Saturday, 30 June 2012

People Power

Todd Myers writing for the National Center for Political Analysis exposes the myths associated with "green" jobs.  (LINK)

He exams teams of people pedaling pushbikes to generate electricity.
Pedaling ten hours a day on a stationary bike, each person can generate 1 kWh. Investing $1 million in bicycle generators and paying people the going rate for the energy they create, we could create 1,610 jobs.
There is another benefit: these are not part time jobs. These are full-time jobs for an entire year, unlike many of the temporary jobs often included in “green” jobs calculations.
He suggests that we can create more farm jobs  by banning tractors.
Think of all the jobs we’d create for farm workers!

Of course, the cost of farm products would rise dramatically, making it more difficult to buy food, especially for low-income families. But do we want to create jobs or not?!
But back to the pedal generators:
If you’ve done the math by now, you may have figured out that I am paying my green-energy producing bike riders only 10 cents a day – the average rate for generating one kWh of electricity in America. So, let’s pay them $10 a hour. The cost per kWh would rise from 10 cents to $1,000. This might make it more difficult for manufacturers to buy the electricity, but it hardly seems fair to demand our bike riders earn less than a living wage, and wealthy investors like Warren Buffet can certainly afford to pay a bit more for electricity.
 Read more HERE

Friday, 29 June 2012

Should Australia keep the carbon tax?

You must wonder about some-one who deliberately goes to a poll page and then clicks on "Not sure!"

Poll here.

Oceans are not acidic

This blog has previously written that the oceans are alkaline, not acidic.

Image: National Geographic
Letter from The Olympian (link)  by Ken Schlichte, an expert forest soil scientist in western Washington   

EPA's efforts will have no effect

Oceans are not acidic, despite the front-page headline, “EPA tackles acidic oceans.”

Oceans are actually alkaline with a surface pH of around 8.1.

The article with this headline stated that the EPA is exploring whether to use the Clean Water Act to control greenhouse gas emissions because climate change legislation is stalled in Congress. The Washington Department of Ecology had originally been asked to use the Clean Water Act to regulate emissions, but stated that there wasn’t enough data about acidification of specific bodies of water to justify any such listings.

The serious concern being used by the EPA to justify its control of greenhouse gas emissions is the up-welling of deep ocean water along the West Coast by northwest summer winds. This deep ocean water is alkaline, but is somewhat less alkaline than the surface ocean water because it is colder and therefore contains more dissolved carbon dioxide.

The deep ocean water up-welling along the West Coast may not been have exposed at the ocean surface for centuries and the EPA efforts to control current greenhouse gas emissions will therefore have no effect on the pH of this deep ocean water for many years. These EPA efforts will also have no effect on the northwest winds and the ocean up-welling that they will continue to create along the West Coast.


Read more here:

Fake Pollution Problems

Settled Science? No such thing.

Bill Kininmonth

Data does not actually speak for itself 

(Letter published in the AFR, 28 June 2012)

Gary Meyers has considerably overstated the confidence that can be placed in climate data, their interpretation, and their use in predicting future climate (Real climate data speaks for itself, Letters 27/6). This is not to belittle the work of ‘tens of thousands of dedicated people who have collected the data’. The fact is that there are limitations on the precision and accuracy of the data.

The global temperature record back to the 1850s, as constructed from observations using instruments, contains regular changes to the standards for instrument exposure, changes to the instruments themselves, changes in location, and changes in the environment surrounding the instrument sites. The summation of these changes is that the record is not as accurate as it is purported to be.

Nevertheless, the warming documented in the instrument supports a view of Earth having warmed over the past century and a half. The interesting point is that although Earth has warmed and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration has increased since 1900 the changes have not been synchronous.   The warming of the period 1910-40 was not in conjunction with significant carbon dioxide increase and the post World War II increase in carbon dioxide was not accompanied by temperature increase until about 1975. Thereafter the rapid increase in carbon dioxide was accompanied by temperature rise but at only about the same rate as the 1910-40 period. For the past 15 years the temperature has not increased despite the continuing increase in carbon dioxide.

The comparison with computer models is equally tendentious. The model performance through the 20th century is tuned by changing the impact of atmospheric aerosols, for which even the IPCC agrees there is only a low level of understanding.

If one takes a truly critical stance the data and current models give little confidence to predicting future climate change.

