Wednesday, 27 April 2011

All YouTube wanted to know about Wind Turbines but were afraid to ask!

Wind Turbines make bat lungs explode.

Bird killed by Wind Turbine
Warning - shows actual strike.

Wind Turbine Fails and Crashes

 Wind Turbine Fire

 Wind Turbine Noise

Fewer Americans, Europeans View Global Warming as a Threat

A new poll by Gallup surveying 111 countries finds that "world-wide" fewer people see global warming as a threat. The poll (link in title above) asked:

How serious a threat is global warming to you and your family?

The percentage that said serious or very serious for the world was only 42%.

When asked:

How much do you know about global warming or climate change

98% of Australians answered they knew something or a great deal about it!

Tuesday, 26 April 2011

Prophets of Doom or should that be Profits....

Stanford's Paul Ehrlich announces that the sky is falling.
Stanford's Paul Ehrlich announces that the sky is falling.

“We have about five more years at the outside to do something.”
• Kenneth Watt, ecologist

 “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”
• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

“By…[xxxx] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.”
• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

“By the year XXXX, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, `I am very sorry, there isn’t any.’”
• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

“It is already too late to avoid mass starvation.”
• Denis Hayes, chief organizer for Earth Day

Air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.”
• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

“We are prospecting for the very last of our resources and using up the nonrenewable things many times faster than we are finding new ones.”
• Martin Litton, Sierra Club director 

“The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”
• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

The above were predictions made for Earth Day, 1970. They were collated by I hate the media for Earth Day 1970. These same deluded people have just celebrated?? Earth Day 2011 on April 22nd.

The question marks after "celebrated" are because, if you are preaching Gloom and Doom, do you "celebrate" or you do the reverse?  So I looked for antonyms for celebrate and got:
Antonyms: disregard, forget, ignore, neglect, overlook
So, I recommend, seeing celebration of an impending disaster  seems inappropriate, they should disregard it, they should forget it, they should ignore it.....

Two of the comments above had their dates xxed out. The small xxxx's represented 1975 - by 1975 there would be world hunger, the large XXXX's represented the year 2000.

My attention was drawn to this article by Peter Laux. These doomsayers are invited to share in Peter's $10K challenge mentioned on this blog HERE and the challenge issued on Denis Rancourt's Climate Guy HERE.



Jimmy Carter
CHURCHVILLE, VA—U.S. Energy prices have risen to more than 6 percent of consumer spending—which may be a historic “tipping point.” Our food prices, meanwhile, have had their steepest increase in a generation, to about 6.5 percent of spending. That’s a double whammy consumers haven’t suffered since Jimmy Carter’s infamous “stagflation,” a painful mix of weak economic growth, high unemployment, and rising inflation in the late 1970’s.

Both the high oil prices and the high food prices trace directly back to the Obama Administration. Oil has gotten no scarcer during the Obama years, but the dollar has weakened by about 17 percent. The price of oil is denominated in U.S. dollars, so the dollar decline almost exactly matches the rise in America’s oil prices. Meanwhile, the President has engineered a stop-stall on domestic energy production, from Alaska to the Gulf, making even our own oil more costly. 

Some months ago I sat at an energy roundtable with of Massachusetts (of Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade fame), the President of Duke Power, and the former director of President Clinton’s Council on Environmental Quality. The sympathy at the table was for rigging higher natural gas prices so the huge federal subsidies for wind turbines and solar panels would seem less a drain on our economic growth.

Recently, moreover, the Congressional Research Service reported the U.S. has more fossil energy than any other nation when we total our coal, oil, natural gas, and our new shale gas and oil reserves. Far from having “just 2 percent of the world’s oil reserves” we have centuries worth of fossil fuels—which the Obama administration is committed to not using.

The food inflation too is now Obama’s. Under both Bush and Obama, the federal government has cheerfully diverted huge amounts of grain to auto fuel, creating an artificial food shortage. That’s triggered food price inflation for the poorest around the world. Corn ethanol may be “renewable,” but the subsidies make it very expensive to use. 

Why not remove the federal subsidy and let ethanol compete? Mainly because ethanol isn’t competitive or effective. And it is down right disastrous for the environment. Right now, farm woodlots are being drained in the Corn Belt, and tropical forest is being cleared for more corn and palm oil in Southeast Asia, responding to high crop prices. This is not a sustainable solution.

Last year, Stanford University praised Norman Borlaug’s Green Revolution for saving about 7 million square miles of wildlife habitat from being plowed for more low-yield crops. Without the higher crop yields, we’d have gassed off soil carbon—as nitrous oxide—equal to one-third of the world’s industrial emissions since 1850!  The Stanford message is clear: don’t clear wildlife habitat for trivial purposes. And this seems a trivial purpose—whether or not you believe in man-made global warming. Ethanol won’t make much difference.

Why not clean-burn coal, gas, and oil to make the electricity we need and admit the “green” solutions so far just don’t work. Trillions of taxpayer dollars are poured into wind, solar, and ethanol and none has proved to be an effective means of producing energy.

If the goal is to reduce CO2 the effort has not only failed, but the need is appearing less and less valid. Thus far, the computer models have been wrong. The Pacific Ocean, our largest heat sink, has entered a cool phase, and the tree rings and coral samples tell us it will probably last for the next 25 years.

