Thursday, 31 March 2011

Please Explain???

Open Letter to the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee.
This committee replaced The PM's promised People's Assemby.
The people's assembly convened on the lawns outside parliament house but our PM didn't attend.

Dear Committee,

Can anyone on the committee please explain why we are going ahead with a tax on carbon dioxide, a tax that will severely inhibit Australia's growth, will see businesses move off shore and cause major unemployment for Australia?

Can anyone on the committee please explain why carbon dioxide has been branded as a causitive factor in the non-existant runaway global warming?

Can anyone on the committee please explain why we are going to tax man-made emissions of carbon dioxide when carbon dioxide is an essential-to-life plant food?

Can anyone on the committee please explain why the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC - a political body!) has written to us  saying that, although they have had more than twenty years to pin the blame on carbon dioxide, they have not one skerrick of proof? (Letter available on request.)

Can anyone on the committee please explain why, although atmospheric CO2 is rising in a straight line, rise in temperature seems to have stalled?

Can anyone on the committee please explain why the ABC always shows steam or worse coming from cooling towers when they want to depict colourless essential-to-life carbon dioxide?

Can anyone on the committee please explain why the Greenland and Vostok Ice core samples show that  CO2 does not cause global temperatures to rise, rather Global Warming causes atmospheric CO2 to rise.

Can anyone on the committee please explain why, although atmospheric CO2 kept rising from ~1945 to ~1975, world temperatures were falling and International News Magazines reported that we were heading for a new Ice Age?

Can anyone on the committee please explain why we are going ahead with a tax on carbon dioxide when ex-Australian of the Year, mammelogist Tim Flannery says that any action we take now, will have no effect for up to 1000 years?

Can anyone on the committee please explain why, if Australia cuts its man-made emissions by 5% it will mean that the world-wide emissions will be reduced by $0.000000etc... Google it!

Atmospheric CO2 is less that 0.04% and the man-made emissions are around 3.4% of that. Australia's proportion is about 1% of total man-made emission and Julia and Bob want to kill Australia's international trading position for ( you can work it out on your calculator)

  CO2=0.04x3.4%x1%x5%.  Is that going to make a difference?

Your replies would be appreciated. This e-mail will be published on the TCS blog.


Geoff Brown

Sydney Rally with Pinocchio

Pinocchio and Friend
The Sydney Anti Carbon [dioxide] Tax rally is on Saturday 2nd April 2011. The number of participating organizations has mushroomed to those listed in the flier below. With so many hands helping and our steep learning curve, we are on track to make this a truly great and fun family day. More details of the speakers and activities later. (From No Carbon Tax)

Tuesday, 29 March 2011

Julia Gillard signs pact with Extremist Gang -Greens

Support  Notes:
Prime Minister Julia Gillard has taken a swipe at the Greens who she says forced her about-turn on a carbon tax, labelling them one of the "extremes" in Australian politics.  17/3

Australia must reject the extremes of the debate, no matter from where on the political spectrum they emerge. 24/3

Gillard branded Abbott as an extremist for associating with extremists. Yes, the crowd contained Pauline Hanson, denunciations of Gillard as a bitch and plenty of climate change deniers. In a classic tactic, Gillard attacked Abbott for associating himself with "One Nation, with the League of Rights, with anti-Semitic groups and with grossly sexist signs". She hit every sensitivity among those voters suspicious of Abbott.  26/3

Mr Dreyfuss and Mr Combet especially to call this polite well-behaved rally extremist must mean that Mr Combet has forgotten another angry protest in which he was involved. Do you remember when Unionists smashed their way into parliament house and created much damage?

I challenge Mr Dreyfuss to substantiate his statement that The Climate Sceptics party is an extremist organisation. Our policies are on-line for the world to see. Centralist - Mr Dreyfuss.

Now, Mr Dreyfuss, I would call an anti-Australian sovereignty party an extremist party, wouldn't you? 

Monday, 28 March 2011

Julia will protect the most vulnerable - herself.

Julia Gillard in an opinion piece in Fairfax National Times.

This team did a 180º turn together!
Australia must reject the extremes of the debate, no matter from where on the political spectrum they emerge.
We see those who don't believe in climate science arguing that the government shouldn't act. I don't agree. I'll be taking my science from the CSIRO, not the radio shock jocks.
We'll also see those who accept the science but whose environmentally extreme solutions would endanger our economy and the jobs of working people. We should reject that approach, too.

Ms Gillard accepts the "science" but her solution WILL endanger our economy. We should therefore reject her approach.

(Mr Abbott)  has called for a ''people's revolt'' and is courting climate change deniers. He is attempting to harness those who disagree with the scientists to try to ensure nothing is done.

Ms Gillard, I can’t say this often enough. We know that climate changes, we know that climate will always change, has always changed. The only deniers, or probably more accurately pretend climate change deniers are the IPCC/Climategate cabal.

The Labor Party will do what it has always done. We'll protect the most vulnerable members of our society

The Labor party will do anything to prop up the very vulnerable, very fragile hold on power. Any lie will do if it helps their slipping grip of power. Think of the hypocrisy of the “Independents” who signed on because they supported MS Gillard's policies, including “there will be no carbon (dioxide) tax….” Obviously, when Ms Gillard did a 180º turn after they signed on, they obviously had to do a 180º turn as well. Or were they already bolted on? IS that why former state Labor cabinet minister was handing out "how to Vote" cards for so-called Independent Rob Oakeshott in the last General Election (here). He drove three hours to hand out HTVs for Oakeshott. I wonder what Labor people around Cessnock thought of that?

When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?

Every few weeks I get an e-mail notifying me of a blog-post from a blog called WTF Deniers and from their Chief Denier- an IT worker called Mike. Today I got an e-mail re one of Denier Mike's latest Posts "....Forces of Hate..." A quick read from the comments of some of Mike's deniers - John B, Moth Incarnate, Ross  et al and you will easily see where the hatred lies..