William Kininmonth
Kew, Vic
William Robert Kininmonth is a retired Australian meteorologist noted for his frequent writings on the topic of climate change.

Settled science? No such thing

Bob Carter, The Australian, June 27, 2012 (See also HERE)

THE Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is a branch of the UN that advises governments on the topic of global warming allegedly caused by human greenhouse emissions.

Contrary to common assumption, the IPCC does not deal with the wider topic of climate change in general. And neither is it the role of the scientists who advise the IPCC to conduct new research as such (though some, incidentally, do ).

Rather, the IPCC's task is to summarise the established science as represented in the published scientific literature.

On February 3, 2010, Rajendra Pachauri, head of the IPCC, commenting in The Hindu on the IPCC's 2007 Fourth Assessment Report, said: "Everybody thought that what the IPCC brought out was the gold standard and nothing could go wrong."

By "gold standard", Pachauri was referring to the IPCC's oft-made claim that the scientific literature on climate change it surveyed was only that published in peer-reviewed professional research papers.

Interestingly, Albert Einstein's famous 1905 paper on relativity was not peer reviewed. It is therefore quite clear peer review is not a precondition for excellent, indeed epoch-making, scientific research.

Peer review is a technique of quality control for scientific papers that emerged slowly through the 20th century, achieving a dominant influence in science after World War II.

The process works like this: a potential scientific author conducts research, writes a paper on their results and submits the paper to a professional journal in the relevant specialist field of science.

The editor of the journal then scan-reads the paper. Based on their knowledge of the contents of the paper, and of the activities of other scientists in the same research field, the editor selects (usually) two people, termed referees, to whom he sends the draft manuscript of the paper for review.

Referees, who are unpaid, differ in the amount of time and effortthey devote to their task of review. At one extreme a referee will criticise and correct a paper in detail, including making comments on the scientific content. At the other extreme, a referee may merely skim-read a paper, ignoring obvious mistakes in writing style or grammar, and make some general comments to the editor about its scientific accuracy or otherwise.

Generally neither type of referee, nor those in between, check the original data, or the detailed statistical calculations (or, today, complex computer modelling) that often form the kernel of a piece of modern scientific research.

Each referee recommends whether the paper should be published (usually with corrections) or rejected, the editor making the final decision.

In essence, traditional peer review is a technique of editorial quality control, and that a scientific paper has been peer reviewed is absolutely no guarantee the science it portrays is correct.

Indeed, it is the nature of scientific research that nearly all scientific papers are followed by later emendation, or reinterpretation, in the light of new discoveries or understanding.

A case in point is the recent paper by University of Melbourne researcher Joelle Gergis and co-authors that claimed to establish the existence of a southern hemisphere temperature "hockey stick". Now, the authors have rapidly withdrawn the study after fundamental criticisms of it appeared on Steve McIntyre's Climate Audit blog and elsewhere.

The Gergis paper differs in kind from many other IPCC-related studies by establishment climate research groups only in that the tendentious science it contains has been rapidly exposed as flawed. This exemplifies how the role of nurturing strong and independent peer review has now passed from the editors of journals to experts in the blogosphere, and especially so for papers concerned with perceived environmental problems such as global warming.

Scientific knowledge, then, is always in a state of flux; there is simply no such thing as "settled science", peer reviewed or otherwise. During the latter part of the 20th century, Western governments started channelling large amounts of research money into favoured scientific fields, prime among which has been global warming research.

This money has a corrupting influence, not least on the peer-review process.

Many scientific journals, including prestigious ones, are captured by insider groups of leading researchers in particular fields. In such cases, editors deliberately select their referees from scientists who work in the same field and share similar views.

The "climategate" email leak in 2009 revealed this cancerous process is at an advanced stage of development in climate science. A worldwide network of leading climate researchers was revealed to be actively influencing editors and referees to approve for publication only research that supported the IPCC's alarmist view of global warming and to prevent the publication of alternative views.

Backed by this malfeasant system, leading researchers who support the IPCC's red-hot view of climate change endlessly promulgate their alarmist recommendations as "based only upon peer-reviewed research papers", as if this were some guarantee of quality or accuracy.

Peer review, of course, guarantees neither. What matters is not whether a scientific idea or article is peer reviewed, but whether the science described accords with empirical evidence.

