowboarders we see our beloved sports endangered.”

Sheep shrinking in Scotland due to warmer winters  July 3, 2009

Warmer, shorter winters along with giving birth at a younger age are helping make sheep on the Scottish island of Hirta smaller, scientists have determined. The average Soay sheep on Hirta, western Scotland, decreased in weight by 81 grams a year for more than two decades, researchers said today in the journal Science. That's because they have to eat less in their early months to survive winters that became shorter and milder, they wrote.

Meanwhile, over in Germany ...

Warmer winters: How are plants reacting?

 Our climate is getting warmer - especially in winter. The winter temperatures in the past decades have in many places risen twice as much as those in summer. The snow in the mountains is therefore melting earlier. Can the plants use this prolonged summer for growth? Is the vegetation changing because of this? A Ph. D. student investigates what effect a change in the properties of snow cover has on plants.

Concerned Scientists in 2006 ...

Climate Scientists 2006: winters in US “becoming warmer, less snowy

The Union of Concerned Scientists published the results of the study on its climatechoices website and summarized them thus:

Across the globe, and here in the Northeast, the climate is changing. Records show that spring is arriving earlier, summers are growing hotter, and winters are becoming warmer and less snowy. These changes are consistent with global warming, an urgent phenomenon driven by heat-trapping emissions from human activities

Met Office 2006: “we are expecting milder winters”

Why did they say such a silly thing? Because they had a shiny new computer that told them to.
Fresh-faced and excited from the new multi-billion pound supercomputer that they’d just received, one of the forecasters from the Met Office gave an interview to the Guardian newspaper in 2006 in which he boasted of the accuracy of this new bit of kit

Devious Action by Warming Bank

Des Moore is the founding Director of the Institute for Private Enterprise. (Link in title) The following is an email received from Des Moore re the Deutsche Bank

Des Moore
Dear All

The articles below, published on 14 December in Canada and forwarded to me by one of the authors (David Henderson), reveals an astonishing example of devious behaviour by a warmist. Involving as it does one of the world’s leading banks, Deutsche Bank, it also displays the extent to which some leading private sector institutions are prepared to support the warming thesis principally on the basis that it allows them to make money from advising or trading in associated activities. Note that members of the Deutsche Bank’s Climate Advisory Board include Dr Pachauri, the infamous chair of  the IPCC who was forced to acknowledge the incorrect use by IPCC of data on melting of glaciers supplied by one of his associates without review.

The report by the Deutsche Bank climate change advisors portrays a sign of desperation in that it directly attacks the analysis by Canadian economist Professor Ross Mckitrick and presents his conclusions wrongly in what seems to be a deliberately false portrayal. McKitrick has done more than most sceptics in demonstrating that:

  1. There are basic errors in the so-called hockey-stick graph used in the DB report as support for the warming thesis (that graph purports to show little or no increase in temperature prior to the industrial revolution followed by a steady upward movement). With colleague Steve McIntyre, McKitrick has demonstrated that the graph had no substantive basis and that analysis was confirmed by statistician Wedgeman in a report commissioned by Congress. (See Hockey Stick cons dupes)
  2. The attempt by Phil Jones of the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University to “hide the decline” in temperatures in the late 20th century by switching from the use of normal temperature records to measurements based on tree rings. (As I have previously reported, in his interview with the BBC environment reporter last February following the Climategate revelations, Jones acknowledged that from 1995 to 2009 there was no statistically-significant global warming).      

McKitrick has also published a critique of the official investigations into the activities of the CRU, all of which “cleared” Jones and his colleagues from any serious wrongdoing. McKitrick’s conclusion (published in September) was that “the world still waits a proper inquiry into Climategate: one that is not stacked with global warming advocates, and one that is prepared to cross-examine evidence, interview critics as well as supporters of the CRU and other IPCC players, and follow the evidence where it leads”. I have read only one of those official reports but that was obviously biased.

It is remarkable that the analyses by McKitrick and McIntyre have received almost no attention in Australia. Of course, other analyses by sceptics  have also been given only limited attention by comparison with commentary by warmists. But the two are professional economists who have exposed fundamental errors in what is supposed to be based on an analysis by scientists. This exposure shows that the warmist theory can be challenged successfully by non-scientists who are prepared to examine the statistical data. But the two Ms are Canadian. Why aren’t more professional economists in Australia, including in the Treasury in Canberra, able to tackle the issue?    

Des Moore

Corporate irresponsibility

David Henderson, Financial Post · Tuesday, Dec. 14, 2010

As the Cancun postmortems continue, one area that calls for attention is the questionable role of leading businesses. Recent episodes involving the Deutsche Bank Group are illustrative of a wider problem. They give grounds for serious concern.

In September a report entitled "Climate Change: Addressing the Major Skeptic Arguments," was issued under the auspices of Deutsche Bank. It was published by DB Climate Change Advisors, a unit described on the bank's website as "the brand name for the institutional climate-change investment division of Deutsche Asset Management, the asset-management arm of Deutsche Bank AG in the U.S." The report was co-authored by three climate scientists at the Columbia Climate Center at the Earth Institute of Columbia University.

As the title suggests, the authors' avowed purpose in preparing the report was to demonstrate that the "major skeptic arguments," and any conclusions based on them, are to be rejected. To quote the document's introduction: "This study aims to respond to the most common misconceptions that are presented to challenge the position that [greenhouse gas] emissions are adversely impacting Earth's climate and will continue to do so."

In an editorial preface to the report, the Deutsche Bank global head of climate-change investment research, Mark Fulton, describes it as "a balanced, detailed and expert assessment of the scientific case for climate change that will help investors navigate these extremely complex issues."

The document's claims to balance, and to accuracy as a navigational guide, were promptly put in question by the Canadian economist Ross McKitrick of Guelph University, one of the "skeptics" supposedly disposed of within it. Prof. McKitrick's critique, entitled "Response to Misinformation from Deutsche Bank," is dated Sept. 13. It focuses on two central topics treated in the report, with the main emphasis on the well-publicized "hockey stick" controversy. In relation to these topics, it identifies and spells out an extended list of errors, misrepresentations and falsehoods.

In response, the authors of the document have put out a revised text which replaces the original. But to create this new version they have simply inserted at the end a three-page "Response to McKitrick." In these pages they admit to a few "mischaracterizations" and offer amended versions of three sentences that they acknowledge to have been misleading. However, the original wording of these confessedly faulty sentences survives, unchanged and unfootnoted, in an unaltered main text. McKitrick has described this behaviour on the authors' part as "unsporting." Others might characterize it as unprofessional. The Deutsche Bank sponsors of the study should not have sanctioned it.