Mike himself says:

Every day last week I started to write a blog past, but just couldn’t finish it. ..........Horror at the ignorance, hate and lies of the “climate sceptics”.

Oh really, Mike?

Ignorance? That is a judgment and we would say that the ignorance is on your side.

Hate? I don't think that you could justify hate anywhere on our side. To find hate, read the comments by some of your WTF deniers!

Lies? Where do we start? MBH98 and the disgraced "hockey stick" graph?  Deleted e-mails subject to FOIA requests, Hide the Decline - see Berkeley's Richard Muller - who said "As a scientist, I now have a list of people whose papers I won't read anymore. You're not allowed to do this in science. This is not up to our standards."

Mike goes on: " They are filled with rage and hate, suspicious of knowledge and learning."

Really, Mike? Rage? Well, if our PM lies about a carbon (dioxide) tax to just sneak into office, should it be greeted with exultation? Should it be greeted with disappointment? or - Should there be anger at a cheating PM whose original roots come from a village called Cwmgwrach, which means 'The Valley of the Witch,'  a village of coal miners. Perhaps, Mike, rage would be felt by our anti-coal, anti-mining Prime Minister if she returned to her roots. There is certainly anger at home for a Prime Minister who lied her way into office; a Prime Minister, who knew that if she had declared her intention to introduce a carbon dioxide tax based on  very dubious "science," she would not have got across the line.

Suspicious of knowledge and learning? Are you suspicious of the Vostok Ice Core samples, Mike. Do you believe that science has moved on? David Evans, a leading light in the Australian Greenhouse Office, (now the Dept of Climate Change and Propaganda,) said:

But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming. As Lord Keynes famously said, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"
The facts HAVE changed, Mike. It's time that you and your WTF deniers faced the truth!
Listen to David Evans explain it.

Further in the post by WTF Denier, Mike, - 
Now what I feel is anger.  Anger at the lies.
Mike, I feel anger at the lies of the obstinate stick-in-the-muds, those people who deny that the CO2 AGW hoax has been falsified!

Mike and your fellow deniers....wake up and realise that the "science" has moved on.

WTF Deniers?

WTF ignoramouses!

Saturday, 26 March 2011

Reputable Scientists and Flim Flam Men

Andrew Bolt interviewed Tim Flannery on Friday. (Link in title)

Flannery made some amazing admissions.
Climate Commissioner Tim Flannery joins us - but refuses to say by how much the world’s temperature will fall thanks to Julia Gillard’s global warming policies. Later he concedes that even if the whole world slashes its emissions we won’t know what difference it will make for maybe a thousand years. Doesn’t sound like much of a deal to me. 
Tim Flannery
Not much of a difference. And not for maybe a thousand years. Perhaps, after his previous predictions have all been shown to be wrong, he will only make predictions well into the future when we are all gone.

Andrew said that he wouldn't go into past history.

In Dec 09,  on ABC, Mr Flannery said: "“Trust is the issue ... Would you trust Andrew Bolt on climate change?” Well, would anyone trust Tim Flannery?
  • In March 2008, Flannery warned that “the water problem is so severe for Adelaide that it may run out of water by early 2009”.
  • In June 2007, he warned that Brisbane’s “water supplies are so low they need desalinated water urgently, possibly in as little as 18 months” It was because of predictions like this that Wivenhoe dam was overfull before the disastrous Queensland floods this year.
  • In 2005, he predicted Sydney’s dams could be dry by 2007. 
  • In 2004, Flannery said global warming would cause such droughts that “there is a fair chance Perth will be the 21st century’s first ghost metropolis”. 
  • In 2008, Flannery warned that scientists feared “this may be the Arctic’s first ice-free year”.
Not a correct prediction in any of his predictions. Although his book, the Weather Makers came out after the MBH98 Hockey Stick had been exposed as fraudulent. Tim Flannery still included it in the book. Do you think that was reputable, Mr Flannery?

Flannery agreed that Julia Gillard was wrong to say that every reputable climate scientist backs her view of man-made warming. Flannery admitted that Richard Lindzen was reputable but inferred that John Christy, The two Roger Pielkes were not.

Let's look at John Christy. From Wikipedia:
Christy received a B.A. in Mathematics (1973) from the California State University, Fresno, and an M.S. and Ph.D. in Atmospheric Sciences (1984, 1987) from the University of Illinois. He is a distinguished professor of atmospheric science, and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. He was appointed Alabama's state climatologist in 2000. For his development of a global temperature data set from satellites he was awarded NASA's Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement, and the American Meteorological Society's "Special Award."[3] In 2002, Christy was elected Fellow of the American Meteorological Society. John is a former lead author for the IPCC's assessment reports.
If you look at Flannery's failures and Christy's achievements, Flannery calling John Christy disreputable is quite frankly pathetic!


MARCH 26th 2011

Vincent Gray. IPCC Lead Author

I pointed out in Newsletter No 264 that the real greenhouse effect  is the mechanism whereby the atmosphere cools the earth. A greenhouse merely inhibits this mechanism by preventing complete mixing of the air inside it. It cools the earth by day and warms it at night

The amount of net cooling is part of the "Earth's Energy Budget" but the amount is so uncertain that we are unable at present to find whether it is increasing or falling, or to what extent it is influenced by human activity.

The warmth of a greenhouse does not depend on the warming of the air by absorption of infra red radiation  by atmospheric trace gases. So the use of the  terms "Greenhouse Effect"and Greenhouse Gases  is deliberately misleading. This is the Fake Greenhouse Effect .

The origin of the term is ascribed by the Oxford English Dictionary to Glen Thomas Trewartha (1937)

<1937 “The so-called greenhouse effect of the atmosphere.”—Introduction to Weather & Climate by G. T. Trewartha, i. page 25> [[OED’s earliest quote]]

The absorption of infra red by atmospheric trace gases  was discovered by Tyndall in the 1860s. He  found that the most important trace gas was carbon dioxide

Arrhenius (1896) attempted to involve carbon dioxide but a careful reading of his paper showed that he failed to do this.

