Friday, 29 July 2011

Ice age threat should freeze Global Warming Alarmists.

Subtitle: It's the Sun, Stupid! 

Or The Lack of Sun Spot Activity.

Everyone should rug up. Alarmists and Realists alike.

The Washington Examiner in an opinion piece by Shannon Gossling reports:

Ice age threat should freeze EPA global warming regs

The U.S. National Solar Observatory, the U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory and astrophysicists across the planet report that the nearly all-time low sunspot activity may result in a sustained cooling period on Earth.
The news has sent global warming theory advocates scrambling to discount and explain away the impact on global temperatures. However, the "news" is not really that new.
Many reputable scientists have been warning for decades that we are nearing the end of the 11,500-year average period between ice ages. And the last similar crash in sunspot activity coincided with the so-called "Little Ice Age" in the 1600s that lasted nearly a century.
 Shannon goes on to say that vested interests are continuing to push for "stringent limits on carbon dioxide emissions" despite the fact the evidence continues to grow to show CO2 is innocent.
For example, global warming alarmists admit by their own calculations that reducing carbon emissions among a sample of large U.S. "emitters" to EPA-required levels might reduce the surface temperature by .00071 degree Celsius -- or 70 times lower than what is detectable.
Why bother when the sun is doing its bit to cool  things down.
The forces at work behind the global warming regulatory regime have, at worst, covered up, ignored and manipulated climate evidence to make the case that humans cause global warming and therefore humans should be punished.
At best, the mainstream scientific community is continuing to weigh the climate data as it becomes available. Caught in the flux are millions of Americans suffering under an economic tsunami that is anything but a theory.
See Also JoNova: Global Warming was due to increased Solar activity.

Gillard Green Government Mail-out - Return to sender.

If the polls are  right, only 20% of the people want a tax on the invisible trace gas - plant food carbon dioxide. Julia Gillard announced that she was going to "wear out her shoe leather" pushing the carbon (dioxide) tax that she said that wouldn't be. However, she ran into  much trouble  wearing out her shoe leather and it appears that the minders have locked her away in a back room to avoid further damage.

So the next tranch of the Gillard Green Government's ppropaganda push will be  a mail-out that will cost $4 million of your hard-earned.  Opposition environment spokesman Greg Hunt said the brochures were "destined to be junk mail" and were unlikely to explain related price rises. "Unfortunately the campaign is unlikely to tell Australians that their electricity will go up by 10 per cent in the first year and every year thereafter, and that they will be spending $3.5 billion each year every year on foreign carbon credits," he said.

Here is the suggestion.

Let Canberra know how you feel about the tax
. Mark it junk mail and mark it return to sender. If there is no return address, write RE-address to

Greg Combet
c/- Parliament House
Canberra   2600

If you get more than one in your household, re-address the second to Julia, the third to Wayne Swan, the fourth to Bob Brown etc.

Climate Change Minister Greg Combet defended plans to mail out a brochure explaining the tax and related compensation measures to every household. "We understand that households are keen for factual information about the Government's household assistance package," he said.

They probably are, Greg, however it is unlikely that you will give any in you mail-out. We have seen before how you were so wrong, Greg Combet!

Will you tell them that you are so scared of the threatening rise in sea-level that you bought a beachside house. (Tim Flannery, flawed author also has a waterside property!Al Gore, flawed film-maker has several waterside properties.)

Will you tell them that the tax is on carbon dioxide and not on carbon. (Are you trying to frighten the diamond market?).

Will you tell them that carbon dioxide is essential to all life on our planet?

Will you tell them that we inhale 400ppm of CO2 and exhale 40,000 ppm of CO2?

Will you tell them that the trace gas CO2 makes up less than 0.04% of the atmosphere, that man-made CO2 emissions account for less than 3% of that and that Australia's contribution to total world CO2 emission is around 1% and that you tax superficially is going to reduce that minute amount by 5%?
How much is that, Greg? Will you tell them that?


Carbon cops handed tough new powers

In the old Soviet Union, there were shortages; food shortages, clothing shortages, consumer product shortages.


Ivan: We've been in the queue for two hours now, how much longer must we wait , tovarich?

Yuri: I waited all day yesterday until they closed. I came back this morning.

Ivan: That's the last straw. I am going to the President's palace and shoot him.

A while later, Yuri sees Ivan back in the queue. He calls back to him: Why are you back here?

Ivan: The queue there was LONGER than the queue here.

Not very funny, probably a little tragic, but much Russian humour has that bitter-sweet flavour. I worked under the Soviets. I had a book that was filled with cartoons and jokes such as that one. Word must have spread because one morning the local KGB man Gennadiy stormed into my room, demanded the harmless cartoon book, tore it up and stormed out again.

Not a great problem, I was out a few dollars, but the invasion surprised and terrified me.

Why am I writing this?

Today we read of similar powers given to Julia's Storm Troopers.
A NEW carbon cop will be given sweeping powers to enter company premises, compel individuals to give self-incriminating evidence and copy sensitive records under a carbon tax package that will force about 60,000 businesses to pay 6c a litre extra for fuel.
The tough new powers of the Clean Energy Regulator were included in the fine detail of the carbon tax package released yesterday, which enshrines national emissions cuts of 12 million tonnes of carbon dioxide a year after 2016, if the government of the day rejects targets proposed by its Climate Change Authority.
Beware! Be afraid! The socialist arm of the Gillard Green Government are dragging us closer and closer to a regime so similar to Communism that soon we may not be able to tell the difference.