Dennis T. Avery, a senior fellow for the Hudson Institute in Washington, D.C., is an environmental economist. He was formerly a senior analyst for the Department of State. He is co-author, with S. Fred Singer, of Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years. Readers may write to him at PO Box 202 Churchville, VA 2442; email to Visit our website at www. (Link in title above)

Saturday, 23 April 2011

Climate Science or Climate Fraud

There has been the fraudulent hockey stick, the tricking up of Temperatures, the "you-scratch-my-back-I'll-scratch-yours" peer-reviews. That should be enough for people to realise that there is no climate disaster, that they are being conned.

Steve Goddard has written on Real Science:

Deluded, Misled Or Dishonest?

The lack of warming has caused much of the global warming community to cross the line into blatant fraud. Cold is not caused by heat or lack of ice. Fewer hurricanes and tornadoes does not mean more hurricanes and tornadoes. Filling in pink temperatures will not make the Earth warmer. Lying about the Arctic will not make the ice disappear. 

The alarmists are running out of answers. Recently, a constant alarmist warming pusher from Queensland stopped posting prowarming nonsense on this blog when I gave him a question that he could not answer.

If you read the post - AGW - A falsified hypothesis: it starts

Albert Einstein once said, “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.” 


That post has eight falsifications on the AGW hypothesis. As Einstein wrote - once is enough.

Thursday, 21 April 2011

The carbon tax that ate Australia

File photo: Electricity lines (ABC News: User Submitted: Peter Driussi)

The carbon tax that ate Australia

By Anthony Cox and David Stockwell

David Stockwell
Anthony Cox The carbon tax has inflamed the old conflicts between progressives and conservatives – between those who favour government-imposed solutions, and the free-market capitalists or those who simply mistrust big government.

In an effort to win over the conservatives, Greg Combet has been busy spruiking the economic benefits of a carbon tax to everyone from householders to CEOs.

Combet boasts that “Every dollar raised by the carbon price will be dedicated to supporting households with any price impacts, and supporting businesses through the transition to a clean energy economy.”

This is impossible. Under the “Fast Start Finance” commitment from Cancun, which Combet announced, $599 million will be given to the IPCC under Australia’s combating AGW obligations. This $599 million is on top of the commitment made by Australia at Cancun to give 10% of revenue raised from a carbon tax to the IPCC. Then there will be the bureaucratic expansion to run the tax, checking compliance and eligibility criteria; these administration costs apparently run at 50% for the Australian government. All this probably explains why Combet’s boss, PM Gillard, is saying “more than 50 per cent of money raised [from the carbon pricing scheme] will go to assisting households.”

This must be part of the “certainty for investors” which Combet describes as an advantage of a carbon tax.

According to Combet, “with Australia's enormous clean energy resources, putting a price on carbon and shifting to clean energy will have big benefits for our economy.” This has not been the experience of other countries.

Spain’s experiment with a carbon tax and subsidisation of wind and solar resulted in 2.2 jobs lost for every green job bought by subsidies. Italy fared even worse with 4.8 jobs lost for every green job bought by subsidy. Similar results occurred in Germany and Denmark.

Apart from overseas experience showing a carbon tax and subsidisation of green energy costs jobs the results also show shrinkage in GDP; Spain’s economy actually contracted during the period which green energy was subsidised. This should be no surprise to Combet because in 2009 the then NSW Labour government commissioned Frontier Modelling to analyse the effect the 5% ETS proposed by the then Rudd government would have on the Australian GDP. The modelling showed a $2 trillion reduction in the Australian economy directly linked to the effect of the ETS by 2050; that’s $50 billion per annum; enough to pay for the NBN.

The shrinkage occurs because green energy is both far more expensive than conventional energy and does not meet the society’s needs. California is the classic example of this. California’s sweet ride with green energy began in 1973-4 with the first oil shock; this experiment gained momentum in the 1980s when the US government offered big tax breaks for wind power. After 40 years of massive investment and cutting edge technology in wind and solar California today obtains only 2.4% and 0.4% from those 2 sources. As for moral leadership, despite banning coal mining California still receives nearly 10% of its power from coal, all imported. California’s dominant energy source is gas.

Apart from a Treasury release saying that a $30 per tonne carbon tax will add $860 per household there have been no economic modelling to support its cheery predictions about a carbon tax. The overseas examples listed above prove they won't eventuate.

That proof that a carbon tax represents a massive shift towards big government lies in the already available details in the government’s National Greenhouse Emissions Reporting website [NGER].

NGER lists all the corporations currently obligated to report their emissions of CO2; this obligation is based on a threshold which only catches the largest of businesses; this threshold will be lowered or non-existent with the advent of a carbon tax after the Greens gain power on the 1st July 2011, so the total revenue collectable from a carbon tax will be much larger the NGER indicates at present.

But that's not all. The NGER structures the carbon tax as a DOUBLE tax applying both to the production of energy [Scope 1] and the use of that energy [Scope 2].

The figures are staggering. Scope 1 emissions are just under 341 million tonnes. Because the use in Scope 2 will approximate the emissions from Scope 1 another 341 million tonnes can be added for a total of 682 million tonnes of emissions. The Greens preferred CO2 tax rate is $45 per tonne; at that rate the carbon tax will extract $15 billion from the Australian economy per year. And that’s before agriculture and petrol are slugged.

