Monday, 31 October 2011

B.E.S.T has 'No Scientific Basis for Claim' at Best - Global warming has stopped!

Prof Judith Curry - Image WUWT
A leading member of Professor Muller's Berkeley Earth Surface temperature (BEST) accused him "of  trying to mislead the public by hiding the fact that BEST’s research shows global warming has stopped."

The Mail Online reports
Prof Judith Curry, who chairs the Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at America’s prestigious Georgia Institute of Technology, said that Prof Muller’s claim that he has proven global warming sceptics wrong was also a ‘huge mistake’, with no  scientific basis.
Prof Curry is a distinguished climate researcher with more than 30 years experience and the second named co-author of the BEST project’s four research papers.
Her comments, in an exclusive interview with The Mail on Sunday, seem certain to ignite a furious academic row. She said this affair had to be compared to the notorious ‘Climategate’ scandal two years ago.
Professor Curry accuses her team leader of trying to "Hide the Decline."
In fact, Prof Curry said, the project’s research data show there has been no increase in world temperatures since the end of the Nineties – a fact confirmed by a new analysis that The Mail on Sunday has obtained.
There is no scientific basis for saying that warming hasn’t stopped,’ she said. ‘To say that there is detracts from the credibility of the data, which is very unfortunate.’
Graph by GWPF

But a report to be published today by the Global Warming Policy Foundation  (HERE) includes a graph of world average temperatures over the past ten years, drawn from the BEST project’s data and revealed on its website.
This graph shows that the trend of the last decade is absolutely flat, with no increase at all – though the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have carried on rising relentlessly.

Professor Muller made the false claim in the Wall Street Journal that his study showed that the end of global warming scepticism. This was picked up by the Alarmist press: 

  • The Guardian - "The World is warming and sceptics are wrong."
  • BBC News - "Global Warming 'confirmed' by independent study."
  • The Independent - "Ex-climate sceptic now backs global warming."
  • ABC News - "Sceptic finds he now agrees global warming is real"
  • Sydney Morning Herald - "Sceptic now agrees global warming is real"
(Many more here)

Although he wrote the article for the Wall Street Journal, Prof Muller when questioned seemed to be straddling the fence:

Yesterday Prof Muller insisted that neither his claims that there has not been a standstill, nor the graph, were misleading because the project had made its raw data available on its  website, enabling others to draw their own graphs.
However, he admitted it was true that the BEST data suggested that world temperatures have not risen for about 13 years. But in his view, this might not be ‘statistically significant’,  although, he added, it was equally  possible that it was – a statement which left other scientists mystified.
Continuing Prof Curry's interview with the UK Mail:
Of course this isn’t the end of scepticism,’ she said. ‘To say that is the biggest mistake he [Prof Muller] has made. When I saw he was saying that I just thought, “Oh my God”.’
In fact, she added, in the wake of the unexpected global warming standstill, many climate scientists who had previously rejected sceptics’ arguments were now taking them much more seriously.

Climate Science Corrupted

After reading Donna Laframboise's The Delinquent Teenager (See HERE) an exposure of the irretrievably compromised Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), This Climate Sceptic (TCS) was drawn back to some of the earlier writings of John McLean and, particularly to the SPPI report, Climate Science Corrupted from November 2009.

John writes of the history of the formation of the IPCC:
The other key factor for the IPCC was the adoption of the UNEP's methods of coercing governments and the general public. Those methods included (a) the use of the environmentalists' catch-all the "precautionary principle", (b) a penchant for creating models based on partially complete scientific understanding and then citing the output of those models as evidence, (c) the politicisation of science through the implied claim that consensus determines scientific truth, (d) the use of strong personalities and people of influence, and (e) the manipulation of the media and public opinion. Directly and indirectly these methods greatly influenced political parties whether they held government or not.
John writes that "It is long overdue that the IPCC was called for what it is - a political body driven not by the evidence that it pretends exists but by the beliefs and philosophies of the UNEP , the IPCC's sponsor,  and by the initial holders of the key IPCC positions.

Saturday, 29 October 2011


By Vincent Gray.


The currently accepted Global Radiation Budget of Trenberth, Fasulla and Kiehl is as follows

You may note that of the 341W/msq of energy from the sun, only 161 W/msq is absorbed by the earth's surface, yet there is 333W/msq of "Back Radiation", all of which is also absorbed by the earth's surface. This "back radiation" is therefore the main cause for the temperature of the earth's surface.

However, some of this  "back radiation" arises from absorption of the sun's radiation by the whole atmosphere.  To the 76W/msq listed, you must add "Thermals" of 17 and "Latent Heat" of 80W/msq to give emissions from the atmosphere of 169 W/msq from heated atmosphere, which therefore    contributes 169W/sqm to the "back radiation".  So there is additional "back radiation" of 264W/msq of radiation which comes from somewhere else. According to the currently accepted theory, this radiation comes from the absorption of the earth's radiation by "greenhouse gases" in the atmosphere. .

The diagram is confusing, because by taking from the earth's radiation of 396W/msq the amount of 40W/msq claimed to penetrate the "Atmospheric Window" it gives the impression that the rest, the 356W/msq is absorbed by greenhouse gases when this is wrong. It ought to separate that part of the "back radiation" which is attributed to absorption form greenhouse gases from that which arises from other forms of heating of the atmosphere. There is no mention of "back radiation" from clouds.

Although the authors admit to many uncertainties in these figures, no estimates are given of their size, and much anguish ( for example, by Trenberth and Hansen) has been expressed at their net positive figure of 9W/sqm which suggests that the earth is steadily warming without additional greenhouse gases. This amount is way below the likely accumulated inaccuracies.

There are many who have worried that "back radiation" has such a large  role in warming the earth. Some have been tempted to deny the validity of such established laws of physics as the Stefan/Boltzmann and Planck radiation equations, and even try to argue that the Second  Law of Thermodynamics forbids the very existence of
"back radiation" despite the fact that the system is not thermally isolated and is never in equilibrium.

Some seem to have realised that there are aspects of this model that lack plausibility, but few are prepared to argue that it is basically incorrect.

The basic error is in the "Greenhouse" concept. A greenhouse is a piece of equipment whose primary task is to protect its contents from the outside climate.

The fundamental properties of this climate are the accumulated knowledge built up by meteorologists over 200 years, which are presented to us daily with weather forecasts. We should realise that this accumulated research has shown that the factors influencing  the earth's climate are:
  • Changes in the earth's axis the differences between day and night and the seasons
  • Changes in the Sun, cosmic rays
  • Changes in the cooling of the surface by convection, enhanced by turbulence, by day, with nighttime differences which include some warming.
  • Movement of the atmosphere and wind direction, cyclones and anticyclones, hurricanes, tornados.
  • Changes in air pressure, depressions and calms.
  • Evaporation and deposition of water in its various  forms, clouds, deposition of dew and frost at night
  • Ocean movements, El Niño and oscillations
Some of these influences are currently unpredictable and the rest are bedeviled by ignorance of the factors influencing the behaviour of fluids. This "Chaos" means that future forecasting is limited, but is still a vital part of all our lives.