He did not make measurements himself but relied on the measurements of Langley on radiation from the moon. When compared with the radiation from the earth he claimed to be able to find the absorption from trace gases. This procedure is dubious for a number of reasons

  • He seems to have missed the predominant proportion of water vapour in the atmosphere and thus assumed that most of the absorption was caused by carbon dioxide. He does report some aberrant results but ignores them. One can only conclude that he must have been confused by the extremely variable distribution of water vapour in the atmosphere.
  • He depended on radiation from the full moon and the full earth. Night radiation is ignored
  •  He says "Now the temperature of the moon is nearly the same as that of the earth."
It is unclear what was found by Langley, but this is so far wrong that it is difficult to accept that the two infra red spectra coming from surfaces at very different temperatures can be directly compared in this way
Arrhenius' paper should not be accepted as a useful contribution to the idea that atmospheric carbon dioxide warms the earth, as he subsequently admitted.

So what is this theory dependent on?  It is supposed to depend on the concentration of trace gases in the atmosphere with absorption bands in the infra red

The concentration of water vapour in the atmosphere is extremely variable and estimates of its mean value are not published, so the chance of finding out whether it is increasing or decreasing, or whether it is influenced by humans are poor. Most authorities give a range of 0 to 4% with a reluctant mean of about 2.5%. This is  650 times the supposed concentration of carbon dioxide,  which is 0.0383 %.

Although it might be considered so concentrated that it saturates most of its absorption bands, it is also so variable that there would still be regions susceptible to increases in concentration.

It is clear that changes in water vapour concentration swamp any changes in carbon dioxide. Yet there are no calculations of "Radiative Forcing"or "Climate Sensitivity" for water vapour. It is just assumed to  be a "feedback" to temperature increases caused by the minor absorbing gas , carbon dioxide

The water vapour is assumed to have a constant relative humidity. There are very few weather stations in the world that measure carbon dioxide, but almost all of them measure relative humidity and they show that it is not a constant. The assumption of "feedback" is just plain wrong.

The measurements of carbon dioxide concentration also need to be questioned. The 40,000 measurements made by many observers between 1850 and 1958 and published in respectable scientific journals have just been suppressed, as have most contemporary measurements which do not comply with strict requirements over the ocean.  Measurements over land are almost non existent.

The sparse literature shows that concentrations are higher over industrial areas and lower over forests and pastures. Since the supposed "radiative forcing" depends on the logarithm of concentration it is less effective over industrial areas where it is claimed to promote warming and most effective over forests and pastures where it promotes plant growth.

The only conclusion is that the fake greenhouse effect is a fake,


Vincent Gray

Alarming Report - Greenland Melting

There is a lot of water in this world -323,722,000 cubic miles of it in the oceans alone-and there is more coming.
According to Dr. Hans Ahlmann, a Swedish geophysicist, a mysterious warming of the Arctic climate is melting the Arctic ice, including the vast Greenland ice-cap. As this ice melts, water is pouring into the ocean and raising the sea level at what geologists regard as a dizzy rate.

Dr. Ahlmann told the Geophysical Institute of the University of California that the ocean level in the Spitzbergen area had risen one inch in thc last 25 years. He said that if the ice areas continued melting at the present rate, the ocean surface would rise to catastrophic proportions and peoples living in lowlands bordering the seashores would be inundated.
"The Arctic change is so serious that I hope an international agency can speedily be formed to study conditions on a global basis," he said.

This report is from the Perth Sunday Times, Sunday 22 June, 1947.

Everything old is new again!  
Thanks to Steve Goddard's Real Science.

Lights on for "Earth Hour".

A statement by Viv Forbes, Chairman of the Carbon Sense Coalition.
For Immediate Release, 25 March 2011

The Carbon Sense Coalition said today that celebrating “Blackout Night” at the time of the March equinox, half-way between mid-summer and mid-winter in both hemispheres, shows that "Earth Hour" is nothing more than green tokenism.

The Chairman of “Carbon Sense”, Mr Viv Forbes, said that this date, with the sun exactly on the equator, was cynically placed on the mildest night of the year to ensure that the candles and champagne parties are unlikely to be inconvenienced by summer heat or winter snow.

"Sensible people know that the sun, the planets and the seasons control earth's cycles of weather and climate, and they appreciate man's magic of electricity which allows them to moderate nature's periodic extremes of heat and cold at the flick of a switch.

“Instead of sneering at human achievements, they should salute the people who provide light, heat and cooling for the other 364 days of the year.

“Our salute will be to turn on every light on our property, and we urge all supporters to do the same."

For those who would like to read more see:

Return to the caves:

Hail to Electricity:

The Road to more Blackout nights:

Earth Hour – a Dissent

Authorised by :                    
Viv Forbes       Chairman,

The Carbon Sense Coalition
MS 23, Rosewood, Qld 4340

0754 640 533

Friday, 25 March 2011

Labor and Greens exaggerate to evade hard questions

Letter to the editors by Leon Ashby - TCS President.

Dear Sir,
Leon Ashby.
              In today's world where tolerance and understanding are touted by politicians, Greg Combet, Bob Brown and Julia Gillard are into prejudice and exaggeration by calling people names like extremists and deniers.

If they are really truthful and honest, here are the questions they should openly face up to:

 1: Where is the scientist that shows us CO2 will make the planet 3-5 degrees C warmer in 2100?
     If there isn`t one, why the panic?

 2: In 10 years time Australia might reduce it`s CO2 by 5% when the Chinese  plan to increase theirs
     by  600 times that amount
     So why are we going to do it?

3: Where is the scientist that precisely predicts the World's temperature according to CO2 levels?
     If there is none, how do you know CO2 is the culprit?

4: If Labor and the Greens are reasonable people and think Australians want a Carbon (dioxide) tax
    that will cost us jobs, why not call an election and confirm it by winning a majority in both houses?

It's really that simple.