Julia Gillard and Greg Combet are saying somewhere between 50% and 100% of the money will be returned to consumers but that is qualified by saying that only the most needy will be looked after. There are about 7.5 million residential household accounts for electricity in Australia, but obviously only about one quarter, or 2 million of those are needy if pension and low income thresholds are applied. If the government allocates half of the revenue or $7.5 billion to those 2 million households that will be $3,750 per household, well above the Treasury estimate of what it will cost the average household at $30 per tonne. Even if another $15 is added to the carbon tax price that will, according to Treasury, only cost the average household $1,290 [$860 + $430].

But this doesn’t take into account two crucial and proven consequences of the carbon tax. The first is GDP shrinkage estimated to be $50 billion per year; that will cost the average household 3 times what the direct effect of the carbon tax will, adding another $3,870 to the average household. With the $1,290 added on that now comes to $5,160. If the government gives all the collected revenue to the bottom 2 million households that will be $7,500 per household so those households will be better off. The other 5.5 million households will of course be out of pocket by $5,160.

The second problem goes beyond compensation however. Part of the GDP shrinkage will be relocating and closing business; part of that closing business will be energy providers. The Australian Energy Market Operator, the peak body for appraisal of all Australian energy providers, has already predicted energy shortages and black-outs within 2 years.

It doesn’t much matter how much compensation you are given if there is nothing to spend it on and you can’t count it in the dark. Of course with a failing economy the compensation will only last a year because after that time there will no “polluters” to collect it from.

Even if man-made global warming [AGW] were real we know that an Australian carbon tax will have no effect on rising temperature; the sums have been done, the questions have been asked and the only answers given have been odd.

With this Government's reputation for bungled schemes - the BER, the home insulation scheme, the mining tax, clean coal to name a few - even progressives should think twice about whether this government has the capacity to introduce such a complex reform as a carbon tax and trading scheme.

The risk is not that Australia will be left behind in putting in place new, better, cleaner, greener technology, but that Australia will be left with no steel industry, no aluminium industry, no refineries or smelters.

Australians are not “per person, the highest polluters in the developed world”, as Combet claims; this is wrong, we are 12th, with one of the most efficient industrial sectors in the world, a product of necessity brought on by the low population and the “tyranny of distance” which aggravates infrastructure and service provision in Australia compared with other countries. It’s a pity Combet is not spruiking that instead of a carbon tax which will send that efficiency away from Australia.

Anthony Cox is a lawyer and secretary of The Climate Sceptics.
Dr Stockwell  runs the influential science blog, Niche Modeling.

Wednesday, 20 April 2011


APRIL 27th 2011

Vincent Gray - IPCC Lead Author
Slaying the Sky Dragon" is the title of a recent book published by the Stairway Press and a website which promotes its contents. It is the result of an association of scientists, technologists and journalists who oppose the concept that the earth's climate is influenced by increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. They have been seeking scientific reasons why this concept is wrong.

I have been in correspondence with members of this group for many years and I have been greatly stimulated in my own thinking by their willngness to challenge the basic assumptions of this theory.

This book, and the discussions on the website, are the culmination of many years of study and speculation. My last Newsletter, No 266 was inspired by this book.

The book questions most of  the assumptions of the climate models such as: :

  •  The earth can be considered to be flat.
  •  The Sun shines day and night with the same intensity.
  •  The temperature of the surface is a constant.
  •  The energy system, which includes only the Sun and the surface, is in equilibrium.

They show, by simple fluid dynamics that the earth is cooled by convection and evaporation, a process all but ignored by the IPCC.

The authors fail to follow up properly the difference between day and night. They make a comparison between the moon, which has a very large difference in temperature between day and night, and the earth, where the difference is much less. They fail to realise that this means that the earth's atmosphere is the main influence on the energy distribution in our climate, not one of the minor "greenhouse gases," and that the climate by day is fundamentally different from the climate by night.

This means that the atmosphere cools the surface by day and warms it at night, a conclusion which leads to a new interpretation of the action of a greenhouse, which also cools the earth by day and warms it at night. So earth's energy is. after all, controilled by a genuine greenhouse effect.

In effect, they have discovered a true theory of the climate which can undoubtedly challenge the trace gas absorption theoty of the IPCC

Unfortunately these original and even revolutionary thoughts are obscured by a determination to misinterpret the Second Law of Thermodynamics. One version of this Law is as follows:

"Heat cannot flow of itself from a cooler to a warmer body"

They have failed to notice the phrase "of itself". By ignoring it they feel justified in believing that the atmosphere cannot radiate energy back to the earth (so-called "back radiation") so that the trace gas warming theory, which depends on this assumption, is untrue.

A refrigerator is an apparatus designed to transfer heat from a cool body to a warmer, heat exchanger. It can only do so by means of an external supply of energy. The earth's climate is also  dependent on  an external supply of energy, from the Sun, Without it, as happens every night, all the radiation (including the "back radiation") would disperse, if it were not interrupted from approaching absolute zero by the next dawn.

The Laws of Thermodynamics and Planck's and  the Stefan/Boltzmann Radiation Laws are derived mathematically in Chapter18 of "Slaying the Sky Dragon" by Claes Johnson,  a Professor of Applied Mathematics  from the Royal Institute of Technology. Stockholm,. He shows that radiation depends entirely on the temperature of the emitter after he has denied it by saying that radiation cannot be absorbed by an object at a higher temperature.

