Saturday, 31 March 2012


Ottawa lights

Re-name “Earth Hour” to “Energy Hour” and base it on sound science

Doing the right things for the wrong reasons is a serious mistake

Ottawa, Canada, March 28, 2012: Earth Hour is yet another symbol of how climate activists have hijacked the environmental movement,” said Tom Harris, executive director of the International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC) which is headquartered in Ottawa, Canada. “Most people do not realize that, when they turn out their lights for sixty minutes on March 31, they are not supporting science-based environmental protection. Participants in Earth Hour are unwittingly helping prop up one of the most threatening scientific hoaxes in history—the idea that carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from human activities are known to be causing dangerous global warming and other problematic climate change.”

ICSC chief science advisor, Professor Bob Carter of James Cook University in Queensland, Australia and author of the best selling book, “Climate: the Counter Consensus” explained, “Science has yet to provide unambiguous evidence that problematic, or even measurable, human-caused global warming is occurring. The hypothesis of dangerous man-made climate change is based solely on computerized models that have repeatedly failed in practice in the real world.”

New Zealand-based Terry Dunleavy, ICSC founding chairman and strategic advisor said, "It's important not to waste energy, and to generate it as economically as possible in terms both of cost and depletion of natural resources. Those are the right reasons for mass gestures like Earth Hour. However, it is a mistake to promote such initiatives as 'saving the planet' by reducing emissions of CO2 when so many qualified scientists do not support the hypothesis that man-made CO2 can or does cause dangerous global warming. As the public come to realize that they have been misled about the reasons for Earth Hour, much of the incentive to engage in constructive behaviour will evaporate."

In announcing his support for Earth Hour, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon asserted, “We do so [turning off lights] in solidarity with the men, women and children, 20% of all humankind, who live with no access to electricity.”

“If we are going to demonstrate solidarity with those who lack adequate energy supplies, then we need to really feel what they feel, not just turn off a few lights,” said ICSC energy issues advisor, Bryan Leyland of Auckland, New Zealand. “Earth Hour should be renamed Energy Hour and citizens encouraged to use as little energy as possible for 60 minutes so that they can get a sense of what societies without adequate power are actually like. For this is exactly where we are headed if governments continue to yield to climate activists and try to replace reliable, base load generation with expensive, intermittent and diffuse energy sources such as wind and solar power.”

“Climate campaigners will undoubtedly once again cite the public’s participation in Earth Hour as broad support for combating climate change,” predicted Professor Ole Humlum of the Institute of Geosciences, University of Oslo, Norway and author of the popular climate science Website “Some commentators have therefore suggested using as much energy as possible during the hour to demonstrate opposition to the climate scare. A more constructive approach would be to change the name and stated purpose of the program to one based on the realities of science and the world we actually live in. Energy Hour would stand the test of time. Earth Hour, based on misguided climate change fears, will not.”

For more information about this announcement or ICSC in general, visit

Earth Hour - Celebrate Coal not candles

Viv Forbes of the Carbon Sense Coalition writes

Earth Hour - we need to celebrate
 Coal not Candles

30 March 2012

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

Please Spread Carbon Sense

Coal not candles should be the symbol of Earth Hour.


It was coal that produced clean electric power which cleared the smog produced by dirty combustion and open fires in big cities like London and Pittsburgh. Much of the third world still suffers choking fumes and smog because they do not have clean electric power and burn wood, cardboard, unwashed coal and cow dung for home heat.

It was coal that saved the forests being felled to fuel the first steam engines and produce charcoal for the first iron smelters.

It was coal that powered the light bulbs and saved the whales being slaughtered for whale oil lamps.

It was coal that produced the steel that replaced shingles on the roof, timber props in the mines, wooden fence posts on the farms and the bark on the old bark hut.

In Australia today, coal provides at least 75% of our lighting, cooking, heating, refrigeration, rail transport and steel. Without it, we would be back in the dark days of candles, wood stoves, chip heaters, open fires, smoky cities, hills bare of trees and streets knee deep in horse manure.

Coal is fossil sunshine as clean as the green plants it came from, and often less damaging to the environment than its green energy alternatives.

Earth Hour candles are green tokenism for rich status-seekers and nostalgic dreamers.

We should spend Earth Hour saluting the real people who produce the coal on which most people on earth depend.

The Real Agenda of Earth Hour

"We must make this place an insecure and inhospitable place for Capitalists and their projects – we must reclaim the roads and plowed lands, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers, and return to the wilderness millions and tens of millions of acres of presently settled land."

–         Dave Foreman, "Earth First"

For those who would like to read more:

Clearing the smog of Beijing with "Coal by Wire":

Return to the caves:

Hail to Electricity:

The Road to more Blackout nights:

Earth Hour – a Dissent 

Authorised by Viv Forbes

An Inconsistent Truth

Trailer for an interesting new film - An Inconsistent Truth.

The official movie trailer for An Inconsistent Truth. The movie they don't want you to see. Visit

Friday, 30 March 2012

The FFFFFFing King

Cartoons by Josh
Just a Friday Fun (FF) post.

TCS blog has just had a thought.
(At last, I can hear the deniers say.)

Tim Flannery has
So that makes Fearless Flannery (FF) The FFFFFFFFing King.

  • Flawed Fabulist, 
  • Flawed Future Foreteller, 
  • Face of Farts Flannery.

Where are you, Tim? The oceans are rising and your house soon will be underwater.

UPDATE New Poll (here)

Carbon tax - the worst piece of economic reform

David Murray
Image Wikimedia
From the Sydney Morning Herald:

Carbon tax worst economic reform, says outgoing Future Fund chief

Outgoing Future Fund chairman David Murray has given a searing exit interview, blasting the carbon tax as the worst economic reform he has ever seen.
''If you want me to tell you my view, it is the worst piece of economic reform that I've ever seen in my lifetime,'' Mr Murray told ABC radio this morning.
Mr Murray, who is due to finish at the Future Fund next month, said that the ''notion'' of the carbon tax was not the issue, it was the ''consequences''.
He said it would raise costs within Australia and reduce Australia's competitiveness in energy exports. ''[It] therefore renders us less competitive in the future,'' he said.
See also previous post

Future Fund chairman David Murray has doubts on Global Warming.