There are several rallies coming up where people can and should protest the actions of the Green Gillard Government:

  • ELECTION NOW MARCH this Sunday July 31 from Hyde Park
  • ELECTION NOW! RALLY (CATA) 16 August Noon at Parliament House

Details on the No carbon Tax Web-site HERE

New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism

From Forbes Magazine by James M. Taylor
A new study published in a peer-reviewed journal  Remote Sensing co-authored by Dr Roy Spencershows that
Terra Satellite
NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted.
Spencer said in a July 26 University of Alabama press release
HUNTSVILLE, Ala. (July 26, 2011) — Data from NASA’s Terra satellite shows that when the climate warms, Earth’s atmosphere is apparently more efficient at releasing energy to space than models used to forecast climate change have been programmed to “believe.”
The result is climate forecasts that are warming substantially faster than the atmosphere, says Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist in the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville.
And further:
The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show,” Spencer said. “There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans.
Not only does the atmosphere release more energy than previously thought, it starts releasing it earlier in a warming cycle. The models forecast that the climate should continue to absorb solar energy until a warming event peaks. Instead, the satellite data shows the climate system starting to shed energy more than three months before the typical warming event reaches its peak.
At the peak, satellites show energy being lost while climate models show energy still being gained,” Spencer said.
This is the first time scientists have looked at radiative balances during the months before and after these transient temperature peaks.
Applied to long-term climate change, the research might indicate that the climate is less sensitive to warming due to increased carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere than climate modelers have theorized. A major underpinning of global warming theory is that the slight warming caused by enhanced greenhouse gases should change cloud cover in ways that cause additional warming, which would be a positive feedback cycle.
Forbes Magazine reports:
The new findings are extremely important and should dramatically alter the global warming debate.
Scientists on all sides of the global warming debate are in general agreement about how much heat is being directly trapped by human emissions of carbon dioxide (the answer is "not much"). However, the single most important issue in the global warming debate is whether carbon dioxide emissions will indirectly trap far more heat by causing large increases in atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds. Alarmist computer models assume human carbon dioxide emissions indirectly cause substantial increases in atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds (each of which are very effective at trapping heat), but real-world data have long shown that carbon dioxide emissions are not causing as much atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds as the alarmist computer models have predicted.
UPDATE: Dr Spencer has tabulated the reation to his paper HERE

Spencer, R.W.; Braswell, W.D. On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from Variations in Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance. Remote Sens. 2011, 3, 1603-1613.

James M. Taylor is senior fellow for environment policy at The Heartland Institute and managing editor of Environment & Climate News. 

Thursday, 28 July 2011

Czech President Vaclav Klaus, 2011 Australian Tour - Introduction by 2GB's Alan Jones.

Something Fishy about IPCC

Peter Stanford writes in the UK Telegraph:

Can Prof Rajendra Pachauri really survive 'Glaciergate’?

Few areas of science are as bitterly contested as that of man-made climate change. And few, potentially, are as critical to the future of humankind on this planet. Which is why the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), established under United Nations auspices and joint winner (with Al Gore) in 2007 of the Nobel Peace Prize, was set up. This lodestar, a non-partisan, scientifically based body, offers objective guidance to politicians and public alike on the likelihood of disaster in the decades and centuries to come, and what we all might need to do now to mitigate that. 

Sorry, Peter, there are a few errors in that statement. Coming from an Alarmist viewpoint "few, potentially, are as critical to the future of humankind on this planet" might be your opinion, but the global warming realist would say: "few, potentially are as critical to the economic future of the planet."

The projected warming of a few degrees in the next century will be beneficial not harmful.

The IPCC was established to show that CO2 causes runaway warming. Since their beginning they have been trying to show causation but have failed. They insist that all their support papers are peer-reviewed but have been exposed when at least 40% or more are not peer-reviewed. 

John McLean writes:
The charter of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is

"... to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy.".

This make it a high-profile single-focus organization whose existence depends on its own reports. In other words it has a vested interest in promoting claims that would guarantee its funding and justify its continued existence.

This alone would be reason enough to closely examine its procedures and claims but the situation is made worse by the involvement of governments. These governments not only fund the IPCC but apparently accept its claims without question and allocate funding for climate research on the basis of those findings, then repeat the process when the next IPCC Assessment Report draws on the findings of that government-sponsored research to support its hypothesis.
 The Telegraph  continues:

This lodestar, a non-partisan, scientifically based body, offers objective guidance to politicians and public alike on the likelihood of disaster in the decades and centuries to come, and what we all might need to do now to mitigate that. 

Non Partisan? I don't think so. It is an advocacy body with a specific aim og blame, not an intention to find the truth.

Scientifically Based? Well, there are some scientific reports, but the Summary for Policy Makers doesn't even display the supporting scientific documents.

Objective Guidance to Politicians? A Summary for Policy Makers written by and agreed to by Politicians could hardly be called objective.

Disasters? Pure alarmism.

As John McLean writes:
This alone would be reason enough to closely examine its procedures and claims but the situation is made worse by the involvement of governments. These governments not only fund the IPCC but apparently accept its claims without question and allocate funding for climate research on the basis of those findings, then repeat the process when the next IPCC Assessment Report draws on the findings of that government-sponsored research to support its hypothesis.