Despite this and their other doubtful speculations they deserve  credit  for the insight into climate science they have undoubtedly provided,


Vincent Gray

Monday, 18 April 2011

Dear Ms Wong and Mr Hunt

Letter to Penny Wong and Greg Hunt by TCS President Leon Ashby 

Dear Penny and Greg,
The weak end of a carbon (dioxide) tax 

                                    On ABC-TV's QandA you both rejected a question from a female scientist.  I would like to repeat a similar question to you and for you to answer it on your web sites.

The IPCC and other scientific bodies have determined the amounts of CO2  in the atmosphere. It is 1/27th of 1%.

My Questions to you both are:
  • Did you know how little man made CO2 is in the air? 
  • Why did both of you reject a question which was stating facts?

 It was like saying we reject that the earth revolves around the sun or rejecting that rain is H2O.

Do you have better information on the gaseous make up of the atmosphere?

 If you do please give us the details on your web site.  If either of you do not explain yourself on your web sites I will take it that you have little knowledge of precisely what a CO2 tax or ETS or Direct Action will (or will not) do.

And by the way - If Australia reduces its CO2 emissions by 5% (changing the air composition by 1/1,000,000th of 1%) will you be able to look everyone in the eye who loses their jobs, in the process that you had checked out the facts without prejudice and to the best of your ability?  

Greg Hunt has since correctly replied to this email that CO2 has risen from 280 ppm to 380 ppm since the 1800s. However it seems he hasn`t quite worked out that those are small numbers (e.g. a rise of 100 parts per million or 1 part in 10,000).
Of the 380 ppm only 13 ppm will be manmade.
Of that only 0.2 ppm will be Australias contribution
Of that only 0.01 ppm will be reduced by our carbon tax or ETS

Don`t trust me - check the Maths for yourself.

Leon Ashby
Recipient of the Centenary Medal for services to Conservation and the Environment

Sunday, 17 April 2011

AGW - A falsified hypothesis

The hypothesis is that human-caused carbon dioxide emissions are causing dangerous global warming. - known as man-made or anthropogenic global warming (AGW.)

Falsification 1
Albert Einstein once said, “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.” Einstein’s words express a foundational principle of science intoned by the logician, Karl Popper: Falsifiability. In order to verify a hypothesis there must be a test by which it can be proved false. A thousand observations may appear to verify a hypothesis, but one critical failure could result in its demise. The history of science is littered with such examples.

This is the opening paragraph of a paper by William DiPuccio. This paper was posted at on May 5, 2009. In closing, Mr DiPuccio says:
A complete rejection of the hypothesis, in its current form, would certainly be warranted if the ocean continues to cool (or fails to warm) for the next few years.

Two separate studies through NASA confirm that since 2003, the world's oceans have been losing heat. (LINK)

 Falsification 2, 
Tim Curtin wrote (HERE)
The first is the complete failure of all climate scientists – and their cheerleaders in the media – to investigate the relationship between the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide at Mauna Loa (the mountain in Hawaii which is the official source of the IPCC’s

Saturday, 16 April 2011

Gillard's job is her priority

ABC News reports:
One of Australia's largest steelmakers says jobs will be lost if the industry is not fully compensated for a carbon tax.

Yesterday, Australian Workers Union national secretary Paul Howes said the steel industry was facing unique challenges and should be exempt from the carbon tax or fully compensated for it.
Mr Howes warned the Government would lose his union's support if there was just one job lost as a result of the tax.
Just one Job? Too late,  it has already cost Kevin Rudd his PM's job, it has cost Malcolm Turnbull the opposition leader's job. That's two. It is threatening Julia Gillard's job. Probably threatening Paul Howes' job as well, as Union members wake up to the fact that it is a tax based on a flawed hypothesis.

So Mr Howes should withdraw his union's support for the Carbon Dioxide Tax.

At the meeting where union members gave Greg Combet a fiery reception, Paul Howes said the AWU would not support a carbon pricing scheme if it cost the jobs of any of its members.

"We believe steel is a core component of what we are as a country, because we believe Australia should be a country that makes things," he said. 

This is frightening the PM and so she is expanding her magic pudding.

Remember Mr Combet said all the tax raised would be used to compensate (or overcompensate) households. Remember Mr Combet promised the UN Green Climate fund almost $600 million from the tax raised. Remember high emitting industries (incorrectly called high polluting industries) are to be compensated from the pudding tax as well.

Now the PM, worried about losing union support, has decided to expand the magic pudding and compensate the high CO2 emitters even more. From Steven Scott, The Courier Mail:

THE Gillard Government is considering further compensation for high-polluting export industries hit by its carbon tax, including steel manufacturers.
Labor faces demands for a series of handouts for industries after a number of large unions warned the carbon tax could cost jobs.
The destructive  Greens, who want to close Australia down. will not be happy with this decission.

Don't vote Greens

According to the Sydney Morning Herald, The Catholic bishops "have warned the faithful against voting for the Greens in the state election, saying some of their policies were of ''grave concern''. (Link in title)
A two-page document entitled The Green Agenda is being circulated by Catholic agencies and through schools. It states the party's human rights and social policy areas are in direct conflict ''with the beliefs and values of virtually all religious people, and the beliefs of many other people as well''.
''Greens who are elected will bring a whole set of policies. You cannot pick and choose. They are not only concerned for the environment,'' it reads.
One item that the Greens letter outlines is " the Greens' treatment of personal drug use as a health and social issue ''and therefore acceptable''

So what are the Greens Policies?  I went to the NSW Greens policy site and got this message: Access denied. You may need to login below or register to access this page.