So what about the IPCC's much-trumpeted, claimed "gold standard" of only using peer-reviewed papers? It is completely exposed by Canadian investigative journalist Donna Laframboise, who showed an amazing 30 per cent of the articles cited in the definitive Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC were from non-peer-reviewed sources, including student theses and environmental lobbyist reports.

The repetition of the "we only use peer-reviewed information" mantra that is so favoured by climate lobbyists and government-captive scientific organisations signals scientific immaturity.

It also indicates a lack of confidence or ability to assess the scientific arguments about dangerous global warming on their own merits and against the empirical evidence.

Professor Bob Carter is a palaeoclimatologist at James Cook University, Townsville and an emeritus fellow of the Institute of Public Affairs.

h/t Des Moore

Thursday, 28 June 2012

AGW, Hollywood and Frankenstein

AGW, Hollywood and Frankenstein
by Anthony Cox
Beauty and the Beast?
Hollywood films have always been pro-man made global warming [AGW], even before it became a cause célèbre and even if this has not always been made clear. The reason for this lack of clarity is that this position has been wrapped up in other themes such as the soul-destroying quality of modern society [Charlie Chaplin’s Modern Times, Fritz Lang’s Metropolis], to more recently the reckless culpability of big business, particularly the fossil fuel and nuclear industry companies [Silkwood, China Syndrome, Syriana, Erin Brockovitch, Atavar], and the general purity of the natural lifestyle [Gorillas in the Mist, The Emerald Forest].

Of course man’s meddling in nature always has dire consequences including but not limited to the end of the world [The Day After Tomorrow], being eaten by dinosaurs [Jurassic Park] and even being reprimanded by aliens [The Day the Earth stood still, parts 1 and 11].

The connection between meddling and dire consequence began in style with James Whale’s Frankenstein. But really the odds were always stacked in favour of the bad result. After all, if you were making the perfect human and usurping God/ nature’s handiwork would you make your alternative look like Boris Karloff?

And to pile on the insult make the wife of the new man look like Elsa Lanchester with a skunk’s pelt for hair?

The only aesthetically pleasing monster in the Frankenstein genre has been Warhol’s, and that is hardly noticeable in the visceral grotesqueries of the proceedings.

All that can be said is that the filmic versions of Frankenstein have visually conformed to Mary Shelley’s theme that man cannot be perfected and any attempt to do so is a retrograde shift from even the natural version.

The only exception is Ridley Scott’s earlier dalliance with the Frankenstein lesson, the phantasmogorical Blade Runner. In this the photogenic monsters include Rutger Hauer, Sean Young and Darryl Hannah. The only problem is their life span is four years. So, the dilemma for Mr Hauer and his damsels in distress face is that even if you are made a God it is only for the time a moth enjoys. No wonder they were seriously angry. And, as usual, they wreaked havoc on their misguided creators.

So, to the latest instalment of the Hollywood tradition of supporting AGW; Ridley Scott’s second attempt at Frankenstein, Prometheus. This time however, it is not so much Frankenstein as Frankenstein by proxy; the arrogant usurpers of nature/God are humanity’s progenitors. And this time the theme of AGW is clearly enunciated. The characters are bluntly told not to be sceptics by the heroine, Noomi Rapace, of fame from The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo.

In Prometheus Ms Rapace has obviously undergone her own apotheosis, having gained what looks to be about 10 kilos of muscle since her previous films along with impressive abs. More importantly, in respect of the Frankenstein theme she is a woman of faith who knows not to trifle with the natural order of things.

The fact that Ms Rapace was initially mesmerised by the creators of humanity is only a glitch as the movie progresses, and, as all religious tests unfold, merely a means by which some impressive hardware is destroyed and sundry acrobatic feats performed as the Rapace character has her faith confirmed. In fact the Rapace character is the personification of the blend of scientific nouse and capacity for faith which is required to deal with profound existential realities such as gigantic, alien relatives, or AGW.

Despite Rapace’s epiphany the movie is a muddled affair. The progenitors, after a highly spiritual beginning involving an act of sacrifice set in magnificent natural surrounds, are revealed to be no more than über, weapon dealing fascists.

That the progenitors are 3 meters tall, built like Arnold Schwarzenegger on steroids, can tear the heads off indestructible androids and have space faring technology rather begs the question as to why they would need new biological weapons in the first place. Perhaps they are masochistic. Certainly they are just as destructive as humans in respect of spilling CO2 over the place. Much is made at the beginning of the film about levels of CO2 with unfavourable comparisons between Earth and the progenitor’s planet. Concerned utterances are made about 3% levels of CO2, with not one of the high powered group of scientists apparently aware that the air they are exhaling contains 4-6% of the lethal gas.