In a second set of comments, dated Nov. 8 and entitled "Response to Revised Report from Deutsche Bank," McKitrick has extended and reinforced his critique. Up to now, there has been no further response from the authors of the report or from Deutsche Bank.

Viewed together, McKitrick's twin presentations appear as damning and unanswerable. As a guide to investors, or indeed for any other purpose, this Deutsche Bank/Earth Institute report is worthless.

The report's deficiencies put in question the conduct of its sponsors within Deutsche Bank, as also the conduct of those whom they report to. It would be interesting to know whether the officials who commissioned and approved this deeply flawed initiative took the precaution of submitting a draft for expert review to competent persons not already firmly convinced that "the skeptics" have been refuted.

Looking at the list of members, it would seem that no such person is to be found among the eminent individuals who make up the Deutsche Bank's high-level Climate Advisory Board: All of these appear as people who are (to quote a nice phrase from Clive Crook) "pre-committed to the urgency of the climate cause." They include the chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Dr. R.K. Pachauri, and a former executive director of the United Nations Environment Program, Klaus Topfer.

It is not clear whether the Climate Advisory Board saw a draft of this Earth Institute report, or indeed whether they were aware that it had been commissioned. A more representative Advisory Board, spanning a wider range of opinions, might have taken more trouble to ensure that it was kept fully informed, and that any published work on climate change issues put out by Deutsche Bank would measure up to professional standards.

The Deutsche Bank Group has also taken its climate-change involvement into the political sphere. In the recent Californian elections, voters were invited to accept or reject Proposition 23, which would have placed strict constraints on the state government's plans to introduce further curbs on carbon dioxide emissions. A few days before the vote, the Financial Times reported that "Sixty-eight big investors, managing US$415-billion in assets, have united to urge Californians to vote against efforts to roll back the state's carbon legislation.... Signatories include ... Deutsche Bank Climate Advisers...."

It would thus appear that its Climate Change Advisors, who are no more than "the climate-change investment division of Deutsche Asset Management," took a strong position on behalf of Deutsche Bank on a controversial political matter. If so, it would be interesting to know whether and to what extent this action, which appears as questionable in itself, was authorized and approved at higher levels within the bank.

As its website confirms, Deutsche Bank is fully committed to the doctrine, now widely endorsed by businesses and governments, of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). How far its current handling of climate change issues can be viewed as responsible is clearly open to doubt.

For any organization of standing, not least a leading multinational company such as Deutsche Bank, an obvious aspect of responsible conduct is a demonstrated concern for accuracy and the truth. The bank's management board could now manifest such a concern, first, by commissioning an independent and informed review of this report, and second, by withdrawing and repudiating the report if the review supports McKitrick's analysis.

In the wider context, however, Deutsche Bank is one of many, while the report shares its faults with numerous cousins. Both are symptomatic.

Businesses across the world, and governments too, have made unqualified and uncritical commitments to the view that in relation to climate-change issues "the science" is "settled." Within the business world, as in the case of Deutsche Bank, endorsing this received opinion forms a leading aspect of CSR and, for many companies, of corporate strategy.

Received opinion largely rests on a belief, reinforced by statements from leading science academies, that in relation to climate science the official expert advisory process as a whole, and the IPCC assessment reports in particular, are to be seen as reliable guides.

Increasingly in recent years, arguments and evidence to the contrary have been presented by informed critics, prominent among whom have been McKitrick and his fellow Canadian, Stephen McIntyre. In my view, these critics have made a powerful case. The IPCC process has been exposed as being far from a model of rigour, inclusiveness and impartiality, while influential publications on climate-change issues have been shown to be professionally flawed.

Neither businesses nor governments have given the critics due attention. But in the past year or so, new developments have cast further doubt on the claims to objectivity and competence of the official expert advisory process and its official sponsors. In particular, the so-called "Climategate" and "Glaciergate" episodes have exposed attitudes and practices which were clearly unprofessional.

In response to these embarrassing revelations, Dr. Pachauri and the UN Secretary-General asked the InterAcademy Council, a creation of science academies around the world, to appoint an expert independent review committee to report on the process and procedures of the IPCC.

The resulting report was published at the end of August. Because of its careful and qualified wording, both sides of the climate-change debate have been able to draw encouragement from it. I see the report as making a major contribution in two respects: first, it made numerous recommendations for improving the IPCC process; and second, it stressed the need to ensure that a full range of informed views is taken into account, thus confirming that "the science" is not "settled."

These twin conclusions are subversive of received opinion. Hence the report could help pave the way for significant improvements in the handling of climate-change issues.

The main focus of improvement is clear. In an area of policy where so much is at stake, and so much remains uncertain and unsettled, policies should be evolutionary and adaptive, rather than presumptive as they are now; and their evolution should be linked to a process of inquiry and review that is more thorough, balanced, open and objective than has so far been the case.

Whether and how far a more judicious approach on these lines will gather momentum depends principally on governments, but businesses and business organizations could play a useful -- and more responsible -- part in raising the quality of debate. As the current example of Deutsche Bank confirms, there is a long way to go.

- David Henderson was formerly head of the Economics and Statistics Department of the OECD. He is currently chairman of the Academic Advisory Council of the London-based Global Warming Policy Foundation. His latest publication on climate-change issues has just appeared in the quarterly Newsletter of the Royal Economic Society.

Deutsche's climate
Terence Corcoran, Financial Post · Tuesday, Dec. 14, 2010

The corporate climate change bandwagon, an unprecedented global scramble of money-grubbing and subsidy-seeking opportunists, shows no signs of ending. Whatever the failures and limitations of last week's United Nations' conference in Cancun, the prospect of cashing in on the idea of carbon-free energy has galvanized corporate players all over the world, generating a momentum that seems to have left the UN effort in the dust. The carbon targets proposed in the Kyoto Protocol may be too crazy for governments to adopt, but they're just fine with all the banks, solar power firms, turbine makers, consultants, real estate speculators, regulatory manipulators, scammers and spinners who aim to make a killing off climate change.