Shouldn't you also be suspicious of an organization that seeks to imply (or fails to correct false perceptions) that
  • it is impartial when it is clearly not,
  • that its authors and reviewers have no vested interest when most do,
  • that its climate models are accurate when they are not,
  • that all reviewers support the IPCC's fundamental claims when very few explicitly   do so
  • that its authors have a wide range of opinions and experience when many work together or have co-authored papers together
  • that all its authors support the critical claim when many merely reported on observations and far more others had to work from the assumption that the claim was correct?

Read Donna Laframboise's excellent article re Pachauri HERE

Hockey Stick based on a load of crap?

Although the Climate Alarmists have tried to hide the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and/or try to say that it was only a Europe climate event, CO2 science has been collecting Peer-reviewed papers that show that  the MWP existed and indeed was a worldwide climate event. For Australasian events see HERE.

From Hockey Shtick (via C3) we find reports of a new Peer-reviewed study to add to the collection.
A paper published last week in the journal Climate of the Past examines the climate of central China over the past 1800 years using two different types of proxies. The paper finds higher temperatures and precipitation were present during the Medieval Warming Period (960-1100 AD) than at the end of the 20th century. This study also shows both the rate and magnitude of the rise in temperature from the year ~ 700- 880 AD were much greater than over a comparable period including the 20th century.

From Hockey Shtick:
In regards to the infamous Michael Mann and IPCC 'hockey-stick' chart, it was claimed that past climate temperatures could be ascertained by tree ring growth. Subsequently, it was determined that Mann had ignored other important factors in tree ring growth, including: water availability, atmospheric CO2 levels, atmospheric nitrogen levels, parasites, and sunlight.
Now, scientists have discovered a much more important influence than temperatures on tree ring growth: animal (domestic or wild) behavior, especially chewing on the trees. If browsing on the trees has a great impact, then the animals' dung may be another influence that goes unaccounted for.

See also HERE

Communism or Prosperity?

The HeraldSun has an item entitled:
Herald Sun Illustration from the article.

Green agenda has parrallels with excesses of communism

Lord Monckton in his address to the National Press Club likened the Greens Policies to the Communist Manifesto. He said that the Press should do their homework.

 Perhaps they have!

The author, Miranda Devine compares an address by Czech President Vaclav Klaus  with a tirade by Greens senator Christine Milne.


"Twenty years ago we still felt threatened by the remnants of communism. This is really over," Klaus said.

"I feel threatened now, not by global warming -- I don't see any -- (but) by the global warming doctrine, which I consider a new dangerous attempt to control and mastermind my life and our lives, in the name of controlling the climate or temperature."
"They hate us, the humans. They consider us dangerous and sinful creatures who must be controlled by them. I used to live in a similar world called communism. And I know it led to the worst environmental damage the world has ever experienced."
The communists controlled the media. The Soviet's Pravda (meaning Truth) only published Propaganda.

Christine Milne wants to control the Australian Media.

" a Hobart casino, Greens senator Christine Milne was unilaterally announcing, on ABC-TV's Q&A show, that the Government would be conducting an inquiry into the section of the Australian media that she finds "extreme(ly) bias(ed) against action on climate change".Milne's every illiberal pronouncement was greeted with applause by an audience that seemed full of tree huggers, bearded public servants and other recipients of government largesse, about the only growth industry left in Tasmania."

Miranda continues:
The speed at which the arrogance of the Greens has grown since they entered a power-sharing arrangement with the Gillard Government almost a year ago, and the shambolic acquiescence of the Government to their demands, has caught us unawares. It has lulled us into accepting as normal some remarkably illiberal ideas.
For instance, there is the drastic reshaping of the economy by the carbon tax Gillard assured us we would not have, and its six unaccountable new bureaucracies.
There are several rallies coming up where people can and should protest the actions of the Green Gillard Government:
  • ELECTION NOW MARCH this Sunday July 31 from Hyde Park
  • ELECTION NOW! RALLY (CATA) 16 August Noon at Parliament House

Details on the No carbon Tax Web-site HERE

See also: Australian Climate Madness

CFACT's Truth2Power conference busts the radical Green Left's campus monopoly

Radical Greens recently wrapped up a conference in Washington, DC, where 10,000 students gathered to be indoctrinated. They announced their radical intention to reduce carbon dioxide levels to 95% below 1990 levels by 2050. They demanded 100% of our energy be generated by unreliable “renewable” energy sources such as wind, solar and geo-thermal power, and to virtually eliminate America’s proven energy sources like fossil fuels, natural gas, and nuclear energy.  Not much of our economy or way of life would be left if they succeed.

This movement, Power Shift 2011, is truly frightening.

CFACT knows that the best way to counter Barack Obama, Al Gore and Power Shift's radical Green agenda is to offer young Americans a constructive alternative. We will not let this threat on our nation’s campuses go unchallenged. Over 25 years ago, CFACT saw the threat that radical environmentalists posed to individual freedom. CFACT took up the challenge of reaching students about the dangers of the Green movement through the creation of its “Collegians” program in 2001, before others saw the need, and today we are uniquely positioned to debunk radical propaganda with hard facts.

It's easy to lose faith in today's young people, but that would be a tragic error. We work every day with college students who are as bright, hard-working, motivated and as productive as any our nation has produced. Provide our future leaders with all the right  information and they will make smart choices. Abandon them to the liberal propaganda, let them hear only one side, and who can blame them if they fall into the trap?