So, the fall-back option is The Australian Greens policies:

No coal - No Nuclear                           Hello Power outages; goodbye comfort;
Marine parks around Australia            Goodbye to fishing and fish as food;
Carbon dioxide price on Motor Fuel   Goodbye low grocery prices and transport
No more HECS                                    Cost $23billion -up go your taxes
Expand youth allowances                    Another $1 billion
Inheritance taxes                                  Say goodbye to the family home, you children 
World Governance                               Say Goodbye to Australia for Australians.

See also - ACL Greens Policies exposed
                Greens election policies - pdf

Thursday, 14 April 2011

Combet's con meets Julia's Magic Pudding

See also Jo Nova's satirical post  Fairyland Economics...
Labor to help Industries - HERE

Combet's Con Job?

Letter to the Editor by TCS President Leon Ashby.
 Is Combet's CO2 tax a con job on voters

Dear Sir / Madam,
                             I believe Greg Combet is trying to bribe us voters with promises that a CO2 tax with compensation won`t cost us much.

I therefore have these questions for the Climate Change Minister.

Is the CO2 tax a con job that traps unsuspecting voters of future rises in costs without increasing compensation ?

Is it true that the best Australia will stop global temperatures rise is around 0.0001 degree C by 2020?
If not, then what will it be and what price will it cost Australia to stop Global temperatures increasing that amount?

According to a leaked Frontier modeling report, it will cost Australians an average $4,500 per person per year for 40 years to achieve an extremely small reduction in Global temperatures and sea levels.
When businesses apply for funds, they have to demonstrate value for money with a figure. Can you demonstrate value for money for the CO2 tax with a figure of Dollars per cm sea level rise prevented?

There are predictions by solar sunspot researchers such as David Archibald using 300 years of sunspot data that the next decade will be 1.4 degrees to 2 degrees C cooler than the last decade.
The correlation holds very consistently. As Climate Change Minister, have you looked at this research?

There is also research showing the SOI (Southern Oscillation index) has a predictive correlation with world Temperatures (see graph below)
Do you have better predictive models than these pieces of research and if so what is it?
 If not why do you think climate change is mostly due to CO2 levels?

Photos and Graphs below

Leon Ashby
President The Climate Sceptics

David Archibald

QandU - Questions and Unanswers.

I recently sent two letters to the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee and copied each member of the committee. (Here and Here) I have yet to receive a real answer to either. I received a generic -thanks we'll get around to answering from the committee and getting many e-mails - will get round to yours eventually from Oakeshott's office. No real answer. Part of my first unanswered e-mail included:
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?
I cannot watch Terrible Tony smarming away on QandA. My TV set would not last the night. However, one of our members has pointed out that a couple of good questions were made on QandA 12/4/11.
 I recommend you review the program from the 51 minute mark.
 Jones, Wong and Hunt were all disgraceful in dismissing the science even though Carly Abrams quoted from the latest IPCC Report.
 Nobody addressed her second question which was: “Why aren’t Australians getting a vote on this really important question?
Tony: Our next question tonight comes from Carly Abrams(?)

Carly: Hi, I’m a scientist, I’m not part of any political party   but I think my concerns represent a growing proportion of the general scientific community. When you take inot account natural sources of carbon dioxide like animal respiration and evaporation of the oceans, then fossil fuel burning only makes up 4% of total global carbon dioxide emissions, and Australians make up 1% of that 4%  these are going from statistics from the latest IPCC report. If this is the case then Australians only release a total of 0.04% of all emissions and how is there any evidence that a billion dollar carbon tax is going to make any significant difference on the environment and secondly, wht aren't Australians getting a vote on this really important issue? 

Tony says to Greg Hunt: I take it that you would reject the premise of that question? To which Greg Hunt said he respectfully disagreed with the position in terms of the "science." Greg mentioned that, over the next four years the carbon (dioxide) tax is going to be $40 billion.
Although Carly relied on the IPCC figures, Penny Wong also said that she didn't agree about the "science"(Don't you normally rely on the IPCC, Penny?) and there was a side-track with Hunt and Wong likening the other side to Nazis and Wong startewd talking budgets. Tony interrupted and said: "She asked the final part of her  question is why is the Australian public not being allowed to vote?"

Penny Wong answered: With respect you did! Oh rea;;y, Penny? There will not be any carbon tax - was Julia Gillard's pre-election pronoincement. THAT is what was voted on.

Carly countered: "If you had gone to the election with this climate tax, you would not be in governemnt right now."

You're a hero, Carly! 

Tuesday, 12 April 2011

David Evans and Jo Nova at the Perth anti-carbon tax rally

 Scathing satire meets intelligent investigative analysis. Joanne Nova's speech at the 23 March 2011 "Carbon Tax" Protest in Perth is a must-watch.


The text of Jo's speech can be found on her excellent website here:

Few would have the credibility of this man on this topic. Dr. Evans was the leading modeler of climate change for the Australian Greenhouse Office.

The full text of his speech can be found here:

Tim Flannery's Flim Flammery

Tim Flannery discusses Gaia (See also TF - Gaia Worshipper and Reputable Scientists and Flim Flam Men) Tim Flannery has been appointed Australia's Climate Commissioner.