The "Greenhouse" model abolishes most of this information, which is the substance of traditional meteorology, apart from. the residual existence of "Thermals" and "Latent Heat" so they can claim to have abolished "chaos" to the extent of "projecting" climate for 100 years or more. In the process they have downplayed important heat transfer mechanisms  from the climate with the exception of radiation, which now dominates and can be used to claim that absorption of heat by the minor greenhouse gases is entirely responsible for the behaviour of the climate.

The "Greenhouse" model  above assumes-
  • The Earth is Flat, The curvature in the diagram is misleading because none of the parameters vary over time.
  • The Sun shines with equal intensity, both day and night
  • Energy entering equals energy leaving, when it is always "unbalanced
  • Listed quantities are treated as constants and inaccuracies are not provided.

All of these assumptions are absurd, and it is not surprising that they have completely failed both to simulate past climate, or to forecast future climate..

In addition to greenhouse absorption, the following important energy changes also take place:

By day, when the sun shines, the earth is heated. The atmosphere is then heated by conduction and the heated air rises. The heat is distributed by turbulence in the form of a complex system of cyclones, anticyclones, Hadley cells, hurricanes and tornados. The heat travels slowly to the top of the atmosphere, lowering its temperature by mixing with cooler air the higher it gets.

Each layer emits radiation, both up and down ("back radiation"). Because its energy is dependent on the fourth power of the absolute temperature, most of the "back radiation" comes from the lower layers. .

Also, by day, the heated earth evaporates water, from the soil, from the ocean, from lakes. The water vapour joins the mixing process and when it reaches the upper, cooler regions of the atmosphere, it condenses back to liquid water or snow in the form of clouds. These clouds restore its latent heat, so they raise the local temperature and the upwards and downwards emission.  They also provide additional "back radiation". Wind changes can restore clouds to warmer regions where they provide precipitation as rain or show which cools the earth below.

The heated earth radiates and some of this radiation may be absorbed by greenhouse gases, particularly water vapour. This adds to the "back radiation". This is a graph of the longwave radiation at the Top of the Atmosphere.

Absorption by "greenhouse gases exists, as is shown by the spectrum at the top of the atmosphere, but the presence of other methods of heat transfer to the atmosphere have been downplayed or ignored.

The situation is immensely variable with time of day,  latitude, the local topography, the seasons and the extent of absorption of all radiation by clouds or aerosols.At any one time the energy is striving towards a different equilibrium situation it can never reach.

By night, several factors are different, because of the absence of the sun for an extended period, yet no separate Top of the Atmosphere spectra has been published . The earth cools by radiation, but less so by convection, which slowly ceases. Previously warmed air can then warm a cooled surface so the convection is reversed.. Previously damp air can deposit in the ocean, or dew and frost on land. "Back radiation" from clouds also warms as Roy Spencer recently found.

"Back Radiation" should be seen as the result of approximately half of  the heat transferred to the atmosphere by convection and absorption being returned back to where it came from.


Vincent Gray

To kill an error is as good a service as, and sometimes better than, the establishing of a new truth or fact" 
 Charles Darwin

Friday, 28 October 2011

Hark! We need a new Ark - Cardinal George Pell

Where did Noah keep the Bees?
In the Ark Hives.
CATHOLIC Archbishop of Sydney George Pell  in an address to the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) began by thanking the GWPF for the invitation AND "the existence of the Foundation and its sane and important contributions in this debate."

In the Book of Genesis we read that God “regretted having made human-beings”, such was their wickedness and anarchy and decided to send an immense flood “to destroy them and the earth”.
However God chose Noah “an upright man” to build an ark and enter it with his wife and family and two animals of every kind. The ark survived the flood and Noah was commanded “to breed, multiply and fill the earth”, reassured by God’s promise that “never again shall all living things be destroyed by the waters of a flood”.
On the deceptive use of the term "carbon," Cardinal Pell says:
Another more spectacular example of this successful spin is the debate on “carbon footprints”, on the advisability or not of a “carbon tax”. We all know that it is the role of carbon dioxide in climate change which is in question, not the role of carbon, but we continue to talk about carbon. The public discussion is almost entirely conducted in terms of “carbon footprints” and a “carbon tax”, provoking colourful but misconceived images of carcinogenic burnt toast and narrow, Dickensian chimneys being cleaned by unhealthy young chimney sweeps. It is brilliant advertising. But it is untrue.
On carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere:
I have discovered that very few people know how small the percentage of carbon dioxide is in the atmosphere.
Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere during the twentieth century are estimated to have risen from 280ppmv to about 390ppmv today, an increase of forty per cent. Yet today’s total CO2 concentration represents less than one-twenty-fifth of one per cent.
While opinions vary, one geochemist has calculated that only about five per cent of present atmospheric carbon dioxide is derived from burning fossil-fuels; that is, just 19 parts of CO2 per million parts of atmosphere.
CO2 does not destroy the purity of the atmosphere, or make it foul or filthy (the Oxford Dictionary definition of a pollutant). It is not a pollutant, but part of the stuff of life.
Cardinal Pell also compares alarmist tags to primitive religious controversy:
A final point to be noted in this struggle to convince public opinion is that the language used by AGW proponents veers towards that of primitive religious controversy. Believers are contrasted with deniers, doubters and sceptics, although I must confess no one has dubbed me a climate change heretic.
The rewards for proper environmental behaviour are uncertain, unlike the grim scenarios for the future as a result of human irresponsibility which have a dash of the apocalyptic about them, even of the horsemen of the Apocalypse. The immense financial costs true-believers would impose
on economies can be compared with the sacrifices offered traditionally in religion, and the sale of carbon credits with the pre-Reformation practice
of selling indulgences. Some of those campaigning to save the planet are not merely zealous but zealots. To the religionless and spiritually rootless, mythology — whether comforting or discomforting — can be magnetically, even pathologically, attractive.
Where we are in God's great pal for the planet:
In broad outline the history is uncontroversial. For 2.5 million years, northern Eurasia and North America were covered by ice sheets kilometres deep, and the earth has seen eleven strong glacial episodes (or Ice Ages) in the past million years. We live in an interglacial period which has now lasted 10,000-11,500 years.
The warmer interglacials usually last between 10,000 to 20,000 years, occurring at intervals of about 100,000 years. By these criteria one could argue that an Ice Age is now overdue, which perhaps contributed to the cooling scare in the 1970s. 
Controversies commence as we approach the Christian era as nobody seems too concerned about the Minoan warming of about 3,500 years ago. The Roman warming around 2,000 years ago provokes some heart burn, while we have seen attempts to erase the Medieval Warm period (850–1300AD) from history.
So where does that leave the Alarmists?
The debates about anthropogenic global warming can only be conducted by the accurate recognition and interpretation of scientific evidence. The evidence of historians is also vital because this is not simply a mathematical problem, not “pure” science.
Extreme-weather events are to be expected, but are unexpected in every period. No one towards the end of the Medieval Warming in Europe expected the rapid descent into the cold and wet of the Little Ice Age, for example, or the freezing gales, winds and heavy rains, that produced the short summers and the terrible developing famines of 1315–20. Surprises such as these will continue into the future.
For this reason (among others) I support the recommendation of Bjorn Lomborg and Bob Carter that, rather than spending money on meeting the Kyoto Protocol which would have produced an indiscernible effect on temperature rise, money should be used to raise living standards and reduce vulnerability to catastrophes and climate change (in whatever direction), so helping people to cope better with future challenges. We need to be able to afford to provide the Noahs of the future with the best arks science and technology can provide.
For the whole address, click on the link in the title above.