With your help we will put into action an answer to the radical Green agenda. In just a few days, CFACT kicks off our ambitious Truth2Power Conference. We will fly students to our training seminar in Minnesota where they will be provided the kind of crucial information they need to effectively debunk the propaganda on their campuses. We will give them the training they need to return to their colleges in the fall and guide their fellow students past the snares of radical groups like “Power Shift.” But to make our program a success, we urgently need your help!

Your immediate gift of $25, $50, $100, $500 or more is needed to enable CFACT to train students to understand the issues, build effective organizations, develop messages for the media, and reach out and inform students on their campus. The Truth2Power conference will unite students from all over the United States with speakers from across the globe!

The excitement is palpable. This is coming together quickly. CFACT is right this minute preparing cutting edge technology which will give the Truth2Power Conference a true global reach.

Your immediate donation will permit us to create a video link to Lord Christopher Monckton who has just won a climate debate victory (10-1!) at the Australian Press Club.

Nuclear physicist Kelvin Kemm, the man pioneering pebble bed reactors that can't melt down, will also join via video link from South Africa and show a path to genuine sustainable energy.

In addition, climate scientist Roy Spencer, the man who co-founded NASA's temperature satellite progam, will address the conference from Huntsville, AL. He'll provide the hard science our students need to see the errors in climate modeling and reach a true understanding of how climate science is being misrepresented and abused.

And finally, Marc Morano, founder of CFACT's Climate Depot, will join CFACT co-founder Craig Rucker at the conference to provide a boot camp in activism and effective messaging on campus that few others can equal.

Now more than ever America needs a new generation of leaders. The Truth2Power Conference comes just in time. Together, we can expose radical Green propaganda. Help us educate our student leaders and they'll help others escape the Green trap and reduce it to mere comic relief!

With your help, we will move beyond one-sided Green indoctrination of our students on our college campuses by meeting the propaganda at every turn with solid facts, good sense and creative activism. We can't do it without you. Please make the most generous gift you can today. Together we will fight to ensure a bright future for both people and the environment!


Bill Gilles
National Director
Collegians For a Constructive Tomorrow

P.S. Thank you for standing with us. Please forward this post to your friends so they too can join the fight. Share on facebook with link below.

Wednesday, 27 July 2011

ABC Inaccuracies Continue

Guest Post by Elizebeth Flower

A short time ago my brother Wes (Dr D Weston Allen) agreed to a request from the ABC’s Wendy Carlisle for an interview regarding his recently published book, The Weather Makers Re-examined. 
To his astonishment, during the interview she showed no interest whatsoever in discussing the science of his book or criticisms of Tim Flannery’s book, her sole purpose seemingly being an attempt to discredit Wes with an accusation of fraud over a totally unrelated matter. He successfully foiled her attempt with factual documentation and a threat of legal action.
However, she pinpointed a reference he’d made in his book to scientist Fred Singer. Anyone in possession of the book may check his reference by the index and note that the only reason for his mention of Fred Singer was to highlight Tim Flannery’s false assertion that he (Singer) belonged to a strange church.
During her Background Briefing report (on July 17) re Lord Monckton and the Galileo Movement, however, Ms Carlisle went to considerable pains to seek to denigrate Fred Singer and to imply that Wes in his book had relied on him for scientific evidence. I find it hard to view this as other than a shabby attempt to use her interview with Wes to further discredit The Galileo Movement and Lord Monckton.
Further, on Background Briefing, Ms Carlisle erroneously criticised Lord Monckton’s claims re the IPCC’s sea level rise projections, also obviously in an attempt to discredit. Wes sent her an email exposing her error, to which she finally responded but failed to admit her mistake or offer to correct it.

The copy Wes sent to Media Watch received a prompt reply thanking him, but to date there has been no further response. Wes comments: ‘Media Watch seems keener to look over the fence than to look into their own back yard.’
Are we not right to assume that such derogatory inaccuracies should not be permitted in ABC reporting and that Ms Carlisle should be compelled to publicly retract her statements or be censured? Or does Wendy Carlisle epitomise ABC bias!?
Below is a copy of the email Wes sent to Ms Carlisle:

From: David Weston Allen  
Sent: Thursday, 21 July 2011 8:55 AM
To: 'Wendy Carlisle'
Cc: ''
Subject: Background Briefing Error on Sea Level and Monckton

Dear Ms Carlisle

On Background Briefing, you claimed that both Christopher Monckton and Al Gore were wrong on the IPCC’s projected sea level rise for this century, that Gore’s 6m and Monckton’s 6cm were exaggerations, and that the actual IPCC figure was 20 to 50cm.  But you misrepresented Monckton, who was specifically referring to sea level rise due to melting Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets.  I hope this critical error was accidental and not deliberate.

As you can see from the attached extracts from the IPCC AR4 (2007) scientific report, these ice sheets contribute only a fraction of total sea level rise, both observed and projected.  The observed combined contribution from these ice sheets (1993-2003) was only 0.42mm/yr, which equates to just 4.2cm/century; and the IPCC’s projected contribution for this century is actually 6-13cm, depending on the particular warming scenario selected.  