From the Australian:-
Greens leader Bob Brown welcomed the announcement of the commission and said Professor Flannery was a “good choice” to lead it.
“Tim Flannery's a good communicator - I wish him well leading this commission which has got a really important job, which is informing the people of Australia.”
The commission, which met for the first time today(10/2/11) for initial discussions on how it will measure its progress, will cost $5.6 million over four years.
I'll let the reader judge whether Mr Flannery is a good communicator and whether you believe your $5.6 million is being spent wisely. 

Sunday, 10 April 2011


APRIL 9th 2011

Vincent Gray. IPCC Lead Author
We have all been subjected to one of the most elaborate con jobs in the history of science by the IPCC and their supporters.

It all began with the only indisputable fact about our climate: that all of our energy comes to us from the sun by means of radiation.

Somebody had the brilliant idea that if all other manifestations of energy were marginalized or suppressed  and everything about the climate was due to radiation, then it would be much easier to manipulate our entire energy system to claim that it was controlled by the minor atmospheric gas that can absorb radiation, carbon dioxide, provided you can get rid of the major gas, water vapour, which is about 650 times the concentration of carbon dioxide.

It is amazing how they have got away with it. The idea that water vapour is a mere "feedback" to carbon dioxide has been accepted without a murmur and all forms of energy flow except radiation are ignored. So most of us who wish to dispute the outrageous consequences of this deception spend our energies worrying about carbon dioxide and global temperature instead of the real issues that affect the climate.

They tell us that the earth would be much colder if it were not for the "greenhouse" gases but they do not mention what it might be like if we had no atmosphere at all. Yet there is an obvious way of finding out. Our satellite, the moon, is approximately the same distance from the sun as we are, so it gets the same input of the sun's radiation per unit area as ourselves, but it has almost no atmosphere.

Since it has no energy input at night, and if it were insulated you would expect the moon to  cool to absolute zero  at night.

The mean night temperature of the moon is -147ºC. with a  minimum temperature of -233ºC with craters as low as -249ºC; not far off absolute zero. The reason it is not colder than this is that the moon  does not have an insulated surface, so there is some residual hear from daytime which  warms it at night.

By day the average temperature on the moon is 107ºC with a maximum of 123ºC. So there is a mean difference between day and night of 254ºC .

Mean day and night temperatures on earth seem not to be available, so we must assume rough figures of 25ºC by day and 10ºC by night (average of 15ºC)

So why is it that there is so much difference (254 ºC) between day and night on the moon, and only 35ºC on the earth?

The answer has to be that the earth has an atmosphere, and that it must play the major role in the earth's climate, cooling the earth by day and warming it by night.

The IPCC have cleverly concealed this major role  by its emphasis on radiation. They have also done it by using models which cover up the important difference between day and night, together with a whole array of other absurd assumptions.

Any schoolboy will know that there are four means of transfer of energy:conduction, convection, latent hest and radiation. The first three are all but ignored by the IPCC

But not quite completely. The two "Global Energy Budgets" by Kiehl and Trenberth (1997) and Trenberth, Fasullo and Kiehl (2009), the diagrams from which were attached to Newsletter No 264, mention two items that cool the earth (on average), "Latent Heat"and "Thermals" and they give values of 78 to 90 W/sqm for Latent Heat and 15 to 19 W/msq for the "Thermals" Each of these quantities are admitted to be highly uncertain; indeed the "Thermals" are obtained by difference between other quantities.

It is immediately obvious that these two effects. including their uncertainties and possible :"trends": are overwhelmingly more important than the claimed 0.9W/msq supposed to have resulted from the increases in human induced greenhouse gases since the year 1700

The Latent Heat of water is 2,270kJ/kg  and its evaporation cools the earth. This happens  mainly during the day, Its return as liquid water or snow is probably not much different between day and night, so its cooling effect is mainly by day

"Thermals" refer to the cooling of the earth's surface by convection in the atmosphere. The  surface that is heated by the sun transfers heat by conduction and  since the hot air is lighter it rises and  is replaced by more. The system generates winds and even hurricanes  and tornados with different patterns which form the basis for weather forecasting. As the air mixes with upper layers the atmosphere cools with height which peters out at the tropopause. The heated air radiates its energy, half upwards and half back down.

This happens only when the sun shines, By night, when there is no input from the sun, the surface cools by radiation, but the atmosphere that has been warmed by day transfers some heat back to the surface. It is more effective with wind intensity, so there is a cooler surface on still nights.

This mechanism operates in exactly the same way in a greenhouse. The only difference is that the amount of air available in a greenhouse is much smaller, so it is able to maintain a higher temperature inside than outside. The fact that the air in the greenhouse cools the sun-heated ground by day is not generally appreciated, nor the fact that it keeps the ground warm at night

These mechanisms, which cool the earth and even out night and day temperatures, are little understood and there is very inaccurate knowledge of the actual quantities of heat transferred by either mechanism or how they vary in time and place.. Both of them  are certainly affected by human activity but there are no attempts being made to find out their extent. Every activity we have with water affects its evaporation. Every  activity affects the degree of convection. These are the true "anthropogenic" effects on the climate. The amounts are certainly far greater than the miserable 0.9W/msq which is claimed to have resulted from emissions of carbon dioxide since the year 1700.


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
" .

Thursday, 7 April 2011

Letter to MPCCC - Please explain #2

Letter sent to the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee. (How come two parties and two independents are called Multi-Parties - Please explain? Multi means many...)