In any event the evil alien Frankenstein’s, who have identical DNA to the intrepid but conniving humans [perhaps that is why they want to murder humanity, they have spawned stunted inferior copies of themselves], are dispatched in the traditional way by their creations; only this time it is humanity who are the destructive creations. Ironic, eh?

The heroine, who in the meantime has performed her own caesarean, is left to prosecute her holy crusade against the rest of the Frankensteins. She flies away in one impressive spaceship with nary a solar panel in sight. The lesson has been learnt and reinforced; don’t mess with nature.

Prometheus has made $225 million in 11 days so there is plenty of money for a sequel, or even a series. Just like AGW.
 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 
AL Gore deceptively portrayed a scene from fictional movie "The Day after Tomorrow" in his flawed documentary.

More accurate than GCMs

The Alarmist ClimateGate CRU use GCMs - Global Climate Models - to make their fortune-telling future forecasts of climate. Their models  constantly fail.

Perhaps they should pay more attention to John's Weather Forecasting Stone.

h/t Paul B

Wednesday, 27 June 2012

The Carbon Tax - based on a scam and deliberate lie.

Guest post by NCTCS member Terry Cardwell

As most people are aware the Carbon Tax will commence from the beginning of July.

Without doubt this is most detested and unfair tax of any other tax before it.

We must have taxes of many forms to run our country and infrastructures, and we all accept our taxes as an ‘evil’ necessity, but the Carbon Tax is not there for that reason.

Before explaining, let’s look at the ‘reason’ the Labor government gives for imposing such a tax.

They say that if they impose a tax of $23.00 per ton of carbon dioxide  emitted, that it will force up the cost of electricity and make people reduce their consumption of electrical power.

This applies to Industry, commerce and domestic consumption of electricity. Forcing people to use less power and thus reduce the output from the thermal coal fired power stations, which in turn would use less coal and thus create less carbon dioxide.!!!

Also industry and commerce theoretically will reduce production because of the cost to them of the carbon tax, with the supposedly  same result.

Obviously the  idea came from the Greens who live in a make believe world, like middle earth, with the words ‘common sense and logic’ totally alien to them.

The facts are it will force the cost of everything up by as much as 20% from the flow on of various price increases in various industries.

But there will be NO reduction in power consumption, because electricity is essential to our homes, our jobs, our manufacturers, our industries.

Industry and manufacturers are not going to reduce production just because the cost of power has gone up 15% or more. That cost obviously will be passed on to you the consumer, who will pay the ultimate price.

Since 1993 power consumption has grown at approximately 4% per year without the slight influence from solar panels, wind generators or other ‘renewable’ energy sources.
Thermal power generation growth has increased 98% in that period and will continue to grow to meet the demands of our growing economy and industrial demands whether the carbon tax is there or not.

The carbon tax will achieve absolutely nothing except to put our money in the pockets of the Labor government who will then proceed to pass seven thousand million (seven billion) dollars a year on to the United Nation for them to give away to ‘third world’ countries as they wish.

Your money that could have been spent on roads, health, hospitals and many other urgently needed infrastructures. At the same time the deaths on our roads will continue to increase because the desperate need for money to repair them is being pirated away by this insane government.

All this carbon tax, hot rocks programmes, solar farms, wind generators, underground carbon dioxide storage, roofing insulation programmes and clean coal technology was  supposedly intended to reduce our carbon dioxide emissions.

Every one of them is a miserable failure and the carbon tax is an obvious raping of our economy.

The hot rocks programme collapsed, literally, and has been shut down.

The roofing insulation programme was an unbelievable waste and a massive disaster with billions of dollars wasted.

The underground carbon dioxide storage is a total failure with nearly sixty percent of the power generated being used to pump the carbon dioxide underground.

The clean coal technology programme is another complete failure with many billions of dollars of Queenslanders money wasted and the company operating it going bankrupt.

With billions of dollars spent, the solar farms and wind generators have generated (not so called capacity) less than 1.5% of our total power.

Excluding Hydro power at 4.6%, which has been in operation fully since 1974.

