Monday, 19 September 2011

It's almost too late - NO CARBON (dioxide) TAX

"There will be NO carbon tax...."
We are about to burdened with a tax on invisible trace gas Carbon Dioxide; a tax predicated on a lie - There will be NO carbon tax.

All you "dinosaurs" and "incontinents" who have rallied against the tax, have you also written to your local member? Have you sent a submission to the committee?

It's almost too late but if we inundate them with submissions and complaints, maybe we can convince a few waivers.

As Carbon Sense Coalition's Viv Forbes wrote in his newsletter:

.....We need to let them know of our implacable opposition.
In an underhand move, they have revealed quietly that all public submissions on these massive bills must be made in just one week - submissions close on the 22nd of September. That's right - just one week to read and comment on over 1,100 pages of legislation. They have also decided to cancel public hearings around Australia. They hope that no Australian will find out about this or will not have the time or energy to write a submission. But let's prove them wrong. Let's flood the enquiry and the politicians with protests.
The nineteen bills on "Australia's Clean Energy Future Legislation" are listed here:

Written submissions can be emailed to the Joint Select Committee at:

The government's advice on preparing submissions is listed below but don't worry too much about it. Just tell them in your own words why you are opposed to this bill and what you will do if they pass it. Here is their advice:

Hair's Breadth of CO2

2UE's Mike Smith
Excellent Video from the Galileo movement using the graphic representation of the tiny amount of CO2 in the atmosphere first created by radio 2UE's Mike Smith.

Mike first presented this on 4BC in Brisbane; Mike used the new kilometre-long Brisbane Gateway Bridge rather than the Sydney Harbour Bridge used by Galileo in this wonderful YouTube presentation.

Andrew Bolt reported Mike's editorial here.

Mike's editorial ended:

The last 38 centimetres of the kilometre – that’s carbon dioxide. 

A bit over one foot.

97% of that is produced by Mother Nature.  It’s natural.

Out of our journey of one kilometre, there are just 12 millimetres left.  About half an inch.  Just over a centimetre.
That’s the amount of carbon dioxide that global human activity puts into the atmosphere.
And of those 12 millimetres Australia puts in .18 of a millimetre.

Less than the thickness of a hair.  Out of a kilometre.

The Carbon Tax – 19 Bills and 1,100 Pages. But Opposition to them will never End.

"Carbon Sense" Newsletter from the Carbon Sense Coalition

18 September 2011

Green Gillard Gang of economy destroyers
A print-ready copy of this issue of "Carbon Sense" can be downloaded from:

Please Pass this On. 

IMPORTANT: Please email your opposition to the Carbon Tax Bills IMMEDIATELY (before Thurs 22nd September).  See how to do it below. Send a copy to your local MP and Senator.

The Gillard-Green Coalition and their "independent" allies are in temporary control of the Australian Parliament. But they are about to sign a death warrant for their parties and for many of their elected members by voting for the Carbon Tax package. It will take decades for this cabal to recover from the electoral venom they have unleashed. Despite enormous opposition from the public, especially from those outside the capital cities, and despite a specific election promise that "There will be no carbon tax", we are about to get a carbon tax mess so complex it takes 19 bills and 1,100 pages to document it.

What do we do?

First we need to let them know of our implacable opposition.

In an underhand move, they have revealed quietly that all public submissions on these massive bills must be made in just one week - submissions close on the 22nd of September. That's right - just one week to read and comment on over 1,100 pages of legislation. They have also decided to cancel public hearings around Australia. They hope that no Australian will find out about this or will not have the time or energy to write a submission. But let's prove them wrong. Let's flood the enquiry and the politicians with protests.

The nineteen bills on "Australia's Clean Energy Future Legislation" are listed here:

Written submissions can be emailed to the Joint Select Committee at:

The government's advice on preparing submissions is listed below but don't worry too much about it. Just tell them in your own words why you are opposed to this bill and what you will do if they pass it. Here is their advice:

Then we need to keep pressure on our politicians for the next few weeks until they vote on these bills - let every MP feel the heat in his or her electorate. Withhold financial support, encourage their opposition until they know their days are numbered if they support this bill.

The second stage of the carbon battle will start if they manage to force these bills through both houses of parliament. They can still be destroyed before they take effect in June 2012. To do that we need control of parliament to change - by a defection or a by-election. We need to encourage either event. Keep up the heat.