So Monckton was correct, far more than you were, and you owe him an apology.  If you really are interested in upholding truth and real science, rather than pushing the alarmist barrow (‘the science’) and suppressing opposition, you will also publicly correct your misleading statement.  If you want to see how complex and uncertain the science on sea level really is, you should read the entire Chapter 5 of the IPCC AR4, or chapter 15 of my book, which is more up to date.  I would happily email it to you.
. . . . .
Thank you for fairly presenting my interview and for including the further comments I made in relation to Fred Singer and his climate research, which must stand or fall on its own merits.  As you know, I mention Singer in my book (The Weather Makers Re-examined) only because Tim Flannery attempts to discredit him by falsely accusing him of belonging to Sun Myung Moon’s Unification church.  You likewise attempt to discredit his climate research by interviewing Naomi Oreskes (co-author of Merchants of Doubt) who referred to his stance on tobacco, acid rain and the ozone hole.  Naomi cannot surely believe all the exaggerated hype over acid rain during the 1980s!  Without a sceptical scientists questioning hype, we are in grave danger of falling into Lysenkoism.

I think you made yet another error when you said that Fred Singer verbally attacked Ben Singer.  Did you mean Ben Santer?  He was not beyond thuggery himself.  In an email to Phil Jones ( ) Ben said: “I’m really sorry that you have to go through all this stuff, Phill.  Next time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat the crap out of him. Very tempted.”

If the ABC relentlessly pursues the path of painting alarmist scientists white and sceptical scientists black, it will lose credibility with the public and sow the seeds of self-destruction.  We need neither alarmism nor denialism but realism.

Yours sincerely

Wes Allen 
Editor's Note
Further on Ms Carlisle's Accuracy in reporting see:-

Turnbull runs from Monckton debate challenge

Letter to the Editor  by 
The Climate Sceptic President Leon Ashby

Dear Sir / Madam,

Last Friday, the Trumpeter Turnbull announced the science of climate change was robust; saying Lord Monckton of Brenchley should be exposed as wrong.

Lord Monckton of Brenchley countered with a "duel of the jaw " on TV  to which the Trumpeter Turnbull appears to have gone weak at the knees and turned into Turnbull the Timid and retreated to his cave.

I believe Turnbull the Timid should check  the Scrolls of Climate Scientists to find one which shows a 5 degree warming for a doubling of CO2 in the next century before he ventures out.

If he cannot find one, then he should renounce his belief in the false Prophets (profits) of the Goblins of Greens - who want all to give service and taxes to their Gaia God while continually  claiming we will become rich while precisely at the same time doomsday will occur (despite no doom ever coming to pass as predicted from their boastful mutterings)

Turnbull the Timid should also check the "cause of commonsense" that Monckton of Brenchley espouses which shows the plans of both Ju-Liar the Great and the Abbott of Warringah are futile even according to the science of the Scrolls of the IPCC (to which they both claim allegiance).

These Scrolls show a 5% reduction in CO2 will only reduce Global temperatures by 0.00007 degrees (the equivalent influence of a fleas fart)

Turnbull the Timid, Ju-Liar the Great and the Abbott of Warringah all appear bound by the evil spells of the Green Goblins.

Will any of them resist and restore the Kingdom of OZ?

Leon Ashby
President -The ClimateSceptics

Tuesday, 26 July 2011

State Taxes Must rise due to Carbon Dioxide Tax

In a recent post, the CEO of MacGen Russell Skelton warned that NSW state taxes would have to rise when the carbon dioxide tax takes affect.
If MacGen survives, your power bill will be greatly affected. Whether MacGen survives or not, your state taxes will have to increase. Last year MacGen returned $200 million to NSW state coffers.
Today, The Australian reports
Queensland Resources Council chief executive , Michael Roche said taxpayers could be forced to compensate the $1.7 billion asset writedown in state-owned coal-fired power generators.
He queried why the Bligh government had not highlighted an estimated $1bn in lost coal royalties between 2012 and 2021. "I would have thought the Queensland government would see the risk for their single largest source of revenue outside of grants from the federal government," he said.
From the same report:
Queensland Farmers Federation chief executive Dan Galligan said the extra costs would put more pressure on farm profits, and called for industry-specific economic modelling.
"The analysis is too broad to give us a clear understanding of how many farmers this will affect to a point where they may well leave the industry," he said. "That may well happen for many farmers -- that loss in profit margins, associated with a number of other issues, will be enough reason for them to leave the farm."

State taxes added to a tax on an invisible trace gas.........Watch out for a bumpy ride.

Diagnosing the Left.

Recently, on this blog, we have pointed out how Marxists have penetrated the Green Movement and the  left wing of the labor party.

Lord Monckton at Press Club debate;
Monckton tells journalists to do their homework; to compare the Communist Manifesto with the Australian Greens Policies. 
Reds under the Bed?
Former Hawke Government Environment Minister Barry Cohen: "The trouble is that, with the collapse of Communism, the left wing of the Labor party, they've infiltrated the Greens and now to a great degree control it."
Greens Influence Grows;
Corruption of the IPCC
In (Greenpeace Founder Patrick) Moore’s words they have become far more extreme and whose politics is little more than neo-Marxism in green garb.
Maurice Strong on AGW;
John Izzard says that Strong devised a plan to get his World Governance plan up and running
IPCC and Greenpeace - Partners in Deception
The report was partially based on a Greenpeace report and the author of the Greenpeace document was also a lead author of the IPCC report.
Tim: They're trampling on the Truth
When Maurice Strong set up the IPCC the first thing they did was set the definition of climate change that we will look at are only they changes caused by human activity.
Beware. The communists controlled the media. Their newspaper "Pravda" had a title that means "Truth."