See also Resisting the GREEN DRAGON:

Resisting the Green Dragon full promo from Cornwall Alliance on Vimeo.

Doubts about Communist-style World Green Climate Fund

From the ABC's own PM programme 10/12/10:

"One of the big sticking points at the climate summit in Cancun is how best to distribute the $30 billion promised under the Copenhagen Accord. The money, known as Fast Start Finance, is designed to help poor countries reduce their own carbon emissions and protect themselves against climate impact for the next two years. Today Australia announced further allocations under the $599 million of Australia's committed Fast Start Financing." See also "You're so wrong, Greg Combet."

Now it appears that the Green Climate Fund has doubt surrounding it.

The NY Times:

Wealthy countries have vowed to deliver $100 billion annually by 2020 for poor and vulnerable nations to adapt to climate impacts and develop low-carbon economies. Countries have been in the process of establishing the architecture of a Green Climate Fund, agreed to at last year's climate summit in Cancun, Mexico, to distribute a portion of that money. But last week, the focus turned to the dollars themselves, and from where they would come.
Developing countries are largely insistent that the money come from public coffers in the United States, European countries, Australia, Japan and other wealthy nations. Many argue that the money essentially is compensation to poor countries for the environmental harm industrialized ones caused by emitting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere for decades. That's not, however, the way the United States and others see it -- and they insist developing countries should have no say in where the money they get comes from.
"Our agreement in Cancun was that it was up to developed countries how best to raise this money," Pershing said.
Executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, Christiana Figueres is quoted as saying: "This is not the best time to be talking about finance, because all developed countries are in a financial crisis."

The other major issue on the agenda at Durban is the future of the Kyoto Protocol, whose current set of carbon curbs expires at the end of 2012.

The host country's ambassador for the talks rejected the possibility of a new system of legally binding cuts to replace Kyoto, saying a too-ambitious agenda could wreck the negotiations.

"Talk of any legally binding instrument would be irresponsible, very irresponsible," said NJ Mxakato-Diseko, South Africa's ambassador-at-large for the conference.

"To even begin to suggest that the outcome of Durban must be a legally binding instrument would be irresponsible, because it will collapse the system."
Canada, Japan and Russia have all said that they won't be signatories to a new "Kyoto" protocol. The world's biggest emitters of the harmless trace gas, Carbon dioxide are also not part of any agreement.

Little Australia is in there punching above it's weight. And going broke.

Tuesday, 25 October 2011

Victory for Science -Man-Made Global Warming Crisis Cancelled

Cartoons by Josh
Climate Depot's Marc Morano writing in the Washington Examiner - Extract.

The scientific reality is that on virtually every claim, the scientific case for man-made climate fears has collapsed. The only thing "worse than we thought" is the shoddy journalism of the mainstream media, which parrots global warming activists' baseless talking points.

Consider these facts:
  • The Antarctic sea ice extent has been at or near record extent in the past few summers; 
  • the Arctic has rebounded in recent years since the low point in 2007; 
  • polar bears are thriving; 
  • the sea level is not showing acceleration and is actually dropping; 
  • cholera and malaria are failing to follow global warming predictions; 
  • Mount Kilimanjaro-melt fears are being made a mockery by gains in snow cover; 
  • global temperatures have been holding steady for a decade or more as many scientists are predicting global cooling is ahead; 
  • deaths because of extreme weather are radically declining; 
  • global tropical cyclone activity is near historic lows; 
  • the frequency of major U.S. hurricanes has declined; 
  • the oceans are missing their predicted heat content; 
  • big tornadoes have dramatically declined since the 1970s; 
  • droughts are neither historically unusual nor caused by mankind; 
  • there is no evidence we are currently having unusual weather; 
  • scandals continue to rock the climate fear movement; 
  • the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has been exposed as being a hotbed of environmental activists; and 
  • scientists continue to dissent at a rapid pace.  
Professor emeritus of biogeography Philip Stott of the University of London explained the crux of the entire global warming debate when he rebutted the notion that CO2 is the main climate driver.

"As I have said, over and over again, the fundamental point has always been this: Climate change is governed by hundreds of factors, or variables, and the very idea that we can manage climate change predictably by understanding and manipulating at the margins one politically-selected factor (CO2), is as misguided as it gets," Stott wrote.

To put it bluntly, the great man-made global warming catastrophe that was predicted has been canceled! And that is a victory for science.

Read more at the Washington Examiner.

Peter Forster: Look To Adaptation, Not Alarmism

by Peter Forster
- the Bishop of Chester
and a Trustee of the Global Warming Policy Foundation

Church Times, 21 October 2011

The moral issues surrounding UK climate policy, as well as the underlying scientific and economic issues, are much more complex than is usually acknowledged. It is time for the Churches to recognise this, and to lead a debate which helps our society to a more sensible set of policies.

In 1900, the most distinguished British scientist of his day, Lord Kelvin addressed his fellow scientists: ‘There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement’. Yet, within a few years, relativity and quantum physics had revolutionised our understanding of the world.

The history of science is full of examples of established beliefs, which at the time were held with great conviction, being overturned. It looks increasingly as if the certainty with which global warming and climate science has been viewed for the past couple of decades may be the latest example.

The Royal Society, under pressure from 40 of its own members, accepted in 2010 that the connection between climate change and anthropogenic increases in CO2 levels is much less certain than previously thought. As Lord Broers, one of our leading scientists today, has put it, there is a ‘lack of an adequate quantitative relationship between the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere and warming’ (Hansard, 24.11.09, col.308).