An example of such a pro-climate change campaign is the work of Deutsche Bank, the giant German financial institution that has imbedded itself in the renewable energy field. Deutsche Bank claims to have funded more than $5-billion in renewable projects, the result of its aggressive marketing of Feed-in Tariffs (FIT) as government policy. It promotes FIT pricing of electricity all over the world, from Ontario to developing nations. Investors are urged to sink money into renewable energy, on the claim that the returns will beat the market.

Earlier this month, the bank announced a $70-million funding of two solar power parks in Ontario to be installed by SkyPower Ltd., a company that has a turned the province's rich solar-power pricing schemes into a corporate bonanza. Similar announcements pop out of Deutsche regularly, along with weighty reports from a section of the bank called DB Climate Change Advisors.

DB Climate Change Advisors is a part of the bank's asset management group, whose leader, Kevin Parker, likes to point out in the reports that it is the bank's belief "that Feed-in Tariffs create a lower risk environment for investors." No kidding. That's because the risk is being picked up by ratepayers and taxpayers. In the bank's view, Germany and Ontario set global standards in policies that subsidize solar and wind power.

To support its corporate strategy, Deutsche Bank recently went after climate change critics who might upset the gravy train of subsidies, regulation and FIT programs. David Henderson reports elsewhere on this page on the bank's efforts to discredit skeptics.

In a report in September, titled "Climate Change: Addressing the Major Skeptic Arguments," DB Climate Change Advisors commissioned scientists at the Columbia Climate Center at the Earth Institute of Columbia University to take down the work of such skeptics as Ross McKitrick of Guelph University. They picked the wrong skeptic to go after.

Prof. McKitrick focused on two central topics treated in the Deutsche Bank report. The main emphasis is on the so-called "hockey stick" controversy. The other issue is an infamous quote from a Climategate email in which Phil Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit at University of East Anglia in the U.K. refers to a "trick" to "hide the decline" in a graphic presentation of temperatures.

Prof. McKitrick identifies and spells out an extended list of errors, misrepresentations and falsehoods in the Deutsche Bank report. As is typical of climate science conflict, the subject quickly gets complicated and arcane.

The opening segment in the Deutsche Bank report attempted to demolish the "hockey stick" portion of the skeptics' arguments. The famous hockey-stick graph, created in 1997 by U.S. climatologist Michael Mann, appeared to show that recent temperatures were the highest in 1,000 years. Beginning in 2003, Mr. McKitrick (along with Toronto consultant Steve McIntyre) demonstrated conclusively that the 1,000-year claim was unsupportable.

According to the Deutsche report, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences had investigated the hockey stick issue and "rejected the claims of McIntyre and McKitrick and endorsed, with a few reservations, Mann et al.'s work." The Deutsche report also claimed that another investigation into the hockey stick conducted by a team of statisticians headed by Edward Wegman, "also concluded that the methodological errors in the original Mann et al. papers had no impact on the scientific conclusion." According to Deutsche Bank, the NAS and Wegman reports "confirmed the soundness of the [Mann] research and concluded the primary conclusions were unaffected by any methodological problems."

All of this was too much for Prof. McKitrick. In his formal response to the Deutshe report, he wrote: "In addition to misrepresenting the NAS findings, this is a wholly false misrepresentations of the findings of the Wegman report." Not only did the Deutsche document distort the process, it got the Wegman conclusions wrong. The Wegman committee actually said that "the assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade in a millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year in a millennium cannot be supported by the [Mann et al.] analysis."

In a second set of comments, "Response to Revised Report from Deutsche Bank," Prof. McKitrick takes another critical whack at the Deutsche report. Among other things, Prof. McKitrick turns his attention to a direct attack on work. "Attempts to reproduce the work of McIntyre and McKitrick," said the Deutsche paper, "have shown their original claims to be largely spurious."

This is untrue, and Prof. McKitrick cites the Wegman review, which said: "In general, we find the criticisms by [McKitrick and McIntyre] to be valid and their arguments to be compelling. We were able to reproduce their results and offer both theoretical explanations and simulations to verify that their observations were correct."

The Deutsche Bank treatment of the Climategate email about "hiding the decline" is particularly wrongheaded. In the email, Mr. Jones, the East Anglia chief, refers to the official graph of northern hemisphere temperatures that blended actual temperature records with tree ring measurements of temperature records without acknowledging the switch. This "trick" gave the impression of a continuous record of rising temperatures in the late 20th century, when no such record existed.

The authors of the Deutsche report glossed over this misleading use of data, calling it "inappropriate." But Prof. McKitrick said the hiding-the-decline trick is more than a case of bad graphic presentation. It was misleading -- or worse. "Data manipulation ... is not 'poor presentation.' " He added: "The WMO chart did not suffer poor presentation; it was, in fact, quite an attractive graph. The problem was that it was misleading, and in that sense the care that went into making it look compelling only compounds the problem."

To date, the Deutsche Bank organization has not responded to Prof. McKitrick's second round of criticisms. The original report still stands in the web-site. The few corrections admitted to so far remain buried in the back in a barely readable form.

Prof. McKitrick makes another striking observation: "At a certain point it becomes disconcerting that Deutsche Bank, which is among other things one of the few international banks qualified to act as a primary dealer for the New York Federal Reserve, and is thereby subject to particularly stringent requirements about accuracy of commentary it publishes on economic and policy issues, is going to such efforts to excuse publication of misleading information."

As Mr. Henderson puts it, the Deutsche report on climate skeptics has been rendered worthless as a guide to the science and for investors. It also betrays a larger issue, which is a corporate role on the part of Deutsche Bank that makes Exxon look like a Boy Scout.

Friday, 24 December 2010

Merry Christmas to all

May everyone have a very merry Christmas and may 2011 bring you more Carbon Dioxide to increase the biomass and help feed the world.

Thursday, 23 December 2010

Global Warming causes Global Cooling - They're fooling.

Just a few years ago, Brits were reading:

by Polly Buchanan  Feb 8th, 2008

Winter has gone for ever and we should officially bring spring forward instead, one of the country’s most respected gardeners said yesterday.
For climate change has wiped out the season of traditionally long, hard frosts and replaced it with brightly blossoming gardens bursting into flower months early.

The curator of Kew Gardens said that native plants which historically flower in May are already in leaf and a modern definition of the seasons was needed.

Read more: here....
So what happens when Britain, Northern Europe and North America have extremely cold winters for three years? 

Let's look at George Monbiot's changing opinion
(courtesy of Marc Morano's Climate Depot)

2008 – Record heat weather patterns equals "Oh my, the world's on fire!"