Sea level rise and local councils (and Update)

Alarmist Picture of NSW North Coast
Professor Cliff Ollier writing on  Meteorologist Joe D'Aleo's blog on ICECAP, International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project:
CSIRO alarmism more dangerous than CO2

THE Weekend Australian reported on March 24 that Port Macquarie Hastings Council was recommending the enforcement of a “planned retreat” because of an alleged danger from sea-level rise in the (distant) future.
The controversy has two main aspects: is the alarming rise in sea level projected by CSIRO reliable? And is moving people from near-shore sites the correct response

The CSIRO projection is extreme, but before explaining why, I would note that the world’s main source of alarmism is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This is not really a scientific body but one that adjusts data and subjects it to mathematical modelling before passing its “projections” on to politicians

The CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology, then further adjust data and produce models with even more extreme scenarios.
 Professor Ollier explains that the IPCC has had various and decreasing estimates of seal level rises and the worst estimate in its last report was 59cm.
The CSIRO uses figures far in excess of even the IPCC, which until now were the greatest alarmists. In its 2012 report, State of the Climate, the CSIRO says that since 1993 sea levels have risen up to 10mm a year in the north and west. That means that somewhere has had a 19cm-rise in sea level since 1993. Where is this place? The European satellite says that sea levels have been constant for the past eight years.
How does the CSIRO arrive at its figures? Not from new data but by modelling. Models depend on what is put into them. For example a 2009 report, The Effect of Climate Change on Extreme Sea Levels in Port Phillip Bay, by the CSIRO for the Victorian government’s Future Coasts Program, based its model on temperature projections to 2100 of up to 6.4C. That compares with the most extreme, fuel-intensive scenario of the IPCC and implies unbelievable CO2 concentration levels in 2100 of about 1550 parts per million.
 Read the rest of Professor Cliff Ollier's informative item HERE.

Alan Jones speaks to Professor Bob Carter and Angus Gordon podcast HERE


AJ: The IPCC – a totally discredited international policy agency known to flout conventional scientific procedures

RC The scientific basis for this sea level policy is quite simply nonsense.

AG The problem with the IPCC is that the scientists say one thing but the bureaucrats in the IPCC say something differently.

AG The record from Fort Denison we have just under a hundred years reliable record…and those shows a rise of 12cm

Prof Ollier quoted “If Tim Flannery is allowed to take his chance living on his Hawkesbury property near sea level, Port Macquarie’s retirees should be permitted to do so too. They should not be evicted to “save” them from a dire fate they will never see.”

AG The more recent trend (with sea level) is one of deceleration rather than acceleration

RC It is absolutely criminal that local councils under state government legislation are being required to plan on the basis of a computer model of global sea level. Global sea level has virtually nothing to do with what is happening on the Australian coast
UPDATE: Real Science reports

Oregon Sea Level Has Fallen Five Inches In 30 years

See also: Is There Any Support In The Long Term Tide Gauge Data,

               New Research Debunks "Accelerating" Sea Level Rise Claims

Thursday, 29 March 2012

Climate Change: The Green Scare

Dr. William Happer
(Photo: Denise Applewhite
Princeton U Office of Communication)

From The Voice of America Science World

Dr. Happer  testified before Congress, in 2009, saying, “I believe that the increase of CO2 is not a cause for alarm and will be good for mankind.”
Dr. Happer says the Wall Street Journal letter is the result of a scientific examination of  global warming and increasing CO2, which found “there’s more smoke than fire there,” and demonstrates that not all scientists think there’s a drastic problem that must be immediately addressed. 

Dr. Happer describes climate change as happening all the time, that it’s been changing and that it has clearly warmed up over the last 200 years.  But Dr. Happer insists the current warming trend started from a very cold period at the end of what has been called the “little ice age”.
“Most of the warming you hear about and most of the glacier melting was over by 1900,” says Dr. Happer.
Dr. Happer finds it hard to believe the early phase of the warming, which he says is the biggest part, was all independent of CO2 because its levels hadn’t increased much before 1900.

From the Wall Street Journal On Line

Princeton physicist William Happer argues that computer models vastly exaggerate the effects of carbon dioxide on climate and that CO2 may in fact be beneficial.

Wednesday, 28 March 2012

Despicable scientific illiterates

By a US Meteorologist

Fotosearch Stock Photography

These people are despicable scientific illiterates that are an arm of the Obama power grab to centralize America to a form of facism/socialism.

Just do the math and you will see their claims about CO2 are baseless. At 389 ppmv, and assuming CO2 is a "well mixed" gas throughout the atmosphere, the mixing ratio of CO2 to a Kilogram of dry air is .595 grams. Integrating that mass to a zero pressure gives 1.24 x 10^-10 ppmv/tonne of CO2.

Even if you wiped out ALL of the USA's annual carbon emissions, or spread the reduction globally ( which is impossible to ever achieve ) listed as 5.8 billion metric tonnes of CO2, that only reduces the annual growth of CO2 by .72 ppmv from an annual growth of 2.5 ppmv, which is 50% of annual emissions because of ocean uptake. No matter what the reduction strategy, the growth of atmospheric CO2 cannot be stopped unless the oceans cool off again, which means, according to the failed modeling of CO2 to temperature, that the annual temperatures will continue upwards to catastrophic levels no matter what we do.

So the only real conclusion one can reach based upon real calculations and the EPA's climate model projections, the human race is doomed not because of human action, but the earth has just decided it's all time we just go, and is outgassing the appropriate CO2 to kill us off.

It is obvious climate models are failed concepts that have the wrong sensitivity factor to CO2 and temperature, primarily because the physics in the modeling is wrong based upon positive water vapor feedback, and that "climate models" are a true mathematical absurdity with respect to being able to accurately describe earth atmosphere physical processes for large time intervals with the Navier Stokes equations. The EPA is engaging in scientific misconduct and fraud.

Waste of Energy under our Government

A list of the current green schemes under this Federal government's rule.