The final stage of the Carbon Tax War (which we hope not to see) will come if these bills become law. Using a number of underhand tricks and many related handouts, the government is trying to ensure that no future government can repeal these bills.
We should leave government and opposition in no doubt that a large and vocal constituency will never cease its opposition. None of the carbon credit assets, the carbon trading profits or the alternative energy handouts will ever be safe.  No politician who votes to introduce or retain these bills will ever feel safe. We will record the voting and work ceaselessly to remove the guilty.

The points below will form the basis of our submission to the Select Committee on the Carbon Taxes. Please add your voices in your own way in your own words, long or short. Please feel free to use our ideas or words - there is no copyright on the words or the facts.

Why these Bills should be resisted, rejected
and, if needs be, repealed.

There is no evidence that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere controls the climate. There is strong evidence that global temperature controls the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere via the absorption or emission of the gas from the vast oceans.

There is no evidence that the current gentle warm era is unusual or harmful. There have been warmer periods in the past and all have seen a profusion of animal and plant life.

In the broad sweep of climate change it is clear that life on earth has far more to fear from global cooling than from global warming. It is the ice ages that cause massive extinctions. In the long history of life on earth, global warming has never been a threat to the biosphere.

There is significant evidence that solar cycles have a notable effect on global temperature and rainfall. The carbon tax will have no effect on solar cycles.

Many of the climate scares, such as loss of corals and rising sea levels, are inventions or exaggerations. Corals have survived millions of years, have adapted to rising and falling sea levels, and have moved north and south as earth's temperatures changed. Sea levels have been rising slowly for thousands of years, long before steam engines were invented, and current changes are very gentle and not unusual.

It is nonsense to call carbon dioxide a pollutant. It is better called "The Gas of Life" as it provides the major source of food for all plant life which in turn supports all animal life. Current levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are lower than they have been many times in the past and significantly lower than is optimal for all life.

Every molecule of carbon dioxide released by burning coal today was once part of the atmosphere at a time of prolific growth of the huge forests that formed the coal in the first place, millions of years ago. Burning the coal just recycles the natural carbon and other minerals back to the biosphere where the next generation of plants can use them. Coal is as natural and "green" as the forests from which it came.

Carbon dioxide has zero ability to produce heat in itself. It does not burn like carbon, coal or wood – it is a harmless by-product of burning these fuels. It is not a source of radioactive heat like uranium. All it can do is redirect some of the heat exchanged between the sun and the earth.

Carbon dioxide is a colourless gas generally invisible to most heat and light radiation. However, during the day, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere can temporarily interrupt and redirect some of the heat flowing between the sun and the earth (generally keeping the surface cooler than it would have otherwise been). During the night, carbon dioxide again interrupts some of the heat escaping from the surface to space, thus keeping nights warmer than they would have otherwise been. The net effect on average global temperature is negligible and beneficial to the comfort of life on the surface of the earth.

The climate of the globe is always changing and natural disasters have been a regular feature of earth history for as long as geological and historical records exist. To suggest that man is suddenly causing every disturbing weather event is just superstitious scare mongering.

To believe that a tax on some Australian businesses which emit carbon dioxide will have the slightest effect on world climate is ludicrous. 

It is obvious that the glib targets for 5-20% cut in carbon dioxide emissions by 2020 (in spite of rising populations) can NEVER be actually achieved without a massive depression of economic activity. A fake reduction may be achieved by forcing Australian companies to pay billions of dollars to foreign carbon sharps for promises to cut their production of carbon dioxide. In most cases, this will NOT result in any reduction in emissions – at best it will produce largely worthless promises to not increase emissions in future. At worst it will be a massive fraud on the Australian taxpayers and consumers. In all cases, it will see a massive transfer of Australian wealth to foreign countries for zero climate benefit.

It is false to claim that Australia lags the world in waging war on carbon. The Kyoto Protocol is dead. Only western Europe and New Zealand are moving with us on this suicidal path. However New Zealand hopes to cope without too much pain using their abundant hydro and geothermal energy. Moreover, most European countries have access to significant hydro, nuclear or geothermal energy. Australia has NONE of these advantages. Our current and future energy needs depend solely on coal and gas, the very things that Bob Brown's green extremists want to tax and litigate to death. It is an act of national economic suicide to attempt to destroy our ability to generate low cost energy.

The computerised climate models so beloved by the UN IPCC and the CSIRO have never made successful predictions and there is no reason to believe they will ever mimic the complexity of factors affecting climate at any point.