Leon Ashby
President, The Climate Sceptics

Mark Dreyfuss - Denier of Science

In an interview with 2UE's Jason Morrison (link in title), Climate Change Parliamentary Secretary Mark Dreyfuss made some extremist remarks. He said the rally was attended by extremist groups. His boss Greg Combet (see You're so wrong Greg Combet) had previous said that the rally was by extremists. Mr Combet was invited on to the program but declined and the Parliamentary Secretary attended in his place.

Mr Dreyfuss also made the extraordinary statement that Tony Abbott was standing in front of placards associated with these groups. Well, sir, the one placard that was prominently behind Mr Abbott was created by a child of around 14 years. Surely that child was not a member of an extremist group. If I had anything to do with the rally, I would not have approved that sign or one other, Having said that, there were more than 1000 signs. Two slightly offensive signs. Less than 0.2% and the media and Mr Dreyfuss have to single out those two. Mr Dreyfuss also singled out one other, but more of that in a minute. Also, Mr Abbott should not be held responsible for a sign that appeared out of his sight behind him after he began speaking. What rot!

For Mr Dreyfuss and Mr Combet especially to call this polite well-behaved rally extremist must mean that Mr Combet has forgotten another angry protest in which he was involved. Do you remember when Unionists smashed their way into parliament house and created much damage? That was the day I resigned from my unions. See footage here thanks to 2UE's Mike Smith.

So, I challenge Mr Dreyfuss to substantiate his statement that The Climate Sceptics party is an extremist organisation. Our policies are on-line for the world to see. Centralist - Mr Dreyfuss.  Mr Dreyfuss' ALP has signed a deal with a party that I would call extremist, a party that wants to renounce Australian sovereignty, a party that wants Australia governed by the United Nations. Now, Mr Dreyfuss, I would call an anti-Australian sovereignty party an extremist party, wouldn't you? The Greens anti-Australia stance can be found here.

Jason asked Mr Dreyfuss whether he had problems with the Socialist Alliance. Mr Dreyfuss answered that he did have problems with the Socialist Alliance. His own leader Julia Gillard was an executive with the Social Alliance until a few short years ago. Mr Dreyfuss said Tony Abbott must disassociate himself from the extremist groups, will he call on the Prime Minister to disassociate herself from the extremist Socialist Alliance?

Mr Dreyfuss said that there were climate change deniers at that rally. Well, Mr Dreyfuss, I did not see anyone who denied that climate changes. As a member of The Climate Sceptics, we all know that climate changes, that climate has always changed.

Mr Dreyfuss said that some-one was holding a sign that said: Carbon dioxide is not pollution – I love CO2 . He added: "That person is clearly denying the "science" of Climate change.

Or, perhaps are you denying the science of Climate change, Mr Dreyfuss. Do you rely on the crumbling edifice of the political body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Their brief was to blame man-made CO2 emissions for runaway global warming. So far the runaway warming has not happened and the IPCC has admitted to us in correspondence that they have not yet been able to establish the link. (That correspondence can be provided on request.)

Many IPCC scientific reviewers do not agree with the report issued by the IPCC. Even the IPCC's reports for policy makers differ from their own scientific reports. Feet of clay. 

Mr Dreyfuss, just refer to the data from the Vostok Ice Core samples. The temperature rises before the rise in atmospheric CO2. That was the primary reason why Dr David Evans left your department

Here is a video from CANdo. Do you really think that these are all extremists and dinosaurs?


Thursday, 24 March 2011

Julia, Eliminate the Hot Air and Emissions

There was a letter in the Cairns Post on 24th March this year.

Picture: Ray Savage

Queensland Education Minister Cameron Dick said (CP-22/3/11) that 400 solar panels installed in kindergartens will reduce the carbon dioxide emissions. 
Solar panels rely on silica that is mined at Cape Flattery and the Greens say we have to close that to save the environment..
Aluminium for the framing comes from Weipa and the Greens say close that to save the environment and declare Wild Rivers.
 Copper and lead for the electrical wiring and batteries come from Mount Isa and the Greens say close that to stop polluting the environment.   
The steel for infrastructure comes from ore in the Pilbara and the Greens say close that to save …  the environment.  Refineries and smelters in every state produce all of the above and the Greens say close them to stop carbon dioxide emissions. 
If they wish to add wind generation then add oil refineries which produce the resins and plastics for the propellers, lime stone quarries for the concrete and the list goes on.  One of the highest sources of carbon dioxide would be the expired air from our population every time we breathe and therefore the greatest polluting industry in Australia would be politics.  So if we were to get rid of Miss Gillard, Mr Brown and company and close Canberra there would not be any need for a carbon tax.

Picture above from News Limited whose Malcolm Farr wrote re the rally: 
 The No Carbon Tax rally, said to number 3000 protesters by organisers, made clear who they thought were the heroes and villains of the climate change policy debate. However, rival group GetUp! said the police had estimated the crowd at 1500.Read more:                Picture from News Ltd

Did you check that Malcolm or just reprint the story from GetUp's Sam McLean?  Sam was interviewed by Channel Nine/2GB's Ross Greenwood who asked where he had got the 1500 figure. Sam said it was from the police but Ross countered by saying that they had checked with the police and they had done no count. Sam countered that it was the Federal Police and Ross again said they had checked and the Federal police had no official count. Sam then said he was chatting with one officer and that officer had suggested the figure.  Ross acted like a journalist and checked sources, did you Malcolm?

CATA advised that they had 35 buses carry an average of at least 50 each. There were also buses from other sources. I know that three came from Broadmeadow not arranged by CATA. Also there were buses from Melbourne, Geelong, Parkes, Forbes as well as many people arriving in private cars.

Perhaps a re-think of the head count, Malcolm? Perhaps a little less trust in the untrustworthy union-financed GetUp!  (See GetUp! Get truthful or GetOut!)

GetUp! Get truthful or get out!

GetUp's own website: is an independent political movement to build a progressive Australia. GetUp! brings together like-minded people who want to bring participation back into our democracy.