Will Abbott end them when he takes over after the next election?
A Cleaner Future for Power Stations
Energy Efficiency Opportunities Program
Department of Climate Change
Australian Centre for Renewable Energy
Renewable Energy Target (RET) Scheme
Renewable Energy Future Fund
National Green Power Accreditation Program
National CO2 Infrastructure Plan
National Low Emissions Coal Initiative
Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute
Renewable Energy Venture Capital Fund
Solar Cities
Solar Flagships
Australian Solar Institute
Sustainable Australia — measuring sustainability
Sustainable Australia — suburban jobs
Tackling Climate Change — emissions reduction modelling
Sustainable Australia — sustainable regional development
Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities
Greenhouse and energy reporting
National Solar Schools Program
Renewable Energy Target
Living Greener website
Carbon Farming Initiative

Question from DS.

Failure Flannery to be Face of Farts

Genetically modified cows could fart less

TCS blog had to look at the date, thinking that April 1st had arrived, but no! it is only 28th March.

News Ltd is carrying a story where Tim Flannery,  the author of the flawed The Weather Makers, is to be the face of a project to reduce the farts of cows.
GENETICALLY modifying cows so they burp and fart less - that's one of 40 initiatives to reduce emissions being considered by the cattle and sheep industry.

Researchers are investigating the merits of selective breeding to alter the genetic makeup of certain breeds of cows and sheep
The new breeds would produce less methane in a bid to reduce the impact of farming on the environment.

"Methane is a waste," Mr Flannery said.
"The energy that the cows produce in methane, could have got into producing meat."
I hope the researchers realise which end of the cow is the main problem.

Perhaps Mr Flannery could investigate the Argentinian project that put the methane to use.

People can go to to ask questions, receive regular updates, voice their opinions and get simple tips on being more sustainable at home.


by IPCC Expert Reviewer Vincent Gray
MARCH  28th 2012


In order to enter Cambridge University I had to have a School Certificate qualification in a classical language. My language was Latin, so I did not learn classical Greek. However, as a result of my PhD studies on the flow birefringence of aluminium soap gels I became a "rheologist", a specialist in the science of flowing liquids (and solids), and I became aware of the rheologists' motto     "Panta Rhei" Πάντα ῥεῖ,  "everything flows" which is attributed to Heraclites but first mentioned by Simplicius. It can also be interpreted as meaning "everything changes" and could be taken as the first expression of the theory of evolution.

Most people accept the truth of this motto, but there have always been some people and even whole groups of people who either deny it or make tremendous efforts to stop change from happening. The political movement dedicated to this purpose is "Conservatism" and this has been extended to the prevention of change as is practically everything else in the idea of "Conservation". The latest twist is SUSTAINABILITY.

Charles Darwin provided a solid scientific basis for explaining the inevitable changes in living organisms as long ago as 1859 yet only 48% of the US population accept it and support is even lower in countries that favour non-Christian religions. Although the world celebrated the 200th anniversary of  Darwin's birth in 2009 many aspects of his theory are rejected or ignored.

The actual claim in his famous book "The Origin of Species" that it provides evidence on how the designation of a "species": is determined, is completely ignored. He made it plain that the term "species" is merely one of the levels in an arbitrary hierarchical system for classifying organisms, and its individual assignment is a matter of pure convenience based on a varying choice of similarities and differences . There is no fixed number of  "species" and the number can be as many as might be decided. "Biodiversity" is as much or as little as professional taxonomists might decide is desirable. It is convenient to classify early humans over slight differences, where pet dogs, which are much more variable, all belong to one species.

A "species" is not, as was once believed by Linnaeus, the most prominent originator of the system, something that is preordained by some sort of deity, but merely a practical card index division. "Speciation", the formation of a new species, is no more mysterious than the point at which taxonomists find it convenient to admit that evolution has progressed to the extent that a previous designation should be changed.

Darwin's theory obviously implies that humans have evolved in exactly the same manner as any other organism so there is no place for a divine creator or for specialist treatment from prayer. This was a very difficult conclusion to accept personally because his wife was an enthusiastic Christian. Admitting that his theory had replaced all religions in writing would have led to rejection of his whole theory by many people. He played it down from the start and only got round to it in his "Descent of Man". This book did not have the benefit of the knowledge of the  many early humans that have now been discovered despite the first of them  (Neandertal) which was discover the Neander Valley (now in Belgium) in  1829, but was not known by Darwin.. Later, in his autobiography, he admitted that he was an agnostic: but this admission was censored by his family and only restored in 1958.

Another respect in which Darwin is ignored is in his pioneer studies is his work on social evolution. His contemporary and close friend Herbert Spencer wrote comprehensive histories on a number of subjects. In his histories of the rise and fall of societies and civilizations of the past he realised that Darwin's theory of evolution applied to groups of people as well as to individuals. The phrase that he used to describe how this evolution works, "survival of the fittest" was eagerly accepted by Darwin as a phrase which characterized his whole theory, and he used it in  "The Descent of Man". This aspect of his theory has been not only widely ignored but even condemned as "Social Darwinism".

 It is true that there have been several unfortunate attempts to control human evolution which were so spectacularly unsuccessful as to have given the whole idea a bad name. Darwin and Spencer, admitted that several creatures deliberately killed or marginalized handicapped or genetically undesired individuals and they could only admit that we civilized beings were only held back by our "feelings" that it is wrong. Although they were aware of the evolution of instincts they had not noticed that the tendency to cooperate (altruism) is a human trait which is favoured by evolution, since it benefits a whole society.and therefore has become instinctive for many people. Social instincts also mean that non reproducing members such as spinsters, homosexuals, the handicapped and the elderly can make important contributions to the survival of a society.

Hitler's Germany applied evolutionary theory to justify the elimination of handicapped people, homosexuals, political opponents and  supposed "inferior " races and it caused disaster to the whole world before its harm to his society became evident. Eugenics, a  once much supported movement,  presumed to encourage desirable reproduction without understanding that future desirability cannot be predicted. I am reminded of the story of the Nobel Prizewinner who was asked if he could supply a sample to a sperm bank which assisted the breeding of geniuses. He replied that they had the wrong man, since his son was a mere guitar player. The person they wanted was his father, who was a poor unemployed tailor.

Despite the failures public discouragement of undesirable genetic defects is widely encouraged . Much more common is the encouragement of desired social instincts, so we have honours lists and many "awards" although  the evolutionary value of some may be disputable. We still reward soldiers for their skill in killing others...