Dear Committee Members,

The latest satellite data from University of Alabama, Huntsville and Dr Roy Spencer (LINK) and graph by Anthony Watts (see below)
The global temperature has fallen .653°C (from +0.554 in March 2010 to -0.099 in March 2011) in just one year. That’s a magnitude nearly equivalent to the agreed upon global warming signal agreed upon by the IPCC. It is quite a sharp drop.

I have a generic reply to a previous email (LINK) that did not address any of the questions that I asked. I will ask another question.

Why do you continue to say carbon price when you actually mean a carbon dioxide tax?

In your generic reply, you say: "An initial fixed carbon price will provide businesses with a stable and predictable platform..." Before the last election, the Prime Minister promised that: "There will be no carbon tax..." The opposition also promised no carbon tax. The Prime Minister betrayed the electorate,  Mr Oakeshott and Mr Windsor. If you backed the Labor party for the promises, why did you still back them when they broke those promises?

As you can see from the second graph attached, atmospheric CO2 has been up to twenty times higher than present.

Can you please address my questions.

Geoff Brown
(address and Phone No Supplied)


This last graph shows that CO2, for millions of years, has been above today's levels.

Physician, Heal your opinions

Mike Gray, writing on the American Culture:

Not since Communism’s heyday has a dubious concept so haunted and crippled the intelligentsia. Fears of so-called “global warming” (or whatever cognate term it’s traveling under these days) have now spanned the globe. Worse, they’re determining how policy makers in Africa and the Third World (or whatever the U.N. likes to call those underdeveloped countries) respond to energy development:
To suggest that impoverished nations must worry more about CO2 than about tuberculosis, cholera or malaria is absurd. To tell them their energy options must be limited to expensive, unreliable, insufficient wind and solar power is immoral. To impose anti-hydrocarbon restrictions on poor countries ensures that they will remain poor and diseased, with life expectancies in the low forties.

Bjorn Lomborg has previously made similar points -

However, a group of doctors writing in the British Medical Journal have a different opinion.

Doctors urged to take climate leadership role

The Guardian's Fiona Harvey, environment corresponden. (LINK)

 Doctors must take a leading role in highlighting the dangers of climate change, which will lead to conflict, disease and ill-health, and threatens global security, according to a stark warning from an unusual alliance of physicians and military leaders.

 Think of the billions that have been wasted worldwide on promoting the falsified AGW hypothesis and how much good that money could have done in helping developing nations to improve. The opposite thought is think of how demonising power and fuel can condemn these developing nations to more misery.

H/T Marc Morano's Climate Depot

Carbon Tax – the Magic Horn of Plenty.

Viv Forbes of the Carbon Sense Coalition
(you can link to a print friendly PDF of this newsletter by clicking on title)

We are told that the carbon tax will be "revenue neutral".

Big deal. So was the budget in Soviet Russia – they took 100% of your income and spent it all.

But carbon tax collectors look like spending far more than their income.

Those magicians in Canberra are going to reimburse all "low income" people for the effect of their carbon tax on the cost for electricity and food. And also reduce the petrol excise. And exempt export industries. And pay our share of the UN Cancun Climate giveaway of $100 billion per year. And give subsidies and tax breaks to Green Energy. And purchase carbon credits. And provide $800 million per year to the Climate Research Industry. And pay $5.6 million annually to feed the Tom Foolery Climate Commission. And pay the bills for the wall-to-wall meetings of the Climate Change junkies. And bribe farmers with soil carbon mirages. And pay to set up the Garnaut Carbon Bank. And pay for Garnaut's Independent Carbon Regulator.  And fund the Henry reforms of tax and social security.

We have a modern fiscal miracle –
"Carbon Tax – the Magic Horn of Plenty that never runs dry".

 Next "No Carbon Tax" Rally.

Wednesday, 6 April 2011

Lord Monckton Tour with Joanne Nova and David Evans


The question is:

Does the Science justify the introduction of a carbon tax? 

To answer that question we are organising a visit to Australia by

Lord Christopher Monckton

Lord Monckton is one of the World's great communicators
and is backed by a first-rate
team of Climate Sceptics.

Joanne Nova and Dr David Evans

Jo and David are two of Australia's premier sceptics of global warming.

Jo has a distinguished academic background in science. 

Dr Evans created and set up the carbon accounting models at the Australian Greenhouse Office

We are looking for sponsorship of this tour from citizens, both corporate and individuals, who are interested in a transparent debate on the science and a rational approach to Australia's future well being and prosperity. We believe all fair-minded citizens want a better future without having to sacrifice the progress we have made.

You can deposit funds into the following account:

Westpac Bank - Lord Monckton Tour Account
BANK BSB:  035612
Account:  253068

Ross McKittrick and the Hockey Stick Graph.

Ross McKittrick explains how he and  Stephen McIntyre tried to get the data for the Hockey Stick graph and finally exposed it. Professor Bob Carter calls McKittrick "the Dragon Slayer."

Climate facts Labor overlooked

by Bob Carter, Alan Moran & David Evans

April 3, 2011 From Quadrant on Line

An internal strategy paper has been provided to Labor MPs for use in the promotion of the Government’s proposed new carbon dioxide tax.
The Team of Carter, Moran and Evans offer critiques of the two most substantive parts of that paper, namely “Carbon Price” and “Climate Impact on Australia”. The full text of Labor's propaganda paper is posted (pdf) here...