The Churches have tended to follow climate alarmism with uncritical enthusiasm, but it is now time to take stock.

One of the now discredited views is that the increase in global temperatures (of only about 0.8º C over the past 100 years) has come after many centuries of a stable climate. In its Third Assessment (2003), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change compared its analysis to an ice hockey stick, with 1000 years of stability leading to the recent increase. The IPCC had simply airbrushed out the medieval warm period, when vines grew in Britain, and the later post-Tudor period (1550-1850) when the Thames regularly froze over.

A closer look at the historical record suggests that populations and civilisations actually tend to flourish during warmer periods, as set out in Professor Ian Plimer’s book Heaven and Earth (Connor Court, 2009). Also, increased levels of CO2 help plants and trees to grow more quickly, as horticulturalists know.

Global warming alarmism has been driven forward in an emotive, even quasi-religious way, with the object of ‘saving the planet’. Christians should be cautious before they make common cause with such utopian aspirations, just as scientists need to be cautious about turning possible scientific theories into cast-iron certainties.

There is every reason for the responsible use of limited natural resources, and not least oil and gas, but that remains true whatever the scientific position on global warming turns out to be. We should acknowledge that Western society, in particular, does not have a good environmental record, although this is now improving. But contemporary claims that human beings can manage fundamental features of the earth’s environment, such as its climate, need to be approached with great caution.

The very idea that human beings can control the planet’s climate seems doubtful in scientific terms, and is likely to derive from the modern myth of human power. But there is also a compelling economic reason for doubting that we could stop global warming, even if it is driven largely by CO2 increases.

Any country with fossil fuel reserves will exploit them, whether this is Sudan or the United States. Realising the value in fossil fuels unavoidably means for coal its conversion to CO2 and, in the case of oil and gas, also water.

Imagine that the richer countries did cut back their consumption. All that would happen is that the world price would fall, enabling higher consumption by poorer countries. The net effect will be more-or-less the same, unless large amounts of the CO2 can be sequestered and stored permanently.

It would be a great act of faith to believe that this is going to happen. As yet, despite years of discussion, CO2 capture and storage has not been commercially demonstrated, although several pilot projects are at an advanced stage of planning.

CO2 capture will be scientifically feasible, but at what additional cost? In order to meet UK targets, all gas-fired, as well as any new coal-fired, power stations will need to be equipped with CO2 capture, but our international competitors have no such commitments in place.

Public policy in the whole area is in a mess in the UK. The previous government set in law a unilateral commitment to reduce UK carbon emissions by 2050 to a mere 20% of the 1990 levels. Given the unavoidable use of hydrocarbons for some purposes, such as air travel, this will require the total decarbonisation of electricity generation. The investment required would run to hundreds of billions of pounds.

As a start, there is a large programme to promote so-called renewable energy sources, especially wind turbines. Those who own the turbines are currently paid more than twice as much for their electricity as the cost of coal or gas generation, the subsidy being loaded on to everyone’s electricity bills.

Absurdly, this represents a considerable transfer of wealth from the poorer families to rich landowners or businesses. And if the net result, as is bound to happen, is higher electricity prices in the UK compared with our competitors, it will result in higher unemployment as energy-intensive jobs are exported.

Even if it proves to be the case that CO2 increases will produce a significant rise in the average global temperature, there is a strong case for directing investment towards adaptation, rather than to a probably futile attempt to prevent the underlying climate from changing. For example, there might be a global fund, to help poorer nations with flood defences, agricultural adaptation, and other measures, if in the event the climate does change very significantly during this century.

The moral issues surrounding UK climate policy, as well as the underlying scientific and economic issues, are much more complex than is usually acknowledged. It is time for the Churches to recognise this, and to lead a debate which helps our society to a more sensible set of policies.

Peter Forster is the Bishop of Chester and a Trustee of the Global Warming Policy Foundation

Reaping Green Dividends

By Viv Forbes  - Carbon Sense Coalition Chairman

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

24 October 2011

The battle for Carbon Sense will go on. We have no option but to fight until the Carbon Tax bills are repealed and the dead weight of the massive Climate Change Bureaucracy is removed from our backs. We hope you can support us in this fight. Please pass this on.

The carbon policies of the Australian government will destroy regional industry.

Most regional industry relies on adding value to the products of primary industries – smelters, refineries, processing plants, cement plants, sawmills, flour mills, abattoirs and rail and port infrastructure. These facilities require cheap reliable electricity, which will never be supplied by green energy toys.

Recently Xstrata announced plans to cease smelting and refining copper in Queensland. Then Blue Scope Steel decided to reduce production and shed workers. Now Rio has signalled the sale of its aluminium processing empire. Next we can expect that a large coal fired electricity generator will be unable to repay its debts. Cement plants will be squeezed and rail and port costs will increase.

All of these projects are denigrated in their own country because they have one thing in common - they rely heavily on carbon fuels such as coal and gas and thus are all threatened by the toxic carbon tax. None of these activities will cease because of our carbon tax. They will either pay foreign spivs for "carbon credits" or the business will transfer to other countries who will welcome our trashed industries.

Not one of these operations will survive if forced to use costly and unreliable wind or solar power.

The 74 green lemmings in Parliament have given us "certainty" – the certainty of capital flight and job losses.

Are we prepared for the new green future where jobless Australians survive from backyard vegie gardens, poaching kangaroos and wild pigs from carbon credit forests and cooking with biomass on a wood stove?

Of course we will enjoy pirate movies downloaded at the speed of light using the NBN (as long as the sun is shining or the wind blows).

Saturday, 22 October 2011

UN Rigged Temperature Data; Sea Levels not rising.

International Climate Science Coalition's Tom Harris writes:
The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) has just confirmed the pioneering research conducted by Anthony Watts, the author of the prominent Web site “Watts Up With That?. Watts showed in a 2009 report (right) that the U.S. Historical Climate Network (USHCN) surface temperature record is unreliable. The GAO now concurs. 

USHCN data is combined with temperature records from around the world to determine global temperature trends. This trend is then used as the basis of the assessment reports of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on which governments base climate and energy policy costing hundreds of billions of dollars.
But the GAO has found that “42 percent of the active stations [in the USHCN] in 2010 did not meet one or more of the siting standards.”
 It has taken the GAO two years but Anthony Watts' records have been confirmed. Also, although there are different interpretations, the Berkeley Earth Surface temperature (BEST) confirms that there has been a long pause in global warming.