2010 – Record cold weather patterns "Oh my, the world's on fire!" 2009 global warming alarmists hadn't thought up a way to blame global warming yet. However, George Monbiot believes he has it figured out, which means that blaming individual weather events is back en vogue....
Monbiot tells us that "there is now strong evidence to suggest that the unusually cold winters of the last two years in the UK are the result of heating elsewhere."  That's right! It's very cold because it's very hot somewhere else.

Some scientists do not agree with this:-

Dr Roger Pielke Sr:

This failure to skillfully predict any of the extreme weather patterns we have seen in the past should be a wake-up call to policymakers and the public that the climate science community is overselling the prediction skill that is possible
Unfortunately,  they also continue to miss the significance that it is the regional circulations that matter much more, not a global average anomaly, as I discussed on my post
An Example of Why Regional Weather Patterns Are More Important Than A Global-Average Temperature Anomaly

Some call this phenomenon the Arctic Paradox: that as the Arctic gets warmer, the cold air doesn’t necessarily disappear, it just shifts south. In other words, there isn’t any weather, hot or cold, that can’t be explained with global warming theory. Unsurprisingly, some are not convinced.
“You can make up any analogy you want, but the fact is that computer models don’t show that change,” Pat Michaels, a climatologist and senior fellow at the Cato Institute told The Daily Caller. “If you can’t model it, you don’t have any evidence for it.”
It is, said Michaels, the “core problem of climatology:” “It is attempting to explain everything even when everything becomes contradictory.”
Myron Ebell, director of the Center of Energy and Environment at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

“They make this stuff up as they go along,” said Myron Ebell, director of the Center of Energy and Environment at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. “If this theory is true, a necessary consequence is that there will be less severe winter storms because arctic air masses will not be as cold.”
According to Ebell, if the Arctic was getting warmer, the air rushing south would also be warm. This would reduce the difference between the two meeting pressure systems, leading to less severe winter weather. This hasn’t happened.
James A. Marusek, Retired U.S. Navy Physicist:
 "Unusual snowfalls and cold weather in both hemispheres for 4 years -- 'This is what might be expected if Earth is sliding into new Dalton Minimum."
Anthony Watts has a blog post re the Dalton Minimum:

The sun went spotless yesterday, the first time in quite awhile. It seems like a good time to present this analysis from my friend David Archibald. For those not familiar with the Dalton Minimum, here’s some background info from Wiki:
The Dalton Minimum was a period of low solar activity, named after the English meteorologist John Dalton, lasting from about 1790 to 1830.[1] Like the Maunder Minimum and Spörer Minimum, the Dalton Minimum coincided with a period of lower-than-average global temperatures. The Oberlach Station in Germany, for example, experienced a 2.0°C decline over 20 years.[2] The Year Without a Summer, in 1816, also occurred during the Dalton Minimum. Solar cycles 5 and 6, as shown below, were greatly reduced in amplitude. – Anthony

Wednesday, 22 December 2010

Carbon tax advocates - Please explain.

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

Dear Sir /Madam,
                             Some readers could be unsure what the correct facts are about the climate, so could any CO2 tax advocates answer these questions.

Since 2000, it has been claimed by many politicians and greens that the Planet would get hotter, more droughts would occur, less snow would fall and sea levels would rise so
where is the evidence because.  
  • Europe is having its third consecutive cold winter;
  • Britain is having the coldest December since records began in 1910;
  • The Antarctic ice sheet has reached its largest area since satellite records began;
  • Australia's Murray river is in full flow;
  • Global sea levels have been stationary for 4 years; 
  • Global temperatures have not risen above 1998s temperatures and
  • The Climategate emails showed climate records have been falsified.

Although the man-made global warming scare is still believed in - like unicorns, the tooth fairy, and a flat earth, there is no verifiable evidence it exists.

So CO2 tax advocates, if you have truth on your side, please prove two things - both logically needed in the debate:-
  1. Greenhouse gases (e.g. water vapour, CO2 etc) are collectively overheating the planet.
  2. That a carbon dioxide tax in Australia will be able to impact on the global climate.

Leon Ashby

Tuesday, 21 December 2010

One million Australian women hoodwinked?

Did that headline get your attention? Well at my time of writing this, it is only 33,000 women. However there is a website - link in title above - asking for one million women to join:-
Getting involved in 1 Million Women is easy - simply join and follow the steps to start reducing carbon emissions. Our goal is to empower 1 Million Women to collectively cut 1 million tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2), the main greenhouse gas pollutant triggering climate change.
When you join you will be taken to a selection of CO2 cutting activities covering your household, food, cars and getting around, flights, shopping and renewable energy.
Select activities that work for you and start cutting CO2 now. To stay on course to reach your 1 tonne saving, track your progress within the activity centre.
By registering, you are joining daughters, mothers, sisters and grandmothers inspiring climate action.
AS the AGW hypothesis has not been proven, I have e-mailed the ladies ( or perhaps some aren't, hence their URL) asking for their evidence:-

You say:

"Our goal is to empower 1 Million Women to collectively cut 1 million tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2), the main greenhouse gas pollutant triggering climate change."

Can you substantiate this statement? Twenty years ago, the IPCC was set up to show that man-made CO2 emissions were causing runaway Global Warming. They have admitted that they cannot substantiate this.

Could you please advise what support you can give to this statement?

5:14 pm 21/12/10
They also say on their site that their "goal is to inspire 1 million Australian women to take practical action on climate change by cutting 1 million tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2), the main greenhouse pollutant causing global warming."

Anyone familiar with Bob Carter's address to the AEF a few years ago knows that he torpedoed the AGW hypothesis. However we have these, mainly well-meaning but misguided, ladies pushing the flawed AGW hypothesis. You can see some of their names here.

There are the obvious ones like Anna Bligh, Verity Firth and Penny Wong. Some will surprise you, and of some you will think, I suppose so. Some are highly educated and should have done better research.

Heading the list, by George, is Katie Noonan. Then we have

Janine Allis - Managing Director/Founder, Boost Juice Bars.

 Less CO2 means less biomass means less Juice, Sort of an unboost?

Maeve O'Meara - Award-winning food and cooking author, journalist, broadcaster, television producer and presenter.

As above, less CO2 means less biomass means less fresh vegetables, less meat.

Donna Wilkins - CEO, Country Women’s Association of New South Wales

Most country folk are aware that the changes in climate are cyclical. Has she consulted with her membership before putting her name to this?