In fact, it was far from it, only publishing propaganda.
tovarishch christine milne

Last night, a little more of the Greens' red underbelly was displayed when Christine Milne, on QandA, mentioned her intention to follow the Communist Manifesto and control the Australian Media.  If she wanted to attack bias in the media, the first place she should go is QandA, probably the most biased program on the biased ABC.

Curiously, on their website, QandA is subtitled "Adventures in Democracy."

On FrontPageMag, David Solway has done an analysis of the Greens.
It should be clear by this time that there is no medium of intellectual exchange with the left, that facts do not matter, that logic is helpless to convince or to prompt even the slightest reconsideration, and that practically every counter-argument can be turned on its head and interpreted as confirmation of the original idée fixe
David says that we should examine the "three button issues of the current historical moment."

His second issue is Universal Health care which he describes as "an unmitigated disaster." In Australia when everyone that could, took out health insurance and the needy were covered by the state, there were no big bureaurocracies and no long queues for surgery.

The third "is the left’s propaganda offensive against the Jewish state along the entire continuum from the religious to the secular..." When don't have to go past Newly elected NSW anti-Israel senator Lee Rhiannon for a local example.

However it is his first that attracted my attention.
Evidence is piling up to suggest that the human contribution to global warming—assuming it exists—is far less than originally assumed and that a meteorological calamity is highly unlikely. Fully two-thirds of the scientists attending the 33rd International Geological Congress in Norway in August 2008 were hostile to, even contemptuous of, the UN’s IPCC reports on global climate catastrophe, which had been shown to be fatally compromised by glaring errors, false predictions and spurious sources. The science is not only not “settled” but demonstrably fraudulent, whether we are considering Michael Mann’s now infamous “hockey stick” graph and tree-ring manipulations, Al Gore ’s exploded theories, the Hadley email dump, IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri ’s melting Himalayas (and other absurdities since discredited), the hopelessly astray IPCC computer models, the deliberate and methodical suppression of findings that indicate the planet has been cooling since at least 2002 and probably several years before that, James Hansen’s underwater New York, the Goddard Institute’s specious data—we can exceterize indefinitely.

He quotes professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London - Philip Stott. Global Warming has "become the grand political narrative of the age, replacing Marxism as a dominant force for controlling liberty and human choices."

Tom Harris on Energy and Climate Change

Tom Harris, of the International Climate Science Coalition talks of the Oil sands subsidy and "Green Energy" subsidies.

".....The Subsidies to "Green" energy as they call it -  and it's a bit if a misnomer when you think about it because cutting down all the trees.... to put up wind turbines to kill birds and produce a little bit of energy is hardly what you'd call "Green...."
 Subsidised "Green" or "Renewable" energy sources must drive up everybody's power costs, drive up manufactoring costs, drive up retailers costs and drive up  cost of living across the board.

".....McGinty has guaranteed 20 years of subsidies for wind power at three times the market rate and solar power  at ten times the market rate...."

"....It's a free market. If people want to pay more if they believe for example that we can stop climate change by our energy choices, then fine, they can pay for it but the idea that they use tax money for this is an enormous mistake."

For the International Climate Science Coalition go to: .

Loehle and Scafetta calculate 0.66°C/century for AGW

As reported on Anthony Watts' best science blog WUWT (linked in title):

Human Effect on Climate Clearly Detected
(but is 0.66 deg C/100yr since ~1950!)
Loehle, C. and N. Scafetta. 2011. Climate Change Attribution Using Empirical Decomposition of Historical Time Series. Open Atmospheric Science Journal 5:74-86.

The study is available via free open access at (links to full paper and supplemental information, both PDF, follow at the end of this post)



4) Warming due to anthropogenic GHG+Aerosol of 0.66 oC/Century is not alarming, in comparison to the IPCC protected 2.3 oC/Century This 0.66 value is an upper bound in our estimation (due to possible poorly corrected UHI and LULC effects that may explain part of the observed warming trend since 1950).
5) Cooling/flat temperatures till 2030 are likely (as also predicted by others).
6) Our result matches the historical record better than any other attribution study and better than GCM outputs.



Loehle & Scafetta 2011 (full paper PDF)
Loehle & Scafetta Supplemental Info (PDF)

Monday, 25 July 2011

Tim Ross, Prue McSween and loonies.

Tim Ross keeps repeating the flawed 97% of Climate scientists. I wonder if Tim knows that the 97% was from an on-line poll where 79 scientist participated and 77 agreed with the falsified hypothesis the CO2 was leading to dangerous global warming.  See Hockey Shtick.

Have you looked here, Tim?

A little levity from the Carbon Sense Coalition

Viv Forbes
The Carbon Sense Coalition

For more information visit our web site at
Literary, financial or other contributions to help our cause are welcomed.

Chairman Viv Forbes MS 23, Rosewood   Qld   4340   Australia.

Plan to Kill the Australian Economy

The Five Point Plan
to kill the Australian economy
with High Cost Electricity

Viv Forbes' Carbon Sense Newsletter

25 July 2011

A print-ready copy of this issue of "Carbon Sense" can be downloaded from:

Burning Wind Turbine creating Warming
Pretend you were determined to embark on a crash program to increase the price of electricity in order to deter consumers and businesses from using it. Here is a five point plan for achieving that sort of destruction:

First, pay millions in compensation to force closure of reliable coal fired power stations producing cheap electricity.

Second, spend millions more in subsidies to bribe promoters to erect forests of imported wind turbines that produce no electricity for 75% of the time. Then pay again to have them switched off when the wind is too strong or if they produce more power than the network needs at that time.