Yesterday's No Carbon (dioxide) Tax rally certainly was bringing participation back into our democracy. You would think
Zeg's take on the Canberra rally
that they would support yesterday's rally. Not only did they not support the rally, they were actively against it. Simon Sheik wrote on the GetUp blog:

I was in Canberra last week and almost every politician and journalist I met with talked to me about the anti-climate action rallies. They're spooked. I assured them that the campaign for climate action was just as strong -- and now, we need to demonstrate this.
Simon, the rallies are not anti-climate. Have you thought about that statement? How can you be anti-climate? The rallies were about the lie our Prime Minister used to get elected and about a tax on vital to life carbon dioxide.

GetUp says that their organisation does not play sides in politics. The ALP is funded and supported by the union movement and, surprise, surprise, so is GetUp. GetUp on one hand say that they are against political funding but received over $1million funding from the union movement.

Incidently, writing in the Herald today Ms Gillard called on the silent majority of Australians to make their views heard. Hello? What do you think the No Carbon (dioxide) Tax rally was, Ms Gillard?

 She also wrote: We know that the majority of people want action on climate change and want a sensible, rational approach to change.  Do you know that the majority of people do not want your tax built on a lie? Have you seen the poll on ninemsn - Do you support the carbon tax?

As I write, the vote is No 118090; Yes 24541.

Photo Gallery in the Australian - Here

See also Joanne Nova on the protests.

Tuesday, 22 March 2011


Vincent Gray. IPCC Lead Author
MARCH 21st 2011


The real Greenhouse effect is the cooling of the earth's surface by the atmosphere in the same way as in a greenhouse. The atmosphere is held in place by gravity, so that the top of the troposphere performs the same function as the glass ceiling of a greenhouse. It  removes heat  by contact with the earth that has been heated by absorbed radiation from the sun and has risen to be replaced by cooler air. This process is called convection.

In a greenhouse,  the heated air  cannot  mix with the entire atmosphere, and is therefore warmer. .

The extent of real greenhouse cooling is reviewed in "Earth's Annual Global Mean Energy Budget" Kiehl, J. T. and Trenberth, K. E., 1997 Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 78, 197-208. and Trenberth, K. E., J. T. Fasullo and J. Kiehl (2009). Earth's Global Energy Budget. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 90: 311-323

TK97 covers the ERBE (Earth Radiation Budget Experiment) period from February 1985 to April 1989.

TFK09 covers the  CERES (Clouds and the Earth's Radiant Energy System) period from March 2000 to May 2004

The details of both results are given in TFK09 and the graphs from both papers are attached

There are two items representing heat loss from the earth.

Latent Heat is the easiest to calculate, from the total annual precipitation. TK97 chose 78 W/msq which is less than any of the other calculations listed (80.2. 82.3 and 85.1 W/msq)

TFK09 chose 80.0 W/msq, which is again less than the other values listed (83.1 and 90.2 W/msq)

The other item , called  :Sensible Heat" in their tables and "Thermals" in the graphs, is the heat loss from the real greenhouse effect.

TK97  chose 24 W/msq for this quantity although the other authorities have much smaller values (15.3, 15.3 ans 18.8 W/msq). There is a suspicion that they needed the extra in order to "balance" the budget.

TFK09 chose  17 W/msq for "Sensible Heat, where other authorities had found 15.6. 19.4 and 17 W/msq They had evidently abandoned all hope of "balancing" their budget, and they came out  with a surplus of 0.9 W/msq which so horrified Trenberth that he famously called it a "travesty" in his Climategate email.

Both papers give separate estimates are  for "Land" and "Ocean"

TK97 has figures from other authorities of  27.1, 25.8 and 27.5 W/msq for :"Land": and 11.0, 11.5, 15.8, 9.5 and 14.0 W/msq for "Ocean" but no figure was chosen by the authors

TFK09 chose a figure of 27 W/msq for "Land" with other authorities gining 36.3 and 27,4 W/msq. They chose 12 W/msq for "Ocean"  where the other authorities gave 11.7, 16.6, 14.6 and 10.8 W/msq.

There is evidently much greater heat loss to the atmosphere over land than ocean. This is because of the greater turbulence caused by the irregular surface profile.

The difference is slightly greater because of the lower albedo over land which gives a lower solar absorption.

TK97 quoted Global albedo values  between 28.1- 33.8% "Land" between 30.8 and 35.8% and Ocean is 27.1-33.3% but did not make a choice itself

TFK90 quoted figures for Global albedo of 27.9-34.2% and chose 29.8%, "Land" 30.6-35.2% and chose 34.4%, "Ocean:", 27.0-33.9% and chose 28,3%

They therefore now consider that there is a difference of 6.1% between the albedo of "Land" and "Ocean"

It should be noted that the claimed global warming from the fake greenhouse effect (the absorption of infra red radiation by trace gases) is claimed to be a mere 1.6 W/msq since 1700. Changes in the real greenhouse effect could easily amount to more than this but the uncertainties involved in calculating its actual amount make it difficult to estimate..

Changes in the real greenhouse effect could include a number of natural  climate changes in the earth's orbit,  sun, ocean circulation and volcanic eruptions

The amount of heat lost by the real greenhouse effect would also be reduced by  anthropogenic efforts to reduce convection, so these effort should be considered as contributions to "global warming":if any such warming is detected

A greenhouse, by preventing natural convection, reduces its extent. .There are many other ways that humans try to stop the natural convection process. All buildings act in the same fashion as a greenhouse. Shelter belts and wind barriers reduce heat loss. .Changes in albedo which reduce the surface from darker to lighter also are  warming devices. Forests have a higher albedo than farmland, concrete roads and airport runways.

Devices that capture part of the natural heat loss such as windmills or solar panels do not reduce natural greenhouse cooling but merely capture it before it leaves.