Janet Fife-Yeomans - Reporter, The Daily Telegraph

This has been canvassed elsewhere, but Journalists are meant to be sceptical. Has she examined the lack of evidence for the flawed AGW hypothesis? 


 How about 1 million Ladies exposing the flawed AGW hypothesis?


Here is the first of four Vids with Professor Carter falsifying the flawed CO2 hypothesis.


Thursday, 16 December 2010

Roman Warming, Medieval Warming, 20th Century Warming, Is this a trend?

A Two-Thousand-Year Temperature History of the Extra-Tropical North...
Ljungqvist, F.C. 2010. A new reconstruction of temperature variability in the extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere during the last two millennia. Geografiska Annaler Series A 92: 339-351.


This new study of Ljungqvist is especially important in that it utilizes, in his words, "a larger number of proxy records than most previous reconstructions," and that it "substantiates an already established history of long-term temperature variability." All of these facts, taken together, clearly demonstrate that there is nothing unusual, nothing unnatural or nothing unprecedented about the planet's current level of warmth, seeing it was just as warm as, or even warmer than, it has been recently during both the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods, when the atmosphere's CO2 concentration was more than 100 ppm less than it is today. And this latter observation, together with the realization that earth's climate naturally transits back and forth between cooler and warmer conditions on a millennial timescale, demonstrates that there is absolutely no need to associate the planet's current level of warmth with its current higher atmospheric CO2 concentration, in clear contradiction of the worn-out climate-alarmist claim that the only way to explain earth's current warmth is to associate it with the greenhouse effect of CO2. That claim -- for which there is no supporting evidence, other than misplaced blind faith in climate models -- is totally bogus.

NASA and the Urban Heat Island (UHI) Effect

From a NASA GISS study (link in title)

UHI - NASA_GISS Diagramme

An extract or two:-
Summer land surface temperature of cities in the Northeast were an average of 7 °C to 9 °C (13°F to 16 °F) warmer than surrounding rural areas over a three year period, the new research shows. The complex phenomenon that drives up temperatures is called the urban heat island effect.

Most recently, the Goddard group has shown that a city's development patterns -- whether a city is sprawling or compact -- can also affect the strength of its heat island.

By comparing 42 cities in the Northeast, they found that densely-developed cities with compact urban cores are more apt to produce strong urban heat islands than more sprawling, less intensely-developed cities.

The compact city of Providence, R.I., for example, has surface temperatures that are about 12.2 °C (21.9 °F) warmer than the surrounding countryside, while similarly-sized but spread-out Buffalo, N.Y., produces a heat island of only about 7.2 °C (12.9 °F), according to satellite data. Since the background ecosystems and sizes of both cities are about the same, Zhang's analysis suggests development patterns are the critical difference.

I was first alerted to this by P Gosselin

Green Power just generates Red Ink

Latest from Viv Forbes, Chairman of the Carbon Sense Coalition
Green Power just generates Red Ink
The Carbon Sense Coalition has called for an end to all subsidies, mandated markets and sweetheart pricing for solar and wind energy.

The Chairman of “Carbon Sense”, Mr Viv Forbes, said that current energy policies were harming the existing power industry and robbing taxpayers and electricity consumers.

Forbes continued:
 "It's time to end the mollycoddling of wind and solar energy toys before this stupidity does irreversible damage to Australia’s electricity supply and costs.

"The mindless green dream of producing serious base load power from whimsical breezes and intermittent sunbeams has caused a halt to new low-cost coal power, a boom in expensive gas power, a national debate about nuclear power and has had no effect at all on global climate.

"The frivolous wind and solar generators already installed have caused a surge in electricity prices, a bonanza for Chinese manufacturers and well founded doubts about our future ability to keep the lights on.

"Transmission costs are also ignored or under-estimated by green disciples. Because wind and solar are dilute forms of energy, often best developed in remote locations, collectors must sprawl over large areas of land, with each collector needing expensive new power lines to connect to the grid.

"Provision of cheap reliable energy is a basic requirement for modern civilisation and is the engine that lifts people from poverty. It is far too important to be left to green dreamers, anti-industrial zealots, vote seeking politicians, engineering illiterates and guilt-ridden millionaires.

"It is already obvious from Denmark, Spain, California and Germany that subsidising green power creates very little power but much red ink in the accounts. It always causes massive burdens for tax payers, electricity consumers and industry. Tax payers and investors will rue the day they allowed politicians to waste their savings on chimeras.

"Get rid of all the mandated markets, subsidies and tax breaks for all energy generators, and leave power engineers and business managers to work out how best to supply our future energy needs in a free competitive market.

"Subsidised power must collapse under its own dead weight. But every day's delay increases the eventual cost. "

More Info:

 The Green Energy Collapse:

Creating Green Jobs, in China:

The German Experience:

Some Uncomfortable truths on wind power and those promoting them:

How to Freeze in the Dark when the wind drops in Scotland:

Wind for the Birds – a comment on wind capabilities, written 30 years ago, but the physics of wind has not changed:


Viv Forbes
Chairman, The Carbon Sense Coalition                 
MS 23 Rosewood, Qld, 4340, Australia
Phone 07 5464 0533

Monday, 13 December 2010

Climate Alarm gets that sinking feeling


Back in the Dopenhagen days, the Maldives and Tuvalu were screaming for "real action" on climate before they submerged. For an effect the Maldive Cabinet held an underwater meeting. Even three days ago, India today reported "Climate change will sink small nations." Funny, that Dubai built a few inches above sea level is not panicking.
So, what is really happening? If you thought that your property would be underwater in a few years, you would surely sell out to the first offer.
Eero Iloniemi decided to investigate the property markets on the two islands and found a surprising result -

    The prime minister of Tuvalu, Apisai Ielemia, said rich Westerners were allowing his nation to perish.
Maldives Resort
    Eero: ‘Mr Prime Minister. In view of the impending deluge, how much have land prices fallen on Tuvalu?’
    For some reason my question completely silenced the room packed with environmental press. After what I will charitably call an inquisitive stare, the prime minister gave his long winded answer full of long-term projections of rising ocean levels. To be fair, he concluded with a simple declaration: ‘Land prices have not been affected.’


Shows who the true believers are!