Richard Dawkins, our most prominent evolutionist, has failed to recognise the importance of any instinct. He made his name with  "Selfish Gene" which implies that only individual evolution matters, He has even invented a substitute for socially evolved instincts, which he calls a "meme".

One of the main reasons for the decline and disappearance of past human societies has been the resistance to change of the ruling groups. Both the development of human technology and the changes in the world demand that for survival a society must be prepared to change its structure and even its leadership personnel in the face of evolutionary changes. When  the resistance to change is determined enough we may get revolution instead of planned evolutionary change.

The world is currently infected with a pseudo religion which regards all evolutionary change as something for which we humans are alone responsible, that is invariably harmful, must be resisted, and for which we must be prepared to sacrifice some or all of the prosperity or comfort which some of us enjoy. This flies in the face of all evolutionary theory. In order to survive, all organisms and social groups must seek to benefit themselves, and to treat all other species how they  may contribute to this aim.. Organisms have no generalized responsibility for other organisms, except for those that they exploit, which they encourage, and those that exploit them which they discourage.

All organisms interact with one another in a complex manner, described by Ernst Haeckel' by the term "ecology".  This complex interaction cannot be separated up into discrete "ecosystems" thought to be unchanged by evolution, nor is it possible to define ecological regions entirely free from any particular class of organisms, such as humans.

The concepts of "progress" and "development" have been replaced by the concept of "SUSTAINABILITY. There is even "'Sustainable Development" which is a contradiction in terms.

Sustainability can be interpreted in several ways. It may be the idea that any settled way of acting, in manufacture, agriculture or political organisation, should be maintained exactly as it is now, but allowed to change slowly if it does not disturb existing leadership. This might be called "MAINTAINABILITY.  Another meaning  argues that what happens now is the only  acceptable way of doing things and that it must be made to stay the same for ever. Another meaning is that the present is all wrong and we must change it at great sacrifice to ourselves "for the benefit of future generations" by carrying out damaging economic changes  to satisfy a spurious theory that humans are damaging "The Planet". All of  these meanings fly in the face of the science of evolution. One may have some sympathy for people who are harmed by technological change, but the idea that change can be prevented from happening is a recipe for revolution.

Sustainability is now  used so widely by declining Western nations as a guide to future policy that it seems we have already surrendered to our future domination by developing nations which place more emphasis on genuine development and technical, political and organizational change.

Vincent Gray
Wellington 6035

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

Tories - reverse Robin Hoods, Robbing from the poor to give to the rich.

Sit Tim Rice with Elton John
Pro Environment, Incensed about Wind Turbines: Sir Tim Rice

As reported by the UK Telegraph, Tim Rice, once a stalwart Conservative party donor and fund raiser, has been "falling out of love with the Conservatives" over their insane policies such as supporting wind farms. Prime Minister David Cameron's coalition government wants renewable sources to provide 15 per cent of the energy supply by 2015, but the investment into wind farming has divided the country.
“I recently declined to support a Conservative function because I’m so incensed about these wind turbines. Like all so-called climate-change doubters, I am very pro the environment, but I strongly believe that it is something that can only be cured locally. Some insane overall scheme isn’t going to cure all the problems. And the money that is wasted. As a landowner in Scotland [Sir Tim owns the 33,000-acre Dundonnell estate in Wester Ross on the west coast], I’ve been offered vast amounts of money to stick up wind turbines, which not only will make me richer, it will make less well-off people poorer, and will damage the environment. These schemes aren’t doing any good – just making rich people richer, and it’s depressing to see great areas of these useless objects up there.
It’s a scam – a con – and until the Government has the brains to actually say, hang on, we’ve got it wrong, this is a total economic and environmental error, then I find it hard to give total support to them.”
 Lyricist Sir Tim has not only fallen out with the Tories, he says that there will never be another Rice/Lloyd Webber musical. "We’re not relevant as a team any more.”

Tuesday, 27 March 2012

Unlikely Skeptic: A Liberal Environmentalist Challenges Global Warming Theory

Denis Rancourt speaks to Marc Morano.

Denis runs a blog called The Climate Guy.

It was on the Climate Guy site that Australian Peter Laux, Locomotive Engineman issued a challenge, that he “will pay $10,000 (AUS) for a conclusive argument based on empirical facts that increasing atmospheric CO2 from fossil fuel burning drives global climate warming.” (LINK)

The original challenge is HERE

Monday, 26 March 2012


By Vincent Gray
Sinking in a sea of debt.

MARCH  25th 2012


"Those whom the Gods would destroy, they first  make mad". This ancient saying is attributed, wrongly, to Euripides.

Western Nations are sinking in a sea of debt, yet they are obsessed with the belief that our civilisation is being destroyed by our own actions, and the chief culprit is our need for energy. By  preventing the use of fossil fuels or nuclear power we are hastening our own departure.

I have been involved with trying to understand this mad delusion for over twenty years. At first I was trapped by the authority of those publicizing the "Global Warming" theory and it was only by slow degrees that  I became convinced that one aspect of its claims after another was without scientific foundation until I reached my current assessment that everything about it is wrong, It violates every possible principal of physics, mathematics and elementary logic..

 I was never a professional meteorologist.. I did, however, run a weather station on the roof of my school in Hammersmith, London, between the years of 1937 and 1939. I accepted, at the time, that the science of Meteorology, which represented the collected wisdom of over 200 years, was the only reliable scientific study of the climate. This scientific study has improved since then, and we get the latest knowledge of the entire world climate on our weather report every day..

Why has it been abandoned by so many people?  An alternative theory based on a postulate that changes in the climate are exclusively caused by human emissions of greenhouse gases has penetrated the entire academic science community world wide.  Some of its supporters have, through it,  found scientific employment where it did not exist elsewhere, Some have been attracted by the money, travel experiences and promotion, even a Nobel Prize. These reasons are easy to understand. What is difficult to understand is how so many can believe that their activity is beneficial to :the "Planet" and even to human progress. It is a belief that is similar to a religion, yet many religions, at least in their early stages, play a part in improving human welfare. This belief is hastening the road to disaster.