Nigel Calder writes:

Global warming real? Not recently, folks. The black curve in the graph confirms what experts have known for years, that warming stopped in the mid-1990s, when the Sun was switching from a manic to a depressive phase.
And just to make the alarmists' day, latest report from Professor Nils-Axel Morner confirms that

Sea levels not rising

Contrary to prevailing scientific opinion, a Climate Change conference organised by the University of Mumbai and the Liberty Institute, New Delhi, and INSTUCEN India study centre on Friday claimed that the sea levels were not rising and carbon dioxide did not pose a special threat to the climate. Sea levels in the Indian Ocean were not rising and cities like Mumbai, islands like Maldives or Tuvalu would not be affected at all, speakers stated.
The audience clapped at every statement made by Professor Nils-Axel Morner, retired professor from Stockholm University, who enlightened a large group of appreciative students and professors on the perils of the estimates of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). He attacked Maldives president Mohammed Nasheed's claims that his island nation was drowning and said this was totally unfounded in observational reality. The one-day conference, “Shifting science and changing policy,” was hosted by the Centre for Extra Mural Studies at Mumbai University.

Good Guys 3: bad Guys NIL!

Friday, 21 October 2011




Those that have studied history will know that empires and civilizations inevitably come and go. They often rise because of new technology, and fall when the ruling group becomes complacent and is unwilling to exploit a more advanced technology. The ancient Egyptians rose with improved agriculture and fell when their neighbours had iron and they did not. The Romans, with military and engineering skills, were defeated by nomads who had a stirrup and horse collar.

Most Western societies progressed from the technical discoveries of the Industrial Revolution in Britain and their spread. There were always sections of society who opposed technology when it clashed with their settled way of life. They may be rulers, aristocrats or priests who  felt threatened. They may be workers whose skills are to be replaced, like the Luddites.

A section of the middle classes during the 19th century developed a whole movement called Romanticism which deplored industrialization and longed for its abolition. The poet Wordsworth regarded a ruined abbey as somehow superior to a modern one, and wild daffodils as better than cultivated ones,

This movement has proliferated to the promulgation of the belief that humans are harmful to the "environment" and should leave the earth to the "endangered species" whose preservation becomes more important than that of humans. They have developed beliefs and supposedly "scientific" reasons why all human activity and even their numbers should be reduced. They have tried to pretend that "resources" are limited and they have succeeded in delaying most original technologies because of their fallacies.

Amongst these is the use of energy. They have developed a theory that exploitation of fossil fuels is harmful, as is nuclear power. They look forward to "peak oil" and they do their best to prevent new exploration. These efforts have recently been challenged by the discovery that oil  and gas supplies can be much greater by the use of a technique called "fracking" which employs an explosive charge to open up the strata, helped by water pressure. The question is, how much poverty, unemployment, national default and general misery we are prepared to tolerate, if we give way to the specious claims of these spoilers.

Shale gas reserves suitable for fracking are widespread. A  map of the suitable regions may be found at

It may be noted that as usual, New Zealand has been left off the map.

Prosperity in the USA owes much to the discovery of oil by "Colonel" Drake in Pennsylvania in 1859. There is no question that it "damaged the environment". If it had been shut down because of pressure from environmentalists none of us would be here today. If we allow them to shut down fracking  those that do so will be replaced by others. One replacement will be China, but it was interesting to hear of recent activity in places like Papua New Guinea.

The following article by Matt Ridley explains why fracking is not only profitable compared with windmills, it is better for the environment a well.