Even if the warming projections from the scare forecasters were accepted, the minor changes in temperature envisaged are small compared to the actual daily and annual variations in temperature experienced at any point on earth. The difference in average temperature between Brisbane and Sydney or Melbourne is more than the worst global warming scares. The temperature change that occurs while we eat breakfast is probably greater than any global warming that could be caused by carbon dioxide. The idea that laughably small temperature changes will somehow do untold damage to life on earth is ludicrous.

It is obvious that there is no consensus on the science supporting the alarmist climate models. A very large and growing group of scientists with relevant knowledge or experience is actively challenging the alarmist models. They will not go away.

Wind and solar energy can never provide reliable electric power at a cost the consumers can afford or Australian businesses can use in a competitive world. They provide unreliable and intermittent power, at a high cost, and also need massive investment in backup power facilities and new transmission lines.

Our large fleets of cars, trucks, trains, ships, dozers and aircraft are not going to run on sunbeams and sea breezes – they need coal, diesel, petrol or gas to keep moving.
If they stop moving, our cities will starve in a few days.

Subsidising and mandating the use of ethanol produced from food crops is a foolish policy with no benefits for the climate or the environment.

The suggestion that emissions from farm livestock are net additions of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is just plain wrong. Every molecule of carbon dioxide emitted by livestock is taken from the grass and grains the animal eats, which in turn is taken from the atmosphere by growing plants using photosynthesis and energy from the sun. It is a continual carbon cycle that has been going in since ancient auroch cattle roamed Europe, bison and antelopes roamed the American grassland, wild herds of grazing animals roamed free over all the African plains, and kangaroos and bushfires regularly harvested the Australian grasslands.

In the carbon cycle, trees are just like animals - temporary storehouses for carbon. They are not some special stand-alone life form to be worshipped unconditionally and subsidised thoughtlessly. Every molecule of carbon dioxide that is "captured" when the tree is growing creates the leaves, bark and wood and is stored there. While growing, the tree will shed bark, leaves and branches. These will fall to the ground and decompose, releasing the carbon to the soil, to bacteria or back to the atmosphere as carbon dioxide. Eventually, the tree itself will die or be used for timber structures. Eventually all of the tree will rot or be burnt and every carbon atom that was taken from the atmosphere will be end up back in the atmosphere. The same cyclic process occurs for all plant life, including food crops, grasses and algae. All that varies is the time for the complete cycle to occur.

The criticism that Australia leads the world in per capital emissions of carbon dioxide is a silly conclusion from nonsense calculations. Australians are very large suppliers of coal, minerals, food and fibre to consumers all over the world. We have a massive transport network to move this food, fibre, energy and minerals to our own capitals and to world consumers. Those consumers should be the ones responsible for the emissions generated by a handful of productive Australians to produce our flood of raw materials. Moreover our grasslands, rivers, oceans and soils are net absorbers of carbon dioxide. A fair and more complete calculation would show that Australia is a net absorber of carbon dioxide.

Authorised by Viv Forbes
The Carbon Sense Coalition                             
Rosevale Qld 4340 Australia

“Carbon Sense” is a newsletter produced by the Carbon Sense Coalition, an Australian-based organisation which opposes waste of resources, opposes pollution, and promotes the rational and sustainable use of carbon energy and carbon food.

Please spread “Carbon Sense” around.


 Vincent Gray


The only true climate science is meteorology. It has been built up for some 200 years from a network of local and international observations of every property which can be measured and can influence both local and more general climate behaviour.

I have written before about one pioneer, a favourite historical character, Vice Admiral Robert Fitzroy, descended from one of Charles 2nd's many bastards (hence the name), the second son of the third Duke of Grafton, sent to sea, where he prospered to become the Captain of "The Beagle" at age 23, and seeking to establish a mission in South America to civilise the natives, he selected Charles Darwin as his gentleman companion for the voyage. They visited New Zealand, amongst other places, and he subsequently became the second Governor, dismissed early for his excessive sympathy with the native Maori. Although no scientist (he opposed Darwin's Theory) he became the first Head of the UK Meteorological Office where he applied scientific measurements for the first time  and issued the first weather forecast, for storms at sea. He invented a barometer.

200 years later the traditions he helped to establish have comprised a wide range of observational networks and theoretical treatments of weather and climate patterns, to provide a scientific weather forecasting service worldwide where its pronouncements are universally scrutinised and  which infuenced all of our lives.

Every person trained in meteorology knows the formidable task that faces a scientific study of the earth's climate. The number, sophistication and  variety of measurements and calculating power available have increased greatly but the climate has proved to provide a level of complexity that limits forecasting power to only a week or so in any one place, with reducing reliability longer ahead.