When I first developed an opposition to the aberrant pseudo-religioin I was almost a lone voice, both within my community and in the world outside. Now there are groups of people who have realised the absurdity of the "global warming" theory and the public is waking up to its harmful economic consequences. We may be termed "Sceptics": but the "warmers" call us "deniers", an example of the deliberately confusing use of words, with which they specialize. None of us deny that the climate is changing. Indeed it is the "warmers" who insist that without the evil influence of humans  the climate is static and unchanging. Once the evil human influences are removed by a form of World Government, the climate will go back to a version of paradise.

I am currently being bombarded by a collective Email with fifty listed names, which include several of the most prominent sceptics. The purport of its organizers is to argue that there should be some sort of consensus of climate sceptics to present a more effective opposition to the "warmers" who do, indeed, somehow present a united "census" opinion .

There are some propositions which are accepted by all scientists. The claim that the earth is flat is actually one of the assumptions of the IPCC theory. Opponents of Newton's Laws of Motion are few. Those of us who have studied Thermodynamics accept its basic deductions.

The problem with the organizers of this Email attempt at a "consensus, is that they misapply the  basic principles of Thermodynamics and, by doing so, claim that the "greenhouse" theory is wrong. The "greenhouse" theory is wrong for a whole number of reasons, but these people seem to be little concerned with these reasons, so they have invented yet another wrong reason which is incompatible with the basic principles of Thermodynamics and they are trying to persuade all of us to accept it.

Their contention is that since the greenhouse theory postulates that radiation from the atmosphere contributes to the warming of the earth, this violates the Second Law of Thermodymanics which forbids transfer of heat from a cooler object to a warmer object.. They are, perhaps, confused by the fact that the IPCC model is supposed to be "balanced". There is no claim by the IPCC  that this is the same as thermodynamic equilibrium or that thermodynamics laws should apply to a system which is persistently being constrained out of equilibrium.

The IPCC theory depends entirely for all its energy exchanges on a continouous supply of external energy from the sun.. If the sun were removed, the system would, at equilibrium, revert to absolute zero, and all the radiation would disappear. The climate system is exactly comparable to any externally energized system such as a refrigerator, a heat pump, a heated building and a human body which are all systems whose internal  energy exchanges would disappear if the external source is removed.

The "Slayers" as we may call them, are forever taking a small section of the system and showing that it does not work. It is like taking a human heart, on its own, and showing that it does not beat; therefore humans do not exist.

Scientific "consensus" is an anathema that no genuine scientist could ever accept. We "sceptics" unlike the "warmists" will continue to disagree. I have enough trouble persuading people that almost everything about the models is wrong, but the presence of "back radiation" is certainly not one of them..

Vincent Gray
Wellington 6035

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

Government Dies over lies

Bligh lied and her Government died.
Anna Bligh quit parliament after Labor was all but wiped out as voters linked Ms Bligh's broken promise on asset sales to Prime Minister Julia Gillard's on the carbon tax.
Beware, Ms Gillard.  Repeal and repent.

Saturday, 24 March 2012

A vote for the Greens is a vote against Australian Sovereignty

Bob Brown promotes World Governance
Press Club - 29/6/11
For those voting in the Queensland elections, please don't waste your vote on the Greens; the party that would be happy if we all went back to living in caves.

Also remember that the Greens promote World Governance. As an excuser for the left, journalsit Mark Reilly tried to dampened the Global Governance remarks made by Greens leader Bob Brown during his address to the National Press Club. Instead Reilly helped to fan the flames.

See also: Green Leaders, green unbelievers. Hypocrites!

Friday, 23 March 2012

Another win for the Realists

From Forbes:   Mississippi Court Ends Global-Warming Suit
Cooling tower emitting H2O
Can't see the CO2!
(Image credit: AFP via @daylife)
Daniel Fisher, Forbes Staff
A federal judge in Mississippi has ended a long-running suit that attempted to hold a selection of U.S. utilities and coal and oil companies responsible for flooding damage caused by Hurricane Katrina.
U.S. District Judge Louis Guirola Jr., in a decision released yesterday, dismissed Comer vs. Murphy Oil with prejudice, meaning it can’t be refiled or reconstituted. The decision should serve to preclude, other similar lawsuits accusing companies of emitting global-warming gases that cause damaging weather patterns.
Guirola dismissed the case for legal reasons — he’d already dismissed it once before, and he said the plaintiffs were barred by various legal doctrines from reviving it — but “out of an abundance of caution” he reiterated why the case shouldn’t be allowed to proceed.
Those reasons are becoming familiar in global-warming cases: Guirola ruled the case invalid because the underlying issue of global warming is a political question, best left to the legislative branch and regulators to decide. And because existing tort law requires plaintiffs to prove a more solid connection between their injuries and the actions of those they are suing than a scientifically plausible argument that one contributed to the other.

Why aren't there more sensible judges?

Labor's Lie Levy exterminatates economy

PM Gillard sticking her neck out for Holden
The irony of PM "There will be no carbon tax..." Gillard propping up union jobs in vehicle manufacture after the pain to that industry caused by the Green Gillard Government's tax on vital-to-life carbon dioxide; the increased costs on coal and steel, would be laughable if it were not so serious a threat to our economy.

As the Daily Telegraph wrote:
Now comes dramatic confirmation of the excessive power charges suffered throughout Australia. Our coal-rich nation, which logically should have the resources to generate cheap electricity for decades if not centuries, pays a remarkable 130 per cent more for electricity than does Canada, to give just one example.
Across Europe, in Asia and the South Pacific, the story is the same. Australia stands at the very top of the table when it comes to electricity costs.
And here's the really bad news. The federal Labor government's looming carbon tax will only make that painful margin between us and most of the rest of the world even larger.
This evil "price" on carbon (dioxide) will hit everybody from Mining Millionaire Magnates to the poorest pensioner.  Electricity is a component in everything you buy, everything you do. Manufacturing costs will rise, shopping centres must increase rents to provide lighting and cleaning in common areas.