Matt Ridley: Making Wind Farms Obsolete
Which would you rather have in the view from your house? A thing about the size of a domestic garage, or eight towers twice the height of Nelson’s column with blades noisily thrumming the air. The energy they can produce over ten years is similar: eight wind turbines of 2.5-megawatts (working at roughly 25% capacity) roughly equal the output of an average Pennsylvania shale gas well (converted to electricity at 50% efficiency) in its first ten years.
Difficult choice? Let’s make it easier. The gas well can be hidden in a hollow, behind a hedge. The eight wind turbines must be on top of hills, because that is where the wind blows, visible for up to 40 miles. And they require the construction of new pylons marching to the towns; the gas well is connected by an underground pipe.
Unpersuaded? Wind turbines slice thousands of birds of prey in half every year, including white-tailed eagles in Norway, golden eagles in California, wedge-tailed eagles in Tasmania. There’s a video on Youtube of one winging a griffon vulture in Crete. According to a study in Pennsylvania, a wind farm with eight turbines would kill about a 200 bats a year. The pressure wave from the passing blade just implodes the little creatures’ lungs. You and I can go to jail for harming bats or eagles; wind companies are immune.
Still can’t make up your mind? The wind farm requires eight tonnes of an element called neodymium, which is produced only in Inner Mongolia, by boiling ores in acid leaving lakes of radioactive tailings so toxic no creature goes near them.
Not convinced? The gas well requires no subsidy – in fact it pays a hefty tax to the government – whereas the wind turbines each cost you a substantial add-on to your electricity bill, part of which goes to the rich landowner whose land they stand on. Wind power costs three times as much as gas-fired power. Make that nine times if the wind farm is offshore. And that’s assuming the cost of decommissioning the wind farm is left to your children – few will last 25 years.
Decided yet? I forgot to mention something. If you choose the gas well, that’s it, you can have it. If you choose the wind farm, you are going to need the gas well too. That’s because when the wind does not blow you will need a back-up power station running on something more reliable. But the bloke who builds gas turbines is not happy to build one that only operates when the wind drops, so he’s now demanding a subsidy, too.
What’s that you say? Gas is running out? Have you not heard the news? It’s not. Till five years ago gas was the fuel everybody thought would run out first, before oil and coal. America was getting so worried even Alan Greenspan told it to start building gas import terminals, which it did. They are now being mothballed, or turned into export terminals.
A chap called George Mitchell turned the gas industry on its head. Using just the right combination of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing (fracking) – both well established technologies -- he worked out how to get gas out of shale where most of it is, rather than just out of (conventional) porous rocks, where it sometimes pools. The Barnett shale in Texas, where Mitchell worked, turned into one of the biggest gas reserves in America. Then the Haynesville shale in Louisiana dwarfed it. The Marcellus shale mainly in Pennsylvania then trumped that with a barely believable 500 trillion cubic feet of gas, as big as any oil field ever found, on the doorstep of the biggest market in the world.
The impact of shale gas in America is already huge. Gas prices have decoupled from oil prices and are half what they are in Europe. Chemical companies, which use gas as a feedstock, are rushing back from the Persian Gulf to the Gulf of Mexico. Cities are converting their bus fleets to gas. Coal projects are being shelved; nuclear ones abandoned.
Rural Pennsylvania is being transformed by the royalties that shale gas pays (Lancashire take note). Drive around the hills near Pittsburgh and you see new fences, repainted barns and – in the local towns – thriving car dealerships and upmarket shops. The one thing you barely see is gas rigs. The one I visited was hidden in a hollow in the woods, invisible till I came round the last corner where a flock of wild turkeys was crossing the road. Drilling rigs are on site for about five weeks, fracking trucks a few weeks after that, and when they are gone all that is left is a “Christmas tree” wellhead and a few small storage tanks.
The International Energy Agency reckons there is quarter of a millennium’s worth of cheap shale gas in the world. A company called Cuadrilla drilled a hole in Blackpool, hoping to find a few trillion cubic feet of gas. Last month it announced 200 trillion cubic feet, nearly half the size of the giant Marcellus field. That’s enough to keep the entire British economy going for many decades. And it’s just the first field to have been drilled.
Jesse Ausubel is a soft-spoken academic ecologist at Rockefeller University in New York, not given to hyperbole. So when I asked him about the future of gas, I was surprised by the strength of his reply. “It’s unstoppable,” he says simply. Gas, he says, will be the world’s dominant fuel for most of the next century. Coal and renewables will have to give way, while oil is used mainly for transport. Even nuclear may have to wait in the wings.
And he is not even talking mainly about shale gas. He reckons a still bigger story is waiting to be told about offshore gas from the so-called cold seeps around the continental margins. Israel has made a huge find and is planning a pipeline to Greece, to the irritation of the Turks. The Brazilians are striking rich. The Gulf of Guinea is hot. Even our own Rockall Bank looks promising. Ausubel thinks that much of this gas is not even “fossil” fuel, but ancient methane from the universe that was trapped deep in the earth’s rocks – like the methane that forms lakes on Titan, one of Saturn’s moons.
The best thing about cheap gas is whom it annoys. The Russians and the Iranians hate it because they thought they were going to corner the gas market in the coming decades. The greens hate it because it destroys their argument that fossil fuels are going to get more and more costly till even wind and solar power are competitive. The nuclear industry ditto. The coal industry will be a big loser (incidentally, as somebody who gets some income from coal, I declare that writing this article is against my vested interest).
Little wonder a furious attempt to blacken shale gas’s reputation is under way, driven by an unlikely alliance of big green, big coal, big nuclear and Gazprom. The environmental objections to shale gas are almost comically fabricated or exaggerated. Hydraulic fracturing or fracking uses 99.86% water and sand, the rest being a dilute solution of a few chemicals of the kind you find beneath your kitchen sink.
State regulators in Alaska, Colorado, Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas and Wyoming have all asserted in writing that there have been no verified or documented cases of groundwater contamination as a result of hydraulic fracking. Those flaming taps in the film “Gasland” were literally nothing to do with shale gas drilling and the film maker knew it before he wrote the script. The claim that gas production generates more greenhouse gases than coal is based on mistaken assumptions about gas leakage rates and cherry-picked time horizons for computing greenhouse impact.
Like Japanese soldiers hiding in the jungle decades after the war was over, our political masters have apparently not heard the news. David Cameron and Chris Huhne are still insisting that the future belongs to renewables. They are still signing contracts on your behalf guaranteeing huge incomes to landowners and power companies, and guaranteeing thereby the destruction of landscapes and jobs. The government’s “green” subsidies are costing the average small business £250,000 a year. That’s ten jobs per firm. Making energy cheap is – as the industrial revolution proved – the quickest way to create jobs; making it expensive is the quickest way to lose them.
Not only are renewables far more expensive, intermittent and resource-depleting (their demand for steel and concrete is gigantic) than gas; they are also hugely more damaging to the environment, because they are so land-hungry. Wind kills birds and spoils landscapes; solar paves deserts; tidal wipes out the ecosystems of migratory birds; biofuel starves the poor and devastates the rain forest; hydro interrupts fish migration. Next time you hear somebody call these “clean” energy, don’t let him get away with it.
Wind cannot even help cut carbon emissions, because it needs carbon back-up, which is wastefully inefficient when powering up or down (nuclear cannot be turned on and off so fast). Even Germany and Denmark have failed to cut their carbon emissions by installing vast quantities of wind.
Yet switching to gas would hasten decarbonisation. In a combined cycle turbine gas converts to electricity with higher efficiency than other fossil fuels. And when you burn gas, you oxidise four hydrogen atoms for every carbon atom. That’s a better ratio than oil, much better than coal and much, much better than wood. Ausubel calculates that, thanks to gas, we will accelerate a relentless shift from carbon to hydrogen as the source of our energy without touching renewables.
To persist with a policy of pursuing subsidized renewable energy in the midst of a terrible recession, at a time when vast reserves of cheap low-carbon gas have suddenly become available is so perverse it borders on the insane. Nothing but bureaucratic inertia and vested interest can explain it."
Matt Ridley is a member of the GWPF's Academic Advisory Council. His report The Shale Gas Shock is available online here

And here is the encouraging news for New Zealand, from New Zealand Climate Science.

"I can advise that several petroleum exploration companies are actively looking at shale gas potential in NZ. 

At present almost all of the onshore eastern North Island (the "East Coast Basin", east of the main North Island ranges) is covered by petroleum exploration permits, or by applications for permits.  Operators of these permits are investigating shale gas potential as well as more conventional (sandstone) reservoir targets.

More recently there have been applications for new petroleum exploration permits in the onshore Canterbury basin, as well as in Marlborough and Southland, specifically targeting shale gas.  It is unlikely that the offshore basins are prospective for shale gas at present, but as the technology develops, it may happen. Across the Tasman, there is also great interest in exploration for shale gas.

For various reasons relating to geology, the eastern parts of NZ are probably more prospective for shale gas than the west, so there is potential for these exploration companies to discover and produce petroleum in areas outside of Taranaki, which is potentially of huge benefit to local economies as well as to the whole of  NZ.

Concerning gas in aquifers and water wells, there are literally hundreds of natural (petroleum) gas seeps in NZ, for example there are at least 300 sites in the eastern North Island where natural gas bubbles to the surface.  And I am aware of at least 6 locations where wells drilled in search of groundwater have encountered gas.  One such well near Gisborne drilled long ago produced enough gas to supply energy to the whole township.  Enterprising locals in remote areas managed to trap and utilise gas from natural seeps for cooking and heating least the last 100 years back.  Any little earthquake (a far more significant shake than any seismic used for exploration) causes a greater (but temporary) rate of gas flow from these natural seeps. 

Don't ever be fooled by claims that petroleum exploration, seismic activity, or "fraccing/fracking" somehow leads to gas suddenly coming into aquifers, it has been there (and leaking out) for many thousands, or more likely millions of years.

The onshore gas seeps are only evident where the gas happens to come to surface under some waterway, such as a river, stream, or lake.  Methane and other petroleum gases naturally come to the surface by slow but persistent seepage in virtually all of NZ's onshore sedimentary basins (Northland, Waikato, Taranaki, Wanganui, East Coast, West Coast, Canterbury, Southland) and are detectable by analysing gas in soil or sub soil.