Sunday, 12 December 2010

On the heels of Dopenhagen -Can-CON

Last night, on ABC News ( a shareholder in AGW) they announced that there was an agreement reached at Cancun. This seems to be as real as the "CONsensus" on the AGW hoax. In fact, it turned out to be an agreement to make an agreement next time. Sort of a consensus to have a consensus next time.

Christopher Booker points out some anomolies (link in title):
Lord Stern, that high priest of the international warmist establishment, proposed that Britain should raise an extra £15 billion a year in “green taxes”, on petrol, flights and domestic energy, to punish people with a “high-emission lifestyle” for the damage they do to the environment. Ten per cent of this, said Lord Stern, could go to the new Green Climate Fund (agreed late on Friday, to a standing ovation) to help poorer countries develop “low carbon economies” by building wind turbines and solar panels, while the rest could be kept by the British Government as an “incentive”.
Christopher adds that Lord (Adair) Turner's Climate Change Committee should cut its CO2 emissions by 60% in twenty years by using electric cars.
Quite how 11 million motorists will be persuaded to pay more than £20,000 a time for these vehicles when, for little more than half that, they could buy a Ford Focus, Lord Turner does not say – nor why they should opt for a car that will drive for barely 100 miles before its batteries have to be recharged for several hours. As for who will provide the millions of charging points necessary, Lord Turner suggests that electricity companies could be forced to do this as a licensing condition. But he overlooks the fact that almost all the electricity they need would come from fossil fuels, which with transmission losses, would largely if not wholly negate any supposed savings in CO2.
 India meanwhile has protected its interests.
Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh declared that 'India's interests had been fully protected and enhanced' in the Cancun Agreement and pointed to paragraphs in the agreement that had been drafted by the ministry, as well as clauses that had been dropped at the Indian delegates' insistence.
And if you think the Can-CON delegates were swanning around in the (ever-warming) Sun, think again. As Anthony Watts (WUWT) reports:

Six straight days of record low temperatures during COP16 in Cancun Mexico – more coming

The irony, it burns. Do you think maybe Gaia is trying to send the U.N. and the delegates a message? One record low was funny, three in a row was hilarious, a new record low for the month of December was ROFL, but now six straight days of record lows during the U.N. COP16 Global Warming conference? That’s galactically inconvenient. The whole month so far has averaged below normal....

God having fun with climate meetings?

Letter to Editors from President of TCS - Leon Ashby

Dear Sir / Madam,

It appears God is having fun with climate meetings where people believe they can play God and control the planet`s climate.
Following the very cold weather at Copenhagen last year, the Cancun Climate agreement was decided when
  •  Cancun recorded  6 consecutive record low temperatures for December
  • Snow was falling unexpectedly in England and record low temperatures were being recorded in various places in Europe.
  • The number of international dissident scientists who have stated the science does not back up CO2 causing dangerous global warming reached 1000 -
  • Above average rainfall was occurring over much of Australia with the Murray river in good flow.

One wonders what will happen during the next Climate meeting.

Leon Ashby
President The Climate Sceptics

Tuesday, 7 December 2010

No Rerun for “Rudd’s Folly”

The Carbon Sense Coalition today said that Australia must not renew its Kyoto Agreement.

The Chairman of “Carbon Sense”, Mr Viv Forbes, said that the current failing agreement was signed without due diligence by Kevin Rudd and should be referred to as “Rudd’s Folly”.
Forbes continued:

“Appropriately, the death notice for the Kyoto mis-adventure was posted by Japan, the birthplace of Kyoto, when their representative at Cancun Resort announced:

“Japan will not inscribe its target under the Kyoto protocol on any conditions or under any circumstances.”

“Thus the four biggest economies in our region (USA, China, Japan and India) will not sign; nor will Australia’s big competitors in Brazil (iron and beef), Indonesia (coal), Chile (copper) or Canada (wheat).

“If Australia is foolish enough to renew its Kyoto liabilities it will find itself isolated in the Pacific with only gullible Kiwis and faraway Europeans for company.

“The old Soviets have benefitted from Kyoto by outsmarting everyone on choosing the base year. No one else will achieve the unrealistic Kyoto targets, which is lucky because they could not be achieved without a repeat of the Great Depression or the collapse of the Soviet Union.

“The use of carbon fuels, more than any other index, indicates the health of the real economy. The only way to kill carbon is to kill the economy.

“Japan was shocked to realise the billions in liabilities they had accumulated by not meeting Kyoto target cuts.

“Australia avoided a similar fate by robbing Australian landowners. They stole carbon credits from landowners by imposing vegetation clearing bans. This trick can’t be pulled twice.

“Kyoto also spawned many other wasteful schemes like pink batts, wind and solar toys, carbon burial schemes and regulatory empires.

“The Kyoto Agreement is a costly failure, and the international meetings which document the failure have degenerated into the farce now on display at Cancun.

“Minister Combet should enjoy his tropical holiday, keep his pen in his pocket and sign nothing.”

More Info:

 “Carbon Sense” is a newsletter produced by the Carbon Sense Coalition, an Australian based organisation which opposes waste of resources, opposes pollution, and promotes the rational and sustainable use of carbon energy and carbon food.
Please spread “Carbon Sense” around.
For more information visit our web site at
Literary, financial or other contributions to help our cause are welcomed.

Viv Forbes MS 23,
Rosewood   Qld   4340   Australia.           07 5464 0533

Monday, 6 December 2010

IPCC Chief Pachauri up to date?

What happened to the 'warmest year on record': The truth is global warming has halted

By David Rose  Report here...

A year ago tomorrow, just before the opening of the UN Copenhagen world climate summit, the British Meteorological Office issued a confident prediction. The mean world temperature for 2010, it announced, 'is expected to be 14.58C, the warmest on record' - a deeply worrying 0.58C above the 1961/1990 average.
Last week, halfway through yet another giant, 15,000delegate UN climate jamboree, being held this time in the tropical splendour of Cancun in Mexico, the Met Office was at it again.
Never mind that Britain, just as it was last winter and the winter before, was deep in the grip of a cold snap, which has seen some temperatures plummet to minus 20C, and that here 2010 has been the coolest year since 1996.
Globally, it insisted, 2010 was still on course to be the warmest or second warmest year since current records began.
But buried amid the details of those two Met Office statements 12 months apart lies a remarkable climbdown that has huge implications - not just for the Met Office, but for debate over climate change as a whole.
Read carefully with other official data, they conceal a truth that for some, to paraphrase former US VicePresident Al Gore, is really inconvenient: for the past 15 years, global warming has stopped.  