Councils will have to increase rates causing another hit below the belt to the economy. Those of us who need to fly or can afford air fares as a luxury will also be affected. As Andrew Bolt writes:
The Municipal Association of Victoria estimates the carbon tax will add three per cent to bills, which could increase by up to 30 percent with other charges.
Power prices are likely to be higher than Government estimates and may increase further following a warning by Australia's largest power generator that it could be forced to reduce output to cut carbon costs.
The company says this could push up the price of electricity even more because of less power being available on the National Electricity Market.
Airlines have confirmed they will add a carbon tax surcharge to the cost of a ticket and small businesses may also be forced to increase their prices to the public.

At the same time China, the primary source of Australia's booming economy over the last few years is going through a growth slow-down. (From Business Spectator):
In China, manufacturing activity fell to a four-month low in March, HSBC bank said on Thursday, adding fuel to concerns over slowing growth in the world's second-largest economy.


The Beehive (left) and Parliament House (right)
Image: Wikipedia
 By Dr Vincent Gray
MARCH  23rd 2012

I cannot do anything but rejoice at the departure of Nick Smith from the Cabinet because of a "Conflict of Interest:" He is the most fanatical supporter of the theory that "global warming" is caused by emissions of carbon dioxide. I might just repeat  once again, my experience last year.

Rodney Hyde asked a question in Parliament regarding the evidence for the "global warming" theory. Nick Smith replied that he would lay on a briefing for him and the other MPs to explain this. Rodney asked whether he could bring along an expert with him. Nick Smith immediately agreed.,

As I am a member of the Climate Science Coalition in Wellington. I found myself appointed as this expert. I went along to the ACT Party office a bit before  the appointed time to discuss things with Rodney Hyde. I was introduced to Sir Roger Douglas and then we went to Nick Smith's office in Parliament and went and sat down. I was welcomed by everybody present.

Then, in walked Nick Smith. He went red all over when he saw me and shouted "You don't belong here. This is for MPs only. GET OUT". So I got out. Rodney Hyde said nothing.

So now he has gone from the Environment post. Good riddance.

But "Conflict of Interest"? Is this a good reason for a dismissal?  Nobody seems to realise that the most elaborate and comprehensive conflict of interest that has been inflicted on the public is the "Global Warning" Theory.

I have been an Expert Reviewer on every one of the Reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and I can tell you that there is not a scrap of evidence in any of them that human emissions of carbon dioxide have any harmful effect on the climate.

How have they got away with it?

Attempts to "simulate" their unreliable and manipulated past climate "data" have been failures, yet are claimed as successes, But even if the "data" were genuine and the simulation successful it does not prove anything. Correlation, however convincing is not evidence of causation. The only way you can demonstrate the success of any theory is successful prediction  of future climate over the whole range it is intended to be used, to a satisfactory level of accuracy. This has already been done with Newton's Laws of motion and Darwin's theories of evolution. It has not been done with the "global warming" theory. There has been no successful attempt to predict any future climate event. They do not even pretend they can do it, as they only provide "projections" from their models, not "predictions": .

How have they persuaded us that they are able to predict future climate?

They operate a system called "attribution". This is a combination of "simulation" (correlation), and "assessment" by "experts".  The "experts" are all paid to provide the models that they are assessing. These assessments are therefore an elaborate and comprehensive  conflict of interest.

They apply a whole series of "likelihoods" to each "assessment" and apply a fake "statistical significance" which, unlike those normally applied to genuine science, have no background of actual experimental observations.

I attach the official list of instructions on how to perpetrate this elaborate fraud on the international community, from the Fourth IPCC Report.

Vincent Gray
Wellington 6035

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

Attachment: AR4 Uncertainy Guidance Notes (pdf)

Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age extended to the Antarctic Peninsula.

Antarctic Peninsula
Peer reviewed paper - Earth and Planetary Science Letters Volumes 325–326, 1 April 2012, Pages 108–115 
An ikaite record of late Holocene climate at the Antarctic Peninsula

Zunli Lu, Rosalind E.M. Rickaby, Hilary Kennedy, Paul Kennedy, Richard D. Pancost, Samuel Shaw, Alistair Lennie, Julia Wellner, John B. Anderson

Calcium carbonate can crystallize in a hydrated form as ikaite at low temperatures. The hydration water in ikaite grown in laboratory experiments records the δ18O of ambient water, a feature potentially useful for reconstructing δ18O of local seawater. We report the first downcore δ18O record of natural ikaite hydration waters and crystals collected from the Antarctic Peninsula (AP), a region sensitive to climate fluctuations. We are able to establish the zone of ikaite formation within shallow sediments, based on porewater chemical and isotopic data. Having constrained the depth of ikaite formation and δ18O of ikaite crystals and hydration waters, we are able to infer local changes in fjord δ18O versus time during the late Holocene. This ikaite record qualitatively supports that both the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age extended to the Antarctic Peninsula.

Another nail in the coffin of Michael Mann's fraudulent "hockeystick" graph.

Anthony Watts (WUWT) writes
A team of scientists led by Syracuse University geochemist Zunli Lu has found a new key in the form of ikaite, a rare mineral that forms in cold waters. Composed of calcium carbonate and water, ikaite crystals can be found off the coasts of Antarctica and Greenland.
“Ikaite is an icy version of limestone,” say Lu, assistant professor of earth sciences in SU’s College of Arts and Sciences. “The crystals are only stable under cold conditions and actually melt at room temperature.”

It turns out the water that holds the crystal structure together (called the hydration water) traps information about temperatures present when the crystals formed. This finding by Lu’s research team establishes, for the first time, ikaite as a reliable proxy for studying past climate conditions. The research was recently published online in the journal Earth and Planetary Science Letters and will appear in print on April 1. Lu conducted most of the experimental work for the study while a post-doctoral researcher at Oxford University. Data interpretation was done after he arrived at SU.
 Read more at WUWT - link.

Thursday, 22 March 2012

Historic Spring Snowstorm Strikes Western Oregon

Mt Washington - Oregon
Image: Troy McMullin Pacific Crest
 Vancouver, Washington (March 21st 2012) - "Weather history is in the making today across Oregon today. For the second time in the past week, Oregon has been hit with yet another historic snowstorm. Snow fell to near sea level from Portland south to Eugene along the I-5 corridor overnight and continues today. This "spring" snowstorm is of substantial historical significance for Eugene, Oregon. Eugene's records date back to 1939 at the airport. As of 11AM PDT, preliminary reports from Eugene's airport indicates that at least 6" of snow has fallen since midnight. This total will likely be updated again later today and may reveal additional snow accumulation as snow continues to fall. Other areas around Eugene are reporting as much as 9" of total accumulation through 11AM PDT. This is going to go down as a truly historic "spring" snowstorm for Eugene and for Oregon!"