The reasons for these formidable difficulties are many, but the most important one is the limited understanding that we have of fluid motion. The scientific revolution that began with Galileo and Newton dealt with the behaviour of solid bodies. Its success is amazing. We have tables that confidently and accurately predict the motion  of the planets, the behaviour of the tides, and when modified by the adjustments supplied by Einstein, even the movements of elementary particles. Newton could not have known that his results depemded on the unexpected fact that the motions of atoms and molecules in a solid cancel out.

Meteorologists know that the dominant determinants of both weather and climate are movements of air and water, of convection, evaporation and precipitation. of cyclones, anticyclones of Hadley circulation, of hurricanes and tornadoes, of gulf streams and currents, and ocean oscillations. It is these features which represent the greatest difficulties of forecasting. Our mathematics need the use of second order differential equations, often with increasingly unpredictable solutions over time. On top of these are the differences between daytime. when there is radiation from the sun and night time when there is not, the sun's variability cosmic rays, clouds, earthquakes, tsunamis and volcanic eruptions. The whole system is often described as "chaotic", but this is unfair. Just because current science and mathematics is incomplete does not mean that it may not improve in the future. All we know is that we are doing our best for the present, and we are all grateful for it.

Along come a group of pseudo scientists calling themselves climatologists who are so arrogant as to claim they can predict the behaviour of the climate well beyond the current capacity of meteorology, and to convince the whole world to make economically damaging changes to all our lives which it is claimed will avert the forthcoming threats they so confidently predict.

To start with, however, they do not make actual "predictions" at all. They only deal with "projections" which depend on  acceptance of assumptions made by their models and scenarios of the future. These "projections" were initially so far ahead that those providing them could be satisfied  to follow a long lucrative career before any check on accuracy could be made, but since these "projections" seem not to be happening they have recently been tempted to take the dangerous step of earlier  projections making it possible to check them, which so far  have been a ghastly failure. This seems to have had little effect on a gullible public, which has a misplaced confidence in their value.

A typical statement of the conflict between meteorology and climatology appears in "Frequently Asked Questions" No 1 in Chapter 1 of the 4th Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
"A   common   confusion   between   weather   and   climate arises when scientists are asked how they can predict climate 50 years from now when they cannot predict the weather a few weeks beyond a few days. Projecting changes in climate (i.e., long-term average weather) due to changes in atmospheric composition or other factors is a very different and much more manageable issue."

It seems that somehow they have managed to conjure away all the chaos that must accumulate over many years, so as to achieve "more manageable" predictions 50 years or more ahead. Why is this magic formula not available to our poor meteorologists who still struggle with "chaos"?

The answer is amazingly simple, yet nobody seems to have noticed it.

It resides in the nomenclature that they have chosen to describe their miracle, which they call  "The Greenhouse Effect"

I have recently published a lengthy analysis of the climatic behaviour inside a greenhouse, and the botched attempts that have been to apply it to climate models.If you want to read this it is at

In this document I show that the early researches by Fourier, Tyndall and Arrhenius have been distorted by the climate scientists to provide a basis for their climate models. What I did not point out sufficiently strongly is that by treating the climate as if it resembles a greenhouse they have failed to mention the prime function of a greenhouse, which is to eliminate outside weather. The models therefore remove chaos by removing the causes of the chaos, which are the most imporant influences on both climate and weather, the movements of air and water, convectrion, evaporation, precipitation, hurricanes etc. .Their models reluctantly include a mere reference to these important influences which are referred to as "thermals" and "latent heat" but they give a completely inadequate attempt to calculate their importance, their variability, or the influence of human activity on them. They even try to claim that their models can predict the "weather" they have eliminated when it is "extreme"

The trick therefore, has been to replace meteorology altogether with a system entirely dependent on radiation. Then, they ignore both the profound difference between  day and night and several other potential sources of "chaos" and provide "projections" which are always pessimistic which possess no scientifically established measure of accuracy,  replaced by an "attribution" from people paid to do so.

Meteorologists meaure relative humidity, considered a greenhouse gas, but these measurements are largely igored in order to place emphasis, and even responsibility for the climate on the minor greenhouse gas carbon dioxide, which is never measured by meteorologists because its influence is negligible. It is only promoted because it can be claimed to be causing human-induced damage to the climate.

It is a matter of astonishment that models which ignore the main influences on the climate are so widely accepted as plausible.


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