There are also numerous natural seeps of petroleum gas (mainly methane, but also other hydrocarbons) in NZ's much larger offshore continental areas.   There are whole communities of organisms that depend on these (often deep) sea bed gas seeps for their whole energy cycle without the need for light, oxygen, or carbohydrates.  There is very good evidence from the geological record that these natural offshore gas seeps have been active for at least the last 23 million years, and probably before then as well.

My whole point is that methane seeps are nothing new, and are beneficial to various parts of the natural biota.

I hope that the above is useful to the general discussion about shale gas, gas in water wells and the natural occurrence of methane and other hydrocarbons.
David Francis


Vincent Gray

"To kill an error is as good a service as, and sometimes better than, the establishing of a new truth or fact"  Charles Darwin

Governments' Deceptions

Henry Ergas
Henry Ergas, writing in the Australian (link in title) has pointed out that Treasury Officials have persistently engaged in misinformation.
Yet Treasury's most senior officials have persistently claimed the opposite. In the Senate Select Committee on the Scrutiny of New Taxes, Treasury said "these models are publicly available".
Asked "So, if Professor Ergas were to go with a cheque in hand it would be available to him?", Treasury's reply was unambiguous: "Yes, he would be able to receive these models."
Treasury's claims were false. For central in Treasury's work is a model called GTEM. That model was initially developed by ABARES (Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences). Under the Howard government, GTEM's documentation and computer code were placed on ABARES' website. And in early 2007 ABARES moved to full commercial release of GTEM.But with Labor's election victory, the planned release was aborted. Since then, access to GTEM has been denied.

Henry goes on to argue that, contrary to what Treasury states, the certainty is that, by taxing our lowest cost power generators, "electricity prices will be higher with the tax than without it."

In the USA, Fox news reports:
Several Republican lawmakers are challenging the Obama administration's science czar over what they claim are repeat incidents of "scientific misconduct" among agencies, questioning whether officials who deal with everything from endangered species to nuclear waste are using "sound science."
"Specifically, we are concerned with data quality, integrity of methodologies and collection of information, agencies misrepresenting publicly the weight of scientific 'facts,' indefensible representations of scientific conclusions before our federal court system, and our fundamental notions of 'sound' science," they wrote. "We identify in this letter important examples of agency scientific misconduct."
The Green Gillard Government constantly talk about "the science." They refer to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Canadian writer Donna Laframboise has written an expose of the flaws in the IPCC called "The Delinquent Teenager."

Two excerpts:
 For starters, some of the world's most experienced experts have been left out in the cold. In 2005 an atmospheric science professor from Colorado State University named William Gray told a US Senate Committee: Despite my 50 years of meteorology experience and my many years of involvement in seasonal hurricane and climate prediction, I have never been asked for input on any of the [IPCC] reports.
Many environmental organizations employ people whose sole purpose is to raise awareness about global warming. The more effective these people are at convincing the public there's an urgent problem, the more money we're likely to contribute to their cause.
Since activists bring their own agenda to the table, and since agendas and science don't mix, environmentalists need to keep their distance from scientific endeavors. Data cannot be considered
scientifically reputable if it has been collected and analyzed by activists. Scientific conclusions - especially those involving judgment calls - cannot be trusted if activists have played a role.

US Climatologist Judith Curry writes: "Overall, Donna Laframboise is to be congratulated for writing an important book."

Interview by London Book review with Donna Laframboise HERE including:
I think the IPCC is steadily losing influence. By far the biggest reason is that many parts of the world currently face profound economic challenges. There isn't a lot of extra time, attention, or money to squander on hypothetical future problems. (Personally, I'm a big fan of the idea that the future will take care of itself. We now have tools, knowledge, and abilities that were undreamt of 30 years. Thirty years hence our children will be well equipped to cope with whatever the world throws at them.)
Toward the end of the writing of my book I began to understand quite clearly that IPCC reports are a means to an end for UN bureaucrats. From a UN bureaucrat's perspective these reports serve a particular purpose - they get everyone singing from the same hymn book so that an emissions treaty can be negotiated.
By pursuing such a treaty UN officials were attempting to expand their mandate and their funding. From the perspective of a bureaucrat this was perfectly normal - and thoroughly predictable - behaviour.
But since it seems less likely by the day that any global emissions treaty will be signed - or any large sources of funding will be forthcoming from national governments - I expect the IPCC will wither on the vine. When it becomes clear that all possibility of a treaty has evaporated, I think lots of people will lose interest in the IPCC. That organization reached its zenith back in 2007. It will never again be that admired or powerful.

Wednesday, 19 October 2011

Tropical Cyclones in Australia down by 62%

Image: Wikipedia
Reported in Climate Dynamics 37: 647-662  via  CO2 Science.

The Australian Bureau of Meteorology's J Callaghan and S.B. Power's new paper is titled; "Variability and decline in the number of severe tropical cyclones making land-fall over eastern Australia since the late nineteenth century."

Callaghan and Power write that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, highlights several studies that conclude that "tropical cyclones are likely to become more intense in the future in response to global warming," citing Alley et al. (2007); but rather than accepting this set of claims on the basis of the IPCC's "authority," they go on to provide a much more compelling analysis of their own.

What was learned
The two researchers with Australia's Bureau of Meteorology first note that their new data base allows them "to document changes over much longer periods than has been done previously for the Southern Hemisphere," and among the host of results they describe, two of them stand out with respect to their significance to the global warming debate. First, they report that "the sign and magnitude of trends calculated over 30 years periods vary substantially," highlighting the fact that "caution needs to be taken in making inferences based on e.g. satellite era data only." And second, they report that "the linear trend in the number of severe TCs making land-fall over eastern Australia declined from about 0.45 TC/year in the early 1870s to about 0.17 TC/year in recent times -- a 62% decline." And they add that "this decline can be partially explained by a weakening of the Walker Circulation, and a natural shift towards a more El Niño-dominated era." Thus, they conclude the abstract of their paper with the remark that "the extent to which global warming might also be partially responsible for the decline in land-falls -- if it is at all -- is unknown [bold and italics added to highlight the irony of the result]."

What it means
Callaghan and Power's analysis of their lengthy and comprehensive new data base reveals results that appear to be totally at odds with the contentions of the IPCC, which are based more on the output of numerical models of the atmosphere than on real-world observations. And their results also highlight the fact that even real-world observations may be misleading, especially if they do not cover a long enough time period to reveal the oscillatory nature of various aspects of earth's climate.