It is surprising that the real greenhouse effect has never been examined as a possible reason for changes in the earth's surface temperature. Some of its effects may be summarized as urbanisation and land use change and they undoubtedly provide an upwards bias to temperature readings by weather stations; a bias that the compilers of the Mean Global Surface Temperature Anomaly Record resolutely refuse to take into account when they are claiming global temperature rises from the fake greenhouse effect

I have pointed out in my "Greenhouse Delusion" that the average  0.02 W/msq of heat which is generated by humans is very unevenly distributed and there are some industrial areas where the amount generated exceeds that attributed to the fake greenhouse effect by almost 100 times The attached graph (from Tom Quirk) shows how this heat is predominantly emitted between 30-60 degrees N


Vincent Gray
Energy Balance
Tom Quirk

Monday, 21 March 2011

Dear Ms Gillard from a 17 year old country girl

To Ms Gillard and whoever else reads this

My name is Brittany Stuart I'm 17 years old and shortly I will be 18 and legally allowed to vote along with many others. But what is the point in me voting when some aspects of the government are taking our say away from us which will eventually lead to our future. Let’s say something recent as the ETS and the Carbon Dioxide tax? I'm well aware of this as I re-call you said something along the lines that you wouldn't bring this is BUT you lied to your fellow Australians not only the older generations but the younger one’s as well.


What are you doing Ms Gillard? Why have you let it get this bad? The science is not settled so why are you insisting in this absurd carbon tax? Maybe if the government didn't waste it on other things or give our money to other countries for non essential projects. How about looking after Australians first? Dalby is getting a indoor swimming pool around $5 million that government funding is paying for: don’t you think that this money would be sent better elsewhere - like our roads that the flood effected?
I can't believe that Australia’s Prime Minister and her followers are bringing in this stupid tax and blaming it on farmers and cattle as well? Shame on you. If you like your vegetables, dairy products and beef, you have no right to put blame on them, on us.
There is no “blame” as there is not enough evidence to support your reasons for making more financial hardship for Australian families. We provide for our own country when other countries can't, we know how to work the land when people like you don't have a single clue. Farmers of any Agricultural background are doing something for their country and their consumers, their families.
I don't think you realize how hard it is, but then again people like you think you know everything and then bring in ridiculous accusations and tax, like this and push people off their own land out of their own business and stand over us and bully us.
You are going to be responsible for so much hardship you will send Australians broke whilst they are trying to support a family or you – because we taxpayers (I work too Ms Gillard) pay your wages.

You will even be the cause  of some family members to commit suicide with your new tax!


If I were involved with this I would personally be really embarrassed as you have made such fools out of yourselves. You are not really the Prime Minister. I know that you got Green Preferences and the independents to go with you. You have not earnt the right to Govern Australia!

In regard to methane, cattle Ms Gillard what don't you understand? Don't you see the cattle eat grass which is natural, then they digest it which is natural then they let of gas which is from the grass and body juices which is natural and then the manure is used as a fertilizer.
But wait! This natural cycle is damaging polluting the environment?! You have got to be kidding?! This cannot be true as “Scientist” have said that this is “true” even though they have been proven wrong by other scientist who is saying the exact thing I am. Yes I would be quiet embarrassed. And you listen to Tim Flannery? I would not have him as a school teacher -he is manipulative!

Honestly, I'm really disgusted in your government. Maybe this is comforting for you? My generation have loads of young adults like me who see through your lies, your schemes and your stuff ups and
then you blame it on the rest of us and leave it to us to clean up your mess? Well thanks to you my generation and the ones to come will still be cleaning up your stench long after you are gone.

If it hasn't quiet sunk in right now I AM one of many young adults and kids who will be the NEXT generation to strive of this land and as long as we are still breathing one by one we will fight for our rights.
We will fight for accurate information. We will fight for Australians to be able to be successful. We will fight your “misguided” taxes. We will fight like you have never seen for the return of private property rights.
Personally I will fight to stop the greens influencing every law that families have to live with. I will fight them for our name back. Farmers are the real environmentalist Ms Gillard – you have been played for a fool – or have you?

If I have to send an e-mail to EVERYONE who is in the government and say the same thing to get across to you I will. I will be heard and I WILL fight for our rights including no taxes that will not achieve anything except hurt families. Blaming the farmers was a bad mistake. If you want to import your own food go ahead. Other countries food is inferior – even their apples!
They haven't got the cleanest methods of farming or producing without toxic chemicals that are banned here in Australia. We have cause we are lucky Australian Farmers are the best in the world but you just want to tax us don't you?
Do not take our rights to be viable on our land off us stop bullying us. You know that making laws and taxing people when they are suffering now financially is not good coming from a Prime Minister. Locking up people's private property - well that is called stealing you know!

I want a future for my children but how can I when you are wrecking it. I will be heard and so will others; we won’t just stop until our future is secure.

You are a threat to Australia’s future on the course you are on.

Sunday, 20 March 2011

Questions for Ms Gillard on carbon dioxide

Letter to the editors by Leon Ashby

Questions for Gillard on carbon dioxide

Dear Sir/Madam,

             Julia Gillard claims she has the science community behind her CO2 Tax position.

This is complete nonsense.

I challenge her to a debate on the actual scientific facts in any media she likes.

No scientist has evidence CO2 will overheat the planet - If there is, she only needs to name the scientist.

I ask Julia Gillard for her answer to these question:s 
  • Is it true CO2 has a positive effect on plants?
  • Is it true that up to five times today's level of CO2 in the air will not adversely effect human health?
  • Is it true that CO2 is transparent, tasteless and we drink it in carbonated drinks?
  • Is it true China continues to increases its CO2 emissions by Australia's total annual amount every 4 months?
  • Is it true that if the world reduced its emissions by 100%, cyclones, floods and bushfires would still occur?
  • Is it true an ETS or Carbon dioxide tax will have no discernible impact on Global temperatures. if she disagrees - justify by what amount?
  • Is it true that if any gas did effect the planet`s temperature to any degree, it would be more likely to be water vapour (which is 95% of all the greenhouse gases in the air)

Julia Gillard has no actual facts for her CO2 position - its just political jargon. 
 Leon Ashby
President The Climate Sceptics

Carbon dioxide, Methane and the IPCC

Guest Post by John Nethery

As a geologist I have been applying the study of past climate change to my professional research for over 45 years. I have been closely following the to-ing and fro-ing on recent climate change for over 35 years since the mid-1970s "cooling crisis". As a professional I scan the major international scientific journals, spending up to 5 hours per week doing this. I have read the scientific sections of all the IPCC reports, have gone on to read critical references quoted within those reports and have also noted how the story has changed from one report to the next.