I have posted a couple of the Labor propaganda items and  the Team's answers as a teaser. For the full article, there is a link in the title above.

2. We want the top 1,000 biggest polluting companies to pay for each tonne of carbon (sic) pollution they produce.
Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, but rather a natural and vital trace gas in Earth’s atmosphere, an environmental benefit without which our planetary ecosystems could not survive. Increasing carbon dioxide makes many plants grow faster and better, and helps to green the planet. If carbon dioxide were to drop to a third of current levels, most plant life on the planet, followed by animal life, would die. ........

4. Australia is the worst per head carbon emitter in the developed world.
This statement is untrue.
According the latest UN Human Development Report, Australia emits 18 tonnes per capita of carbon dioxide. Other countries with high emissions include Luxemburg (24.5 tonnes), the US (19 tonnes), the UAE (32.8 tonnes), Qatar (56.2 tonnes), and Kuwait (31.2 tonnes).   Australia’s emissions are higher than those of many other countries largely because we have cheap coal, little hydro-electric potential, and have banned nuclear power. ...........

Excellent article.

Is CO2 a pollutant?

Dr Ross McKittrick, University of Guelph, Canada:
It's very important to remember that CO2 is not a pollutant,'s a natural part of the atmosphere, it's part of our own respiration and it's plant food.

Piers Corbyn interviewed by RT's Laura Emmett

The people who claim it's (caused by) global warming are either ignorant or wish to mislead the public for political and financial ends.

Sunday, 3 April 2011

Gillard, Gang-Greens and Gullible Unions

Labor powerbroker Joe de Bruyn, a member of the ALP national executive and head of one of Australia's largest unions, the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association, supports The Green/Gillard tax on carbon dioxide. He is quoted in the Sunday Telegraph (link in title) as saying:  "Who understands how the carbon tax works? Do you? I confess I don't."

Perhaps Mr de Bruyn should be asking, on behalf of his members, what effect will the carbon dioxide tax have on employment prospects. I am sure Mr de Bruyn is not a fan of big business. After all his years in the unions, he should realise that Big Business has no loyalty to Australia. If an inhibiting carbon dioxide tax is imposed on them, they will locate off-shore to some of the many countries that do not have a tax based on a falsified hypothesis.

Joe de Bruyn       (photo ABC)
Mr de Bruyn has previously warned the Gillard Government that they are courting ''electoral suicide by promoting the Greens' agenda, including yesterday supporting consultation on gay marriage."

''The government appears to be allowing the Greens to set the agenda in Parliament,'' he told The Age last November. Why then is he supporting the Greens' crazy carbon dioxide tax against the interests of his members and their futures?

Was Mr de Bruyn's Union one of the six unions who financed the rabid GetUp?

I could ask Simon Sheikh the same question. Why are you promoting a tax on carbon dioxide. It will penalise the jobs future of its funding union members. It will raise the cost of living for all Australians. Even if the "science" is trustworthy, and that's a big IF, it will not make the slightest difference in average Global temperatures.

The treasury calculations are saying that, at $30/tonne it will cost each household $863 pa. I believe that the treasury figures are conservative. The treasurer, poor old Wayne (Carbon tax hysterical idea) Swan doesn't trust his own treasury.

Many commentators and academic (Lenore Taylor, Dennis Shanahan, Dr Frank Jotzo ) say that it should be at least $60/tonne. That's double the treasury calculations tax amount.

The Media and Gang-Green

An extract from Andrew Fowler's new book published in The Week-end Australian Magazine has some interesting parallels with our debate. 
DANIEL Ellsberg wasn't a typical dissenter: Harvard-educated, he had served two years in Vietnam as a civilian in the State Department and earlier worked for the Pentagon on nuclear weapons policy. Unable to remain silent about the White House’s belief that the war was “unwinnable”, in 1971 he leaked the Vietnam history, known as the Pentagon Papers, to The New York Times and other US newspapers, defending his actions as upholding the highest principles of the US Constitution.
 Ellsberg was tried under the US Espionage Act and the trial was thrown out of court. Here is the interesting bit: The US Supreme Court ruled that only a free and unrestrained press could effectively expose deception in government. Think about that in relation to Australia and the way the Government has been lying to the people. Unfortunately, our free press seems complicit in the cover-up.
(Daniel Ellsberg) had a system of decision-making called the Ellsberg Paradox named after him. It was a theory that demonstrated how people are naturally risk-averse and prone to making decisions based on a hazard that doesn’t exist.
In Australia, there is no greater example of  people who are naturally risk-averse and prone to making decisions based on a hazard that doesn’t exist. Carbon Dioxide is innocent. Carbon Dioxide is not creating any runaway global warming. The Greens have been scaring people into thinking that carbon is going to send our planet to hell in a hand basket. Today, in Hyde Park,  I was assailed by a young female paramedic who has been taken in by the hoax.  She was all for a carbon tax. She pulled out the line that we sceptics were trying to ruin the future for her young son.

The really unfortunate thing is that, if the Gang-Green get their way, her child's future will be much worse. High unemployment prospects due to employers relocating off-shore, uncertain power supply due to the vagaries of renewable energy, uncertainty as to food supply as the gang-greens chase farmers off the land.

If we only had a free, enquiring, unrestrained press, they would expose the deceptions of the Greens and the Government.