The following records have already been broken at the Eugene airport (1939-2012) this morning:

  1. The single largest calendar day snowfall ever recorded at the Eugene airport for this late in the season (1939-2012).
  2. The single largest March calendar day snowfall ever recorded at the Eugene airport. Previous record was 4.9" set on 3/5/1951.
  3. Ranks in the top 10 of all-time heaviest single day snowfall totals of ANY month of the year at the Eugene airport (1939-2012).

The following records are also in jeopardy of falling by the end of the day at the Eugene airport (1939-2012):

1. Daily record rainfall (melted snow). Old record is 1.20" set on this day in 1998.
2. Coldest daytime high temperature ever recorded for this late in the year.
3. Coldest daytime high for the date. Old record is 43 set on this day in 1975.

Top 5 Calendar Day "March" Eugene Airport Snowfall Totals (inches) (1939-2012)

6.0"       3/21/2012 (through 11AM PDT)
4.9"       3/5/1951
2.9"       3/2/1960
2.5"       3/1/1966
2.3"       3/9/1951

Top 10 Calendar Day Eugene Airport Snowfall Totals (inches) All Months (1939-2012)
1/25/1969       14"
1/26/1969       13.9"
1/27/1969       10"
1/13/1971       7.3"
1/27/1950       7.2"
12/2/1985       7.2"
3/21/2012       6"
1/12/1971       6.2"
2/19/1993       5.7"
2/28/1996       5"

Steve Pierce
President, Oregon Chapter of the American Meteorological Society
Oregon AMS web site:

An inconvenient Breeze - Alternate Energy

From Anthony Watt's WUWT:

Study: it takes 10 units of alternative electricity sources to offset 1 unit of fossil fuel-generated power

From the University of Oregon a clue as to why green energy isn’t making much inroads. For example, compare these findings to what we learned recently from Matt Ridley about the big fat zero of wind power in the bigger scheme of things. From Anthony Watt's WUWT:
Read More at WUWT - here.

Wednesday, 21 March 2012

Greenland Nearly Cut off by Sea Ice

From Steve Goddard's CO2 Science

2012 now ties 1983 for the record ice extent in Baffin Bay. Almost all of Greenland  is blocked by sea ice.

It appears that total ice area is now nearly identical to 1983, which makes me suspect that UIUC measurements have been incorrect since their 2008 eye elevation change.

Note that Baffin Bay is not as wide as it used to be on their maps, so of course their measurements are coming up short. The narrowest point of Baffin Bay is now about 50% less wide on their map as it was in 1983.

See Also: More Ice than 1974  - link.

Tuesday, 20 March 2012

Five Big Carbon Lies.

By Viv Forbes and Helpers
20 March 2012

A print-ready copy of this issue of "Carbon Sense" can be downloaded from:
The Australian government's plan to sell their un-saleable carbon tax has hit a snag – their pollsters have discovered that the word ''carbon'' provokes anger in the electorate.

This is no surprise. Most decent people hate liars and the carbon tax campaign has been mired in lies from the start.

There are five big carbon lies.

The first big lie was from Senator Penny Wong who told us that carbon dioxide is a "pollutant". But people soon learnt that this colourless, non-toxic, natural atmospheric gas is the essential source of food for all life on earth.

The second big lie was graphic – government propaganda pictured a "dirty" coal power station belching black pollution. Three lies in one here – the power station pictured is closed, it is in England, and all the carbon dioxide it ever released was invisible.

The third big lie was to claim that there is a "consensus" and "the science is settled".  The reality is that there is no evidence that convicts carbon of controlling the climate - only theories and models. There is also widespread evidence that temperature records have been subject to urban bias and deliberate doctoring so that they show more warming than has occurred. Moreover more than 30,000 scientists have signed sceptical petitions and their number is growing. There is no consensus and the science is not settled.

The fourth big lie was spread by government academics with scare forecasts of searing heat and never ending drought, all caused by the demon carbon dioxide. The reality has been no global warming for twelve years, heavy snows in the Northern Hemisphere and heavy rains in Australia.

The fifth and most memorable big lie was from the leader of the government, PM Julia Gillard: "There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead".

Lest we forget, listen here:  

No amount of weasel words from government propagandists and apologists will erase our memory of these five big lies about carbon.

Their negative image problem is profound: Whenever the Australian people hear “carbon” they think “lies".

Farming Carbon Credits
The climate policies of both government and opposition are likely to weaken Australia's capacity to produce food for no climate benefits.

The Carbon Farming Initiative (CFI) is just a crass attempt to bribe the bush to accept the poisonous carbon tax.

Carbon farming was not an "initiative" of the Australian government.

The first carbon farmer probably grew barley in Mesopotamia long before extreme weather prompted Noah to build the Ark. His crops took solar energy from the sun, water from the Euphrates, minerals from the soil and carbon dioxide from the atmosphere to produce carbon food, all without carbon credit subsidies.

Every farmer today harvests carbon in the same way to produce carbon food, fibre and fuel.

The CFI is force-feeding an artificial industry harvesting carbon credits. These fake farmers take the same useful ingredients from the sun, water, soil and air to produce sterile monuments like sacred trees that must not be logged for timber, nor burnt as fuel, nor used in any other way. For growing this useless product they are paid a government created carbon credit subsidy.

This unsustainable farming practice locks up vital resources whilst the subsidies consume community savings. Yet the climate will keep fluctuating, as it always has.

Fake farming is foolish frittering of funds and will fail. Future generations will remove these parasitic monuments to make way for real carbon farmers.

The New Brisbane Line?

Green extremists seem to be seeking the depopulation of Northern Australia and this sterilisation of our mineral, timber, fishing and grazing resources is creating a dangerous security vacuum.