I was involved over a year ago in a long discussion on Senator Christine Milne’s page on the Agmates site and in the course of this lengthy exchange I summarised what I see as the critical contradiction in the AGW thesis relating to CO2 and CH4. I will repeat that as I see it as being the crux of the whole AGW debate, which nobody has satisfactorily answered, in the IPCC reports or anywhere else. The onus is on them to prove their theory, not on me to disprove it. After all it is the IPCC's theory and political pressure that wants to turn the world economy upside down.

Do CO2 and CH4 control temperature variability? No earth scientist I deal with argues against the contribution of greenhouse gases, including CO2 and CH4, towards moderating Earth’s climate, but when CO2 exceeds 60 parts per million its “greenhouse effect” plateaus. Looking back through history climate change has natural regular cycles of 100,000 years duration, which have stayed within very precise high and low boundary temperatures. Such a regular cycle (similar to a printout of human heartbeats from an ECG) must be due to a combination of Earth's regular orbital variations and solar intensity variations. After all there is no known mechanism for Earth to inhale and exhale CO2 and CH4 in such a regular pattern.
We are currently in an Interglacial period, known as the Holocene Maximum, since about 8000 years ago and this is no different to the Interglacial peaks of at least the last 5 cycles. The peak of the current Interglacial period was 8000 to 6000 years ago, when temperature was at around 2 degrees higher than now and global sea level averaged close to 2 metres higher than the present. This is published research that the IPCC has swept under the carpet. Sea-level has decreased since then at an average 0.3mm per annum, but it goes up and down like a roller coaster. The temperature has declined in a similar roller coaster manner as well and the Minoan, Roman and Medieval warm periods were the peaks that were warmer than today.
The IPCC, up until the 4th report used ice-core data from Greenland and Antarctica to graphically demonstrate a clear link between CO2 and CH4 variability and temperature variability. However when detailed work was done in recent years on these ice-cores it was shown that the CO2 and CH4 rises and falls actually followed the temperature rises and falls by on average 800 years. The IPCC 4th report in 2007 (Chapter 6, p444) rationalised this contradictory evidence by saying that the temperature rise was initiated by other factors (probably Earth orbital) but that CO2 and CH4 then took over as the main forcing agents, which amplified the temperature rise.

However, what happens at the top end of the cycle was never explained. Why is it that temperature reached essentially the same high points (within a 2 degree range) in each of the last 5 Interglacial periods including the current one, then started to decline while the CO2 and CH4 were still rising? The obvious answer, which the IPCC has swept under the carpet, is that temperature variability is controlled by some other forcing agent and CO2 and CH4 just follow along.

I decided to wade through the RealClimate website run by the principal IPCC scientists Professor Jeff Severinghaus of the Scripps Institute of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego is considered an expert on such issues and is quoted in the IPCC reports.  Guess what? Severinghaus and his mates do not, and obviously cannot, answer the question posed, even though they were specifically asked that same question a number of times in a discussion forum on the site. The question about CO2 and CH4 control on climate variability is THE major scientific issue.

If that hypothesis falls over then the whole story does.

I attach the leading example of the discussion for all to see:
Dear Jeff,
I read your article “What does the lag of CO2 behind temperature in ice cores tell us about global warming?” You mention that CO2 does not initiate warmings, but may amplify warmings that are already underway. The obvious question comes up as to whether or not CO2 levels also lag periods when cooling begins after a warming cycle…even one of 5,000 years? If CO2 levels on planet Earth also lag the cooling periods, then how can it be that CO2 levels are causally related to terrestrial heating periods at all? I am not sure what the ice core records are related the time response of CO2 to the cooling trends. If there is also a lag in CO2 levels behind a cooling period, then it appears that CO2 levels not only do not initiate warming periods but are also unrelated to the onset of cooling periods. It would appear that the actual CO2 levels are rather impotent as an amplifier either way…warming or cooling.

Dear John,
The coolings appear to be caused primarily and initially by increase in the Earth-Sun distance during northern hemisphere summer, due to changes in the Earth’s orbit. As the orbit is not round, but elliptical, sunshine is weaker during some parts of the year than others. This is the so-called Milankovitch hypothesis, which you may have heard about. Just as in the warmings, CO2 lags the coolings by a thousand years or so, in some cases as much as three thousand years.

But do not make the mistake of assuming that these warmings and coolings must have a single cause. It is well known that multiple factors are involved, including the change in planetary albedo, change in nitrous oxide concentration, change in methane concentration, and change in CO2 concentration. I know it is intellectually satisfying to identify a single cause for some observed phenomenon, but that unfortunately is not the way Nature works much of the time. Nor is there any requirement that a single cause operate throughout the entire 5000 – year long warming trends, and the 70,000 year cooling trends. Thus it is not logical to argue that, because CO2 does not cause the first thousand years or so of warming, nor the first thousand years of cooling, it cannot have caused part of the many thousands of years of warming in between.

Jeff Severinghaus' first paragraph confirms what I have stated. The next paragraph, far from being “logical” is just straight down the wicket "woffling". He makes no attempt to explain why all the other supposedly weaker agents and feedbacks stop the temperature rise, while the supposedly strongly positive amplifying feedbacks of CO2 and CH4 are still rising. As I see it, when the evidence that CO2 change actually follows the temperature change was staring them in the face, the IPCC scientists were “in too deep”, with billions of dollars per annum of research funding going their way. They have tried every trick in the book to bluff their way through, including calling anybody who questioned their story a “denier”.

The chickens have come home to roost. Clearly CO2 and CH4 do not control temperature variability. End of story!