Sunday, 5 December 2010




I continue to point out that all the  assumptions made by climate models are absurd and in disagreement with climate behaviour on the earth.

They assume
  • The earth is flat. This is necessary because all the energy parameters are perpendicular to the surface.
  • The sun shines all day and all night with one quarter of its peak intensity. This is in contrast to reality where there are two quite different regimes. daytime, where sunshine starts at zero, rises to a maximum and declines to zero, and night time when there is no sun at all
  • Radiation from the earth is constant. Actually, by day it increases and then falls overnight
  • Albedo is constant. Actually every surface is different
  • The temperature is constant. Actually temperature at the earth's surface is highly variable
  •  Energy is "balanced". Energy entering equals energy leaving. The earth is in equilibrium. But no part of earth is ever in equilibrium and known past and current changes show that it is never in equilibrium as a whole. 
Despite these obvious deficiencies, climate models based on these assumptions have been widely accepted, not only by scientists (even "sceptical" scientists) and by the general public.

So plausible and pervasive are these models that  I have myself been persuaded and even mesmerized by them. I have confined my criticism to complaints that the parameters in the model are really averages, and that these are unknown, and impossible to measure.

I have only quite recently come to realize that I have been wrong. The models assume thermodynamic equilibrium, otherwise their calculations, which use the mathematical equations of thermodynamics, cannot be made,

This means that the parameters in the model cannot be averages. They are all constants. In particular, the temperature is a constant,  is intensive and applies to the entire surface of the earth.

I have been greatly assisted in this realization by my recent correspondence with Christopher Essex whose paper with Ross McKitrick and Bjarne Andresen  ""Does a Global Temperature Exist" is linked in the title above.
The title of this paper asks a question, presumably because the Journal might not publish if the conclusion of the paper, that a "Global Temperature does not Exist" were stated openly, or the evident corollary that global figures for any of the parameters in the computer models do not exist.

The temperature in an equilibrium situation is an intensive property. That is to say that it is considered to be a property of the entire system. Computer models thus assume that the temperature of the entire surface of the earth is identical everywhere.

I have tried to argue that in a non equilibrium situation, such as everywhere on the earth, temperature is always different, and is therefore extensive. My physicist friends do not like this, as they argue that there is always a small part of every system where the intensive property can be approximated, where thermodynamics may apply. The attempt by meteorologists to measure temperature in a ventilated screen at a uniform height might represent a system where the temperature in the inside of the screen  follows thermodynamic laws.

Despite the impossibility of defining a global temperature the climate scientists do actually use averages instead, and most of these are either mere guesses, or are the results of undisclosed mathematical manipulations.

But they try to pretend that they are constants, or the whole system collapses. For example, the "Mean Global Surface Temperature Anomaly"  has been shown by many people including myself  to be extremely inaccurate, as it is based on unrepresentative and continually changing samples of merely maximum and minimum temperatures, subjected to multiple averaging. Yet it is always referred to as "THE Global Temperature", never as any "average", without any uncertainty figures.

What is more, the output of each model is always constant. The different models might give different answers, so efforts are made to make them agree by"intercomparison" exercises. But no uncertainty figures are permitted, otherwise the calculations, based on  equilibrium, are no longer valid.

Instead of properly derived uncertainty levels they give a :"range" of the different model results, and try to claim that all models are equally valid.

Extreme measures are taken to conceal variability. Recently I wrote to the NASA people concerned with measuring the infra red radiation from the earth. I asked them how much does it vary over different time periods, At first I got a real scientist who tried to fob me off, He then clammed up as he told me I was obviously "a denier" and I did not get my answer.

For the climate models the "solar constant" which everybody knows is not a constant, suddenly becomes one.

The most extreme example of trying to pretend constancy is with greenhouse gases. The chief greenhouse gas, water vapour, is so variable that  the only way they can conceal this fact is by making it a "feedback" to climate models, which is a subtle way of saying that it is constant. Then all the other gases are said to be "well mixed" but they go to extreme lengths to prevent people from finding out that this is not true.. They have suppressed entirely the 40,000 or so published measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration carried out by well qualified scientists (some Nobel Prizewinners)  and published in peer reviewed Journals sine 1850; which show that the concentration is variable. Then they manipulate  current measurements so that they can only be measured  when the concentration is approximately constant. This involves preventing people from measuring it over land.

I have not said much about Thermodynamics as I am aware that most people, even scientists, regard  the subject as incomprehensible.

In 1959 C P Snow, the novelist delivered a speech and published a book describing the "Two Cultures" that have emerged, those who understand science and those who do not.

Snow particularly mentioned the ignorance of thermodynamics as an illustration.

Since then, matters have got steadily worse. Science teaching in the schools and universities has been eroded by the Pseudo science of environmentalism. If this had not happened the climate modelists would never have got away with such a fundamental breach of accepted physical laws

For those of you able to take it,  I recommend Wikipedia at

Let me summarize thermodynamics, with a great effort to leave out the mathematics.

Thermodynamics is concerned with the problems of changes between different forms of energy. It arose when it became clear that heat and work were just different forms of the same quantity, which today are measured by the same units. All of the equations assume equilibrium

The First Law of Thermodynamics actually follows this discovery. It is that Energy, in whatever form, is conserved, ..

The Second Law may be considered difficult to follow, but it was a result of the discovery that heat energy cannot be completely converted to mechanical energy, It led to the concept of Entropy, which is a measure of the heat that has to remain. It is inversely proportional to the temperature difference between the heat source and the condenser, It is a quantity that inevitably increases throughout the universe.

One form of the Second Law is the statement that heat can only flow from a warmer to a cooler body.

This situation arises from the nature of heat, which is the energy of vibration of the molecules. Extra vibration can only move one way

This form of the Second Law has led some of my sceptic acquaintances to argue that  heat cannot pass from the cooler atmosphere back to the warmer earth, an essential assumption of all climate models. This arises from their lack of realisation  that radiation is a different form of energy from heat.