Third, spend more millions to build a spider web of roads and transmission lines to connect every single turbine to the national grid. These costly facilities are only used for 25% of the time.

Fourth, spend yet more millions to build new gas fired backup generators to keep the lights on when the wind stops. Then pay again to switch off the gas any time the wind happens to blow at the right speed for the turbines.

Finally, force any remaining coal or gas power stations to buy carbon ration permits from merchant banks.

Climate will still change no matter how many wind temples we build to the Global Warming god.

When we have pauperised ourselves by wasting our savings to inflict unreliable high cost electricity on our industries and our people, we will have no resources left to cope with the inevitable natural disasters that will still occur.

This five point plan is what passes for rational energy policy from the Green/Labor Coalition now in control of the Australian Parliament.

Plain Talk on the Carbon Tax

Not content with their free publicists in the ABC, the government has now hired the commercial airwaves to try to sell another lemon – their Carbon Tax. Here is the antidote for their poisonous propaganda. Please spread it around:

Authorised by Viv Forbes
The Carbon Sense Coalition

Please spread “Carbon Sense” around.
For more information visit our web site at
Literary, financial or other contributions to help our cause are welcomed.

Chairman Viv Forbes MS 23, Rosewood   Qld   4340   Australia.

Sunday, 24 July 2011

Reds under the Bed or consuming the Greens?

Green Monster
When Lord Monckton this week at the Press Club said that the Communists had taken over the Greenpeace organisation, the scoffs of journalists resounded in the room. He then advised them to look at the Communist Manifesto and compare it with the Australian Greens Party Policies.

I wonder how many have done their homework.

Today, one of Labor's finest and a former Minister for the Environment Barry Cohen said something similar.

"The Greens dismay me quite a lot. I've had a lot of dealings with them.They're not the same as they were when I was Minister."

He said back then there were more people in the Greens that were genuinely concerned about the environment.

"The trouble is that, with the collapse of Communism, the left wing of the Labor party, they've infiltrated the Greens and now to a great degree control it."

I wonder if the Canberra Press Gang are still scoffing or are starting a rethink. I am sure that they will all be at Tuesday's National Press Club luncheon when visiting Head of State Vaclav Klaus - the Czech President -  talks of Communism.

Self destructive tendencies in Germany

Guest Post by Gordon Fulks Ph.D
Originally Published in the Oregonian
Angela Merkel

-"Quem deus vult perere, dementat prius -- Whom the gods would destroy, they first make insane"

Germany's precipitous decision to shutdown eight nuclear power plants last March and the remainder by 2022 is curious coming from a German Chancellor with a PhD in physics. Under pressure from Greens who exploit scientific illiteracy and promote fears they find useful, Chancellor Angela Merkel has become a pure politician. Nuclear power evokes many fears in Germany. As in the English- speaking world, irrational perceptions about technical matters from nuclear energy to alternate energy to global warming transcend all reason.

The German political situation started to meltdown after the most powerful earthquake and tsunami in modern times struck Japan in March. 15,000 people lost their lives, and the Japanese nuclear power installation at Fukushima made ominous headlines for weeks. With reports of radiation leaking from three reactors and large evacuations of the local population, European Energy Commissioner Gunter Oettinger of Germany declared the nuclear incident to be an “apocalypse.” Three reactors out of eleven in the Fukushima area were completely destroyed, resulting in large economic losses and a long complex cleanup. But the widespread devastation elsewhere was the real tragedy.

Of the huge death toll, not a single death was attributed to nuclear radiation. Two workers at Fukushima died from drowning and one from a heart attack. Although two other workers received non-life threatening radiation burns from standing in highly radioactive water, no one died from radiation sickness. The large amount of dangerous iodine-131 initially released has largely decayed away.

German Nuclear Power Plant - ret.
Long term effects attributable to radiation exposure should be minimal, even among those workers who received the largest doses as long as established procedures to limit total exposure were followed. In the far worse Soviet Chernobyl accident in1986 where the reactor burned and workers were unprotected, 57 died from direct effects and 500 in the local population from telltale thyroid cancer. But the vast majority of the population escaped unharmed.

The rational response to major industrial accidents is to carefully understand what went wrong and make improvements to existing procedures and infrastructure to minimize the chance of a recurrence. Because Germany uses far better reactor designs than the Soviets had and experiences few giant earthquakes and tsunamis like the Japanese, these disasters are not particularly pertinent to them.
Moving toward more wind and solar power was the politically expedient decision for Chancellor Merkel, but it has huge practical and environmental drawbacks. Because windmills and solar arrays produce very erratic electricity, backup from new turbine power plants burning natural gas is necessary. Leaving conventional steam plants running as 'spinning reserve' is hugely wasteful.
That raises the inconvenient question: why not just build advanced and highly efficient gas turbines and forget about expensive alternate energy? Wind and solar installations typically fail in 20 years, just as they have paid back the energy and cost of their construction. In other words, they produce little net energy, making them very inefficient. Their erratic nature also means that they reduce the reliability of the grid.

Germans are likely to get the additional natural gas they will need from their present supplier, Russia. Why? Because Germany also has a phobia about the shale-gas revolution that is sweeping the rest of the world. Germany has meager gas reserves, but friendly neighbors like France and Poland now have huge reserves.