Saturday, 19 March 2011

Climate Alarmists lie

The deception of Climate Change

I have written before how the deniers of science, the Warmistas, began to use the deceptive term climate change instead of Anthropogenic global warming when the runaway warming didn't happen. It seems that it is working for the Warmista deniers. There has been a new study by the University of Michigan. (Story from Reuters - link in title above.)

Fifty percent of those surveyed were given the term "global warming" while the other fifty percent were given the term "climate change."
"You may have heard about the idea that the world's temperature may have been going up [changing] over the past 100 years," asked the researchers, "a phenomenon sometimes called 'global warming' ['climate change']. What is your personal opinion regarding whether or not this has been happening?"
When asked the "climate change" question, 74 percent of respondents thought that it was a concern, while only 68 thought it a concern when it was referred to as "global warming."
Additionally, the researchers analysed responses to the survey by political orientation. 60 percent of Republicans thought that climate change was real, while only 44 percent felt that global warming was a present reality.
On the other side of the coin, 86 percent of Democrats thought climate change was a serious problem no matter what the researchers termed it.

Michael Mann trying to eliminatew the MWP
"The extent of the partisan divide on this issue depends heavily on question wording," said Schwarz, who is also affiliated with the U-M Ross Business School and the Institute of Social Research (ISR). "When the issue is framed as global warming, the partisan divide is nearly 42 percentage points. But when the frame is climate change, the partisan divide drops to about 26 percentage points."

Like I have said many times before, I believe in Climate Change but I am an AGW sceptic. The deniers of Climate Change, or perhaps pretend deniers are the IPCC/Climategate cabal who tried to suppress the MWP - see previous posts

Thursday, 17 March 2011

Freestone Racing and NO Carbon Tax.

Press Release from FREESTONE RACING





The Freestone Racing entry in this weekends opening round of the 2011 Fujitsu V8 Supercar Series has gone political, as it carries signage of The Climate Sceptics Party.


This weekend upon the streets of Adelaide, the vastly experienced Victorian racer Paul Freestone will be driving his recently acquired ex James Moffat Ford Falcon BF, now a distinctive turquoise with NO CARBON TAX being displayed along with Roadhaven and Freestone Transport.
Distinctive Turquoise

Freestone, team engineer Hayden Pullen and David Seiders drove the team’s Chevrolet Corvette Z06 to second in class in the recent Bathurst 12 Hour race carrying The Climate Sceptics Party signage.


President of the party, Leon Ashby, said  The Climate Sceptics Party had chosen motor racing to get their message across because of its popularity.

“Motor racing is such a big sport we decided to test the water at the Bathurst 12 hour race with the Freestone team, and that helped get the word out, while the drivers and team members were very supportive, so it was logical to move up to the V8’s with them this weekend,” Mr Ashby said.

He said he would like motor racing fans to understand more about the carbon dioxide tax debate, and the recent broken promise by Julia Gillard on the carbon dioxide tax has some great irony and unanswered questions.

“It now means Penny Wong has to eat her words of the last 4 years when she explained many times why a carbon tax wouldn`t work," he said. But better than that, Julia needs to explain to us all which scientist has shown CO2 is overheating the world. 

“What temperature an Australian CO2 tax will prevent occurring and what temperature the planet will be in the next 10 years when China increases its emissions 600 times more than Australia will reduce it by.

“Also, what electricity prices we will have when wind turbines (which produce electricity at 500 % the price) and can only reduce emissions by 3% - (and still not provide baseload power) and what financial advantage we get from crippling our economy if we introduce a CO2 tax and the rest of the world doesn`t."

But the biggest question is - "Will beer and soft drinks be taxed because of their CO2 content,” Mr Ashby concluded.

The Freestone entry will go into this weekends event after the one test session, which left the team confident they will be in a front running car.

Moffat drove the BF to third in the 2010 Fujitsu Series, finishing on the podium in ten of the 18 races that were conducted, and before Freestone took delivery of it, it received a complete freshen up from Ford Performance Racing.


For further media enquiries contact Brian Nightingale (02) 6332 3726



MS Gillard and Jobs in Australia

The Litany of Lies continues:-

The Australian: JULIA Gillard has promised she will not allow jobs in heavily polluting trade-exposed industries to go overseas under her emissions pricing regime, and declared that this year may be the nation's last chance to strike a deal on a carbon price.

ABC News On line: But Ms Gillard has warned that if Australia does not price carbon in 2011, it will miss its opportunity to make the transition to a clean-energy economy. She says failure to introduce the tax will cost jobs in the long run and has promised the Government will protect jobs as it introduces a price on carbon.

Sydney Morning Herald: JULIA Gillard has promised her carbon-pricing scheme will protect jobs in vulnerable industries, in a feisty speech that sharply distances Labor from the Greens, describing them as one of the ''extremes'' in Australian politics.

If the Labor/Green Government's Carbon dioxide tax makes it too costly to do business here then naturally either businesses will move offshore or local manufacturers will suffer from cost discrepancies and loses market share and/or close. As for Ms Gillard distancing Labor from the Greens

The Age last September: JULIA Gillard's warm embrace of the Greens in Tuesday's historic Canberra pact has rattled and angered Labor powerbrokers in the Prime Minister's home state...

How can she back away from a signed agreement and break a promise (oh, yeah, she can break promises, can't she?) to confer with the Greens weekly.

Perhaps she will say she promised to confer weakly?

The Fairfax Papers: In reference to the Greens, Ms Gillard painted them as the other extreme that would cost existing jobs if their course of action was followed. Ms Gillard said emissions-intensive industries which have competitors in countries no carbon price exists needed assistance to help with the transition. She said there would still be an incentive for industries to reduce emissions and jobs would be protected.

Explanation of Terms.
heavily polluting                    large emitters of vital-to-life carbon dioxide
emissions pricing                   carbon dioxide tax
carbon price                           carbon dioxide tax
carbon                                    carbon dioxide
clean energy economy           power outages, blackouts