During WW2, defeatists were prepared to sacrifice all of Australia north of Brisbane to the advancing enemy.

Green extremists are now creating a New Brisbane Line whereby Northern Australia is abandoned to weeds, ferals, trees, kangaroos, government boffins and park rangers.

Every green policy seems designed to rid the north of all signs of human activity.

Bob Brown’s dream to close every coal mine, gas producer and carbon fuelled power station is well known – this should rid central Queensland of all those pesky little towns like Collinsville, Glenden, Blair Athol, Moranbah, Dysart, Saraji, Blackwater and Moura and kill that unhealthy coal boom in Alpha, Clermont, Emerald, Rolleston, Wandoan, Gladstone and Mackay.

Then the Kyoto scrub clearing bans, the carbon credit forests and the live export barriers will help clear the outback of any hardy graziers or foresters who remain.

Greens will then use ever expanding marine parks to sweep fishermen from the Coral Sea. And the bans on any coastal developments that fall within the fatuous Flannery forecasts of fast rising seas will help clear the Gold, Sunshine, Capricorn and Coral coasts of jobs and people.

The creeping paralysis of Wild Rivers disease should cure any aborigines of development dreams in the Never-Never land.

The final straw will be the carbon tax that will hasten the closure of metal refining and processing in Mount Isa, Townsville and Gladstone, cement manufacture in Gladstone and oil refining in Brisbane.

However, nature abhors a vacuum, so more energetic people will soon occupy and use this empty land and its idle resources.

The new colonists should erect a huge green statue to their benefactor, Bob Brown, with the citation in English, for old time's sake.

The Big Unravelling Starts, in Germany.

“THE CO2 LIES … pure fear-mongering … should we blindly trust the experts?”

That’s what Germany’s leading daily Bild wrote in its print and online editions (6 Feb 2012).
Also on 6 Feb, not one, but two of Germany’s most widely read news media published comprehensive skeptical climate science articles in their print and online editions, coinciding with the release of a major climate skeptical book, Die kalte Sonne (The Cold Sun).

Global Warming is not the Threat - Ice is the Killer.
A Tragedy is unfolding in Europe.

"The cold snap in Europe, which began in late January, has killed hundreds and brought deep snow where it hasn’t been seen in decades". "At least 3 killed in avalanche in Kosovo".

These headlines belie the seriousness of the situation.

How about a headline that tells it like it is?
"140,000 trapped by snow – Death toll rises past 550".

That headline would give readers a glimpse of what’s really happening in Europe, where snow drifts reaching above the rooftops have kept tens of thousands of villagers prisoners in their own homes.

Read More:

Renewable Electricity for Australia – the Cost.

Critique of: “Simulations of Scenarios with 100% Renewable Electricity in the Australian National Electricity Market”

Practical Weather Prediction

Here is an interesting book by an amateur meteorologist in our region – Ken Ring. His book is called "Australia Weather Almanac, 2012". Ken uses the orbits of sun and moon and weather cycles and describes these in the book. He believes the moon is a key controller of the timing of weather events, just as it controls the timing of the tides. You can order it at:

How we are Winning the Climate Wars

"The problem the alarmists had was that there was never anything substantial to hit back at. They had the equivalents of the big guns and the massive air support but there never was a skeptic HQ to be pounded, no big central organisation, no massed ranks of skeptic soldiers or even any third-party backing the resistance. Every one of the skeptics was a lone volunteer guerilla fighter, who needed absolutely no logistical support of any kind to continue the fight indefinitely. The alarmists never understood this, preferring to think that there simply had to be some massive hidden organisation orchestrating the resistance. While they wasted time and effort attacking targets that only existed in their head, each of the guerillas chewed on them mercilessly in their own particular way.
"The closest things they had to a target were the skeptic blogs but these were invulnerable, because they weren’t owned or funded by anyone and were run by unpaid volunteers. The best they could do was vilify the bloggers and send occasional waves of trolls to disrupt the debates, which gradually but inexorably tore the heart out of the pseudo-science, which underpinned global warming."
Read More:

So how do the regiments in green propose to defeat annoying persistent independent gadflies like the Carbon Sense Coalition? The "Frinkenstein" Report gives them the weapon – censorship of any media, journalist, blog or internet publication that Big Government disapproves of. It is time to protest loudly, while we are still allowed to. More  here and here.

"The size and scope of the proposed Super-Regulator is breathtaking. They will have the power to impose a “code of ethics”, force you to print views you don’t agree with as part of a ‘right of reply’, take you to court, and even make you take pieces down! Even personal blogs that get only 40 hits a day will be covered!"

The Last Word

Carbon Sense will keep up the fight.

Last month we appealed for support. We have been very pleased with the response – many nice comments and some even sent cheques. Not enough to enable us to retire to the south of France, but enough to encourage us to battle on. Here are a couple of sample comments:

You are doing a truly excellent job. Your arguments are always very rational and to the point. I wish we could get more of the average person/voter out there to read them - maybe they will when the cost of the Carbon Tax bites their pocket from every direction. I will send you another donation.

I’m an old age pensioner who finds it difficult to keep up subscriptions I already have so I just can’t afford another one, but I do some editing for an online journal, and I would be happy to do some editing for Carbon Sense if that would help you.

We still have a long battle ahead. We are starting to worry them, so the smears and abuse have started. Read what happened to Lord Monckton in the land of the free:

Bob Carter was also attacked, and a Climategate burglar/forger tried to dig and manufacture dirt on the Heartland Institute.

We will continue to spread Carbon Sense. The battle will be intense as Carbon Tax Day approaches mid 2012. The government will try to swamp the media with scare stories of how bad the climate will be unless we have this tax and how effective their bribery will be as they spread the tax loot around many of the same people they took it from.

Then after carbon tax day, government and their media mates will try to divert attention elsewhere, preferably with stories on games and circuses.

"The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data.  We’re basing them on the climate models."

                –Prof. Chris Folland, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research

"The models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful."

                                               Dr David Frame, Climate modeller, Oxford University

Anything in this newsletter that could be construed by our savage public watchdogs as an attempt to affect the result of any election is authorised by:

Viv Forbes
153 Schneider Road
Rosevale    Qld    4340
Phone 0754 640 533

“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.

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.