Radiation is a wave motion or (if you prefer) a transport of particles called "photons", which is emitted by all substances above the absolute zero of temperature according to the mathematical relationship developed by Planck. It consists essentially of alternating electric and magnetic fields. It contains energy, measured by the Stefan/Boltzmann Law whose quantity depends on the fourth power of the temperature of the emitter. and the distribution of wavelengths depends on the temperature of the emitter.  It travels at the speed of light through a vacuum and can be absorbed completely or partially to give heat. It can therefore transfer energy from a hot body to a cold body, but not in the form of heat,

The relationships of thermodynamics assume equilibrium and constant parameters but many practical situations have to deal with systems that are not in equilibrium (such as the climate)  so the usefulness of classical thermodynamics is restricted. This has led to the development  of "Non equilibrium thermodynamics" which is described in the Wikipedia article at

It makes the point that the extension of classical thermodynamics to the study of non equilibrium situations requires "very stringent demands" which are certainly not met by climate models


Vincent Gray
75 Silverstream Road
Crofton Downs
Wellington 6035
Phone/Fax 064 4 9735939
"To kill an error is as good a service as, and sometimes better than, the establishing of a new truth or fact"   Charles Darwin"

Friday, 3 December 2010

New Year's resolution: deliver on energy

Opinion by Anthony Cox
Secretary of The Climate Sceptics

PM Gillard has declared 2011 the Year of Delivery with a carbon tax being a prominent part of the C.O.D. parcel. A carbon tax involves putting a price on carbon so it can be traded. Experiences in Europe and the US, the world’s biggest markets for carbon trading, show the difficulties in pricing carbon.
The European example is a textbook example of how a ridiculously complex scheme can be easily rorted. Each nation within the European Union (EU) has a National Allocation Plan (NAP). These plans are mandated by Brussels European Unit Allowances (EUA’s) – carbon credits – which are allocated to physical installations within the Member State’s NAP.
 One scam which the EU has had to deal with has been the deliberate production of greenhouse gases for which the fraudulent producers are paid to destroy. Another scam involved companies buying EUA’s in countries that did not have a consumption tax (GST or VAT), and then selling them again in countries that did have a consumption tax. The trades were all set up and executed electronically so the traders could make off with the consumption tax money before the tax authorities were aware of what was happening. The EU fixed that by zero rating EUA’s. That’s right; the solution to the criminal activity was to make the carbon credit worthless.
 In the US carbon trading was conducted through the Chicago Climate Exchange [CCX]. The CCX has ceased operation with the last trades of carbon at a US price of 5 cents, essentially worthless.
The upshot is, whether by government response to inherent defects and criminal opportunism or by pure market determination, the value of carbon has been found to be nothing.
So how will Australia fare under a carbon priced economy? Not very well if the experience of Australian participants in the CCX is anything to go by. The city of Melbourne and AGL Hydro Partnership both invested in carbon at the CCX when it was at dollar prices.
The closest Australia has come to a carbon pricing and trading scheme is the NSW Greenhouse Gas Reduction Scheme [GGAS] which was introduced in 2003 and became the Electricity Savings Scheme [ESS] in July 2009. The GGAS was a “Baseline and Credit” scheme whereby electricity suppliers could earn certificates of compliance by not producing electricity above a designated generation base with fossil fuels or, if they did, by abatement through offsets and investment in alternative energy or sequestration. These certificates of compliance represent the standard 1 tonne of carbon dioxide [CO2] and can be surrendered to the authority or traded. The average spot price under GGAS was $4.34 and under EES $16.98. Both of these figures are much less than suggested prices for carbon of at least $30 per tonne under any Federal scheme.
One consequence of this limited trading under GGAS was the $2 billion blow-out in the solar panel scheme. This blow-out represents only the initial and current costs of subsidization of the solar panels which can be up to 50% of the cost and the inflated feed-in tariff of 60 cents, now reduced to 20, which was 10 times the cost of fossil power. It does not include future costs such as inverter replacement which is typically insured against the installer and indemnified by the government. Inverters cost up to $3000 at today’s prices and are replaced at least once in a panel array’s 20 year life.
Nor does this cost include the fact that the feed-in-power from the panels is a minute part of the total power used by the grid; most of the time there is no power coming from the panels at all and the return on the infrastructure is negligible. In effect the feed-in tariff is money for nothing.
The GGAS, like all carbon trading schemes, was designed to reduce emissions and the supposed effect of man-made global warming [AGW] and to make alternative [to fossil] energy sources competitive. However a new carbon trading scheme is planned for the residents of Norfolk Island. This scheme suggests an additional motive apart from combating AGW.
The Norfolk Island scheme is being funded by the Federal government and run by Southern Cross University [SCU]. Organiser of the scheme, SCU professor Garry Egger saysthe main goals of the project were to test the effectiveness of a Personal Carbon Trading scheme over a three year period; reduce per capita carbon emissions and reduce obesity and obesity related behaviours…”
This is straight out of the Clive Hamilton handbook for a non-consumerism based existence. Professor Egger’s step plan to a frugal and slimmer self has already been looked at in England by the UK Environmental Agency. The Agency’s chairman, Lord Smith, has proposed that:
Individuals would then periodically receive statements that show the carbon impact of each purchase and how much of their annual ration has been used up. If they exceeded this ration, they would need to buy extra credits from those people that have not used their full allowance, in a similar fashion to existing emission cap-and-trade schemes.
Elsewhere in England Professor Kevin Anderson, Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, asserts that ”the only way to reduce global emissions enough, while allowing the poor nations to continue to grow, is to halt economic growth in the rich world over the next twenty years.”
And most succinctly IPCC official, Ottmar Edenhofer, says that climate policies to deal with AGW are in fact not about the environment but about redistributing the wealth from Western to third world nations.
So, is carbon trading not about solving AGW and instead merely the hand-maiden of wealth redistribution and the transition of Western consumer society into a more Spartan form? The answer to that is fundamentally determined by what alternative energy sources are being supported by the carbon price.
In recent research professor Barry Brook and his team looked at the comparative cost of the various renewable energies such as wind, various permutations of solar, geothermal and gas. On a purely financial comparison, without taking into account base load capability, the only viable alternative to fossil fuels is nuclear power. Brook found the carbon price necessary for solar thermal is $150 per tonne and for wind $350. Given the relative costs of all other alternative energies any carbon pricing sufficient to make them competitive with fossil fuels would also reduce Western society to the standard described and advocated by the likes of Anderson and Edenhofer.
So the choice is clear for Gillard’s year of delivery; introduce a carbon price sufficient to support the renewable energy forms such as wind and solar which are the darlings of the AGW bien peasantry and produce a drastically reduced lifestyle for Australia. Or introduce nuclear power with a much cheaper carbon price and sustain current living standards.