If Germans want to avoid shipping the remainder of their industry to China and shivering in the dark when the sun is not shining and the wind is not blowing, they will have to choose between viable sources of electricity: nuclear, natural gas, and coal. The smart move for Chancellor Merkel would be to get full value out of Germany's existing nuclear power plants during their design life and then consider environmentally friendly gas turbine replacements.

Although nuclear power has many advantages and new reactor designs coming from places like Oregon State University show great promise, natural gas appears to be the most competitive solution for advanced industrialized societies needing clean reliable power in coming decades.

Is Germany still capable of making rational decisions? Very recent news suggests that they may restart one nuclear reactor to avoid power shortages this coming winter. They are also talking about using millions of euros from a fund for promoting alternate energy to encourage new coal and natural gas power plants. These are steps back from the abyss.

Gordon J. Fulks, Ph.D. lives in Corbett, Oregon and can be reached at He holds a doctorate in physics from the University of Chicago, Laboratory for Astrophysics and Space Research.

See also:

No Carbon Tax/Election Now March

The No Carbon Tax Coalition will hold a a No Carbon Tax/Election Now march in Sydney on Sunday, 31 July 2011 at 12 noon.

Marchers will assemble at Hyde Park North, near the Archibald Fountain, and at 12:30pm, march down Elizabeth Street to Belmore Park.  

People are encouraged to bring signs, banners, loud voices,  loud hailers and Australian flags and send a message to Canberra that the majority of Australians want a new election and for Julia Gillard to ditch the carbon tax. 

This is Sydney's chance to voice opposition for the carbon tax and call for a new election.  People are encouraged to bring friends and family - especially those who have never attended a march or a rally. 

It will also be a lead into the big one:  the No Carbon Tax/Election Now! Rally in Canberra, organised by Jacques Laxale and the team from CATA, for Tuesday, 16 August, 2011.

Details and bus information can be found on the CATA website
Follow us on Twitter at @noc02taxwebsite or the No Carbon Tax website

Saturday, 23 July 2011

CERN 'gags' Physicists

As reported in these pages - The Next Climate Debate Bombshell - "CERN in Geneva - will soon announce that more cosmic rays do, indeed, create more clouds in earth's atmosphere. More cosmic rays mean a cooler planet."

NASA Image
Now The Register reports:

CERN 'gags' physicists in cosmic ray climate experiment

What do these results mean? Not allowed to tell you
By Andrew Orlowski
The chief of the world's leading physics lab at CERN in Geneva has prohibited scientists from drawing conclusions from a major experiment. The CLOUD ("Cosmics Leaving Outdoor Droplets") experiment examines the role that energetic particles from deep space play in cloud formation. CLOUD uses CERN's proton synchrotron to examine nucleation.
CERN Director General Rolf-Dieter Heuer told Welt Online that the scientists should refrain from drawing conclusions from the latest experiment.
"I have asked the colleagues to present the results clearly, but not to interpret them," reports veteran science editor Nigel Calder on his blog. Why?
Because, Heuer says, "That would go immediately into the highly political arena of the climate change debate. One has to make clear that cosmic radiation is only one of many parameters."

Previously Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark  demonstrated that cosmic rays provide a seed for clouds and cloud cover changes could account for several degrees of temperature changes.

Read more HERE 

Coral Reefs are "Climate-Change" Proof

How often have you heard that due to Anthropogenic (man-made) Global Warming, the Great Barrier reef is in danger.

Recently Julia Gillard told Fairfax Radio:
"Our great tourist assets are highly sensitive to climate change, the Great Barrier Reef to take one example. That's a wonderful natural asset for our country but it also supports around 60,000 jobs in the tourism industry."
In a media Release from Greg Combet:
"The Australian Government is committed to protecting the fragile eco-system of the Great Barrier Reef from the impacts of climate change and safeguarding the livelihoods of the industries and communities that depend on it," Mr Combet said.
Prominent reef scientist Ove Hoegh-Guldberg said in April the reef would die unless carbon emissions were dramatically cut within the next decade.

Now the Gillard Green Government can forget their worries (or is it their scare tactics) about the Great Barrier Reef. A new paper has been published:

Bauman, A.G., Baird, A.H. and Cavalcante, G.H. 2011. Coral reproduction in the world's warmest reefs: southern Persian Gulf (Dubai, United Arab Emirates). Coral Reefs 30: 405-413. 

What was learned
The three researchers report that the reproductive biology of the six coral species in the southern Persian Gulf "appears to be well adapted to extreme annual environmental fluctuations" and is "remarkably similar to conspecifics elsewhere in the Indo-Pacific (Baird et al., 2009a,b)," adding that "the adaptive capacity of corals in the Persian Gulf is likely facilitated by a combination of short-term acclimation in individuals during acute environmental conditions (e.g., recurrent bleaching events) and long-term adaptation among coral populations to chronic environmental conditions (e.g., extreme temperatures)."

What it means
In concluding their analysis of their data, Bauman et al. say their work "confirms that corals are capable of reproductive activities under extreme environmental conditions," as has also been found to be the case by Coles and Fadlallah (1991) and Coles and Brown (2003). Hence, they state that "coral populations can survive and proliferate in extreme conditions that are projected to occur in many other regions of the world by the end of this century," buttressing their claim with the statement that "the recovery of these coral assemblages following mortality induced by a number of recent temperature-related bleaching events (1996, 1998 and 2002) suggests these assemblages are also resilient to extreme fluctuations in water temperature," additionally citing in this regard the work of Riegl (1999, 2003) and Burt et al. (2008).