Carbon Tax a certainty?- Larry's Latest

The next question is, will a change of Government change the carbon dioxide tax situation? Change from Gillard to Rudd certainly wouldn't change the tax. Would a new Abbott government be able to repeal the tax?

Sunday, 16 October 2011

New Hockey Stick from Nature Magazie

In Nature Richard van Noorden writes

The New Hockey Stick
Published online 5 October 2011 | Nature 478, 26-28 (2011) | doi:10.1038/478026a

Science publishing: The trouble with retractions

A surge in withdrawn papers is highlighting weaknesses in the system for handling them.

This week, some 27,000 freshly published research articles will pour into the Web of Science, Thomson Reuters' vast online database of scientific publications. Almost all of these papers will stay there forever, a fixed contribution to the research literature. But 200 or so will eventually be flagged with a note of alteration such as a correction. And a handful — maybe five or six — will one day receive science's ultimate post-publication punishment: retraction, the official declaration that a paper is so flawed that it must be withdrawn from the literature.
It is reassuring that retractions are so rare, for behind at least half of them lies some shocking tale of scientific misconduct — plagiarism, altered images or faked data — and the other half are admissions of embarrassing mistakes. But retraction notices are increasing rapidly. In the early 2000s, only about 30 retraction notices appeared annually. This year, the Web of Science is on track to index more than 400 (see 'Rise of the retractions') — even though the total number of papers published has risen by only 44% over the past decade.

Death at Durban, Kyoto Killed?


Times Live reports:

Kyoto Protocol set to end in Durban

Durban is set to be the deathbed of the Kyoto Protocol as climate change negotiators are unlikely to renew it when they descend on South Africa next month for a meeting on its future.

Alf Wills, head of South Africa's climate change negotiating team, said the parties had three options:
  • To keep the protocol as it is or develop a new one which will be acceptable to the US and other developed countries;
  • Negotiate a new protocol acceptable to everyone, including the US; or
  • Reach a deadlock, which will imply the immediate end of the Kyoto Protocol.



Friday, 14 October 2011

Tempers rises in Australia while US Cools

Source NOAA

This chart represents the 15 years (180 months), starting October 1, 1997 and ending September 30, 2011. Per the latest NOAA/NCDC U.S. official temperature data records, the 12-month period ending September was the 7th coldest September-ending period for the last 15 years. In terms of a single month, September 2011 was the 21st warmest since 1895 (September 1998 was the warmest.)

The per century cooling trend of this period, a minus 3.2°F, took place in spite of the huge warmth produced by two large El Niño events during this 15-year span: 1997-1998 and 2009-2010.

For the 10-year period ending September 2011 (October 1, 2001 thru September 30, 2011 - 120 months), the cooling trend accelerates to a very significant minus 9.9°F per century rate - again, per the updated NOAA/NCDC temperature records

Meanwhile, Australia reels from the Green Gillard Government's Clean Energy Acts of Bastardry.

James Delingpole, in the UK telegraph wrote that

Australia commits suicide 

Take Australia, an island built on fossil fuel with an economy dependent on fossil fuel. What would be the maddest economic policy a place like that could pursue as the world tips deeper into recession? Why, to introduce a carbon tax, of course. Which, for reasons just explained above, means a tax on absobloodylutely everything. Which is exactly what Julia Gillard's Coalition (why is it that word always makes me want to reach for my Browning?) has just gone and done, obviously.
What must be particularly galling to all the Australians (the majority) bitterly opposed to this lunatic measure is the unutterable feebleness of the arguments the Coalition is using to justify it.


As if to rub Australia's nose in the Acts of Bastardy, the Green Gillard Government "cheered and hugged each other when the government's carbon tax laws passed through the House of Representatives"

Wednesday, 12 October 2011

Australia's terminal illness caused by poison forked tongue.

Australia has contracted a terminal illness on this day. Jabbed by the poisonous forked tongue of our Prime Minister.

Later, that same forked tongue found another target.
Larry Pickering

Tragic Day in Canberra

Larry Pickering cartoon
Today is the day when our Prime Minister will drive a 'Dozer through democracy. This Prime Minister who campaigned by saying  - "There will be no carbon tax..." This Prime Minister who promised to take her carbon dioxide proposal to the people.  This Prime Minister who said that the tax was meant to cause pain to the people.

Next month, there will be another gathering, another gab-fest COP17 in Durban. It is widely predicted that this will be the final death knell for the crumbling Kyoto protocol. The New York Times reports:
...... countries must finally decide what they have put off for several years: the future of the Kyoto Protocol.
"South Africa is the tipping point in terms of the future of the climate regime," said Tasneem Essop, international climate policy advocate for the World Wildlife Fund in South Africa.
 Will Australia be the last country clinging to Kyoto?

Tuesday, 11 October 2011

Clean Energy - What Future?

PM Gillard twisting our rights away!
Julia Gillard said that the carbon dioxide tax was designed to cause financial pain. (Link) However she and her Green gang have disguised the pain-creating Carbon tax bills with the misnomer of "Clean Energy Future."

Can she point to anywhere in the world where green jobs have benefited that economy? The Spaniards found that for every Green job created (at great expense - more than $750,000 per job) 2.2 jobs were lost.  In a study Gabriel Calzada Álvarez PhD (here) concluded that green jobs needed heavy subsidies and non-green jobs were lost.

As well as the Spanish, the Germans and the French are turning their backs on Green Energy.

The Spanish and Germans are doing it. So are the French. The British might have to do it. Austerity-whacked Europe is rolling back subsidies for renewable energy as economic sanity makes a tentative comeback. Green energy is becoming unaffordable and may cost as many jobs as it creates. But the real victims are the investors who bought into the dream of endless, clean energy financed by the taxpayer. They forgot that governments often change their minds.
As Tim Worstall writes in Forbes:
This is one of the things that really rather annoys me, has done for years. All these people telling us that green jobs, creating green jobs, is going to be the salvation of our economy.

The USA has just had Solyndra collapse. Solyndra was a heavily subsidised manufacturer of thin solar cells. Master Resource reports: 
Solyndra’s impending liquidation, replete with 1,100 layoffs and U.S. taxpayer liabilities in excess of a half billion dollars, has put so-called green jobs initiative of the Obama Administration in negative light.
PM Gillard has just held a Jobs Summit.  Phil Coorey writes:
The jobs summit was bolted on to the end (of the tax forum) after Julia Gillard fell foul of the manufacturing unions, the industry sector and elements of her backbench for refusing their request for a thorough inquiry into the state of manufacturing.

The jobs summit was regarded as a trade-off for that.
In the build-up to this week, Gillard and the Treasurer, Wayne Swan, were flat-out downplaying expectations.
With the carbon tax bills, deceptively called Clean Energy Future, being considered by Parliament, MPs should consider future jobs and not future job destroying "clean" energy.