Not only has our carbon dioxide emissions in Australia NOT reduced, nor will it, but also after some thirty five years the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has NOT fallen one gram.

Let me ask you six questions (and please no cheating) if you don’t know just write what you think it is.

  1.  What percentage is the total carbon dioxide of our atmosphere.
  2.  What percentage of that is supposedly ‘man made’ carbon dioxide.
  3. What is 97% of the World's ‘greenhouse’ gases.
  4. What percentage of the world’s man made gases does Australia emit.
  5.  If the Labor government reduced our annual emissions by 20% (which is impossible) what percentage difference would  this make to the world’s carbon dioxide level.
  6.  Over the past fifty years how much has the World’s carbon dioxide increased per year.

A1 -  Total percentage is point zero three eight of one percent i.e. .038%

A2 - 3.4% or   .038 x 3.4%  = .00129 of one percent of total atmosphere. Over total time.

A3 - Moisture, as in clouds. Without this ‘Greenhouse’ gas there would be no life on earth as we know it because there would be no rivers, lakes or rain.

A4 -    1.5% or as a percentage .00001935 of one percent !!!

A5 -   One fifth of the above or  . 0000039 of  ONE PERCENT..

A6-   CO2 in the atmosphere has increased at .00008 of ONE percent per year.

After looking at these figures it is very clear what a scam and deliberate lie man made climate change and the carbon tax is. But the alarmists, the Greens, the U.N. and others have made billions of dollars by deceiving the world with their lies.

Carbon Dioxide itself is a harmless gas that we breathe in at 400 ppm and out at 1000 parts per million and is essential to all forms of plant growth.
Its ability to absorb or deflect heat is little different to many other gases.
It is now proven that carbon dioxide increases lag behind global temperature increases by 800 years.

In 2012 the Kyoto treaty is due for resigning but not one of the major countries will be signing it.  The U.K. stated clearly they can no longer afford to waste money on “renewable energy’ which is proving to be a total failure. The USA, Brazil, South Africa, China, India, France, Russia, and many other countries have turned their backs on the so called Man made climate change. All saying they can no longer afford to waste any more of their economies (some that are in recession, like the U.K.) on the renewable energy ideology.
Not only has it severely damaged their economies but has also left many, desperately short of electrical power. Ironically, they were being rescued by those countries that retained and expanded their thermal and nuclear energy programmes.

The only success out of all these programmes is the home solar panel installations, if  they are installed at the right price. They have absolutely no effect on national power demand being a teaspoon in a two hundred litre drum but have helped reduced many domestic power bills.

The power of the future; Both the USA and Australia have enough coal at present usage and sales to last for the next 380 years. That is not counting coal deposits yet to be located, so we will be using thermal coal and gas power for a long time yet.
The power of the future most likely will be the new LFTR fourth generation nuclear power plants.
The  Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors that are non radio active and will consume all their fuel with no by products and are able to consume the  by products from older radio active plutonium reactors.

Solar farms and Wind generators will never play a major role in power generation as their output is far to low and unreliable and is expensive to install and operate for the  power generated.
Also on a smaller capacity scale both tidal and wave action power generation holds promise for the future but would never have a major input.

Australia belongs to all true Australians and as such anything above or below the ground belongs to us too. As such, any mining of coal, iron ore, gas, oil, timber, etc. should pay a royalty that is fair and reasonable to both sides. That way we all share the wealth.
But the Carbon Tax punishes and robs the wrong people to satisfy the greed of a government that will do anything to get money to satisfy their needs and their Green cohorts in crime.

It would be wonderful to have cheap power available to us all, but apart from home solar panels (after they have paid for themselves) it is not possible.

Terry worked in power stations for 25 years, rising from an apprentice and fitter to power plant operator. He says the hysteria about harmful emissions from burning coal stems from the spreading of misinformation and he wants to set the record straight. For a previous post by Terry, go to LINK

Climate Alarmists wrong AGAIN!

Stichococcus minor
A new peer reviewed paper examined by CO2 science.

The Canadian researchers, Moazami-Goudarzi and Colmanfound in a study of two green marine algae that there were no significant differences in growth rates over a range of  reduced pH values. From Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology - (LINK)

From pre-industrial times to the present, the atmosphere's CO2 concentration has risen well in excess of 100 ppm, leading to a drop of 0.1 pH unit in earth's seawater, while anticipated CO2 increases to the end of the current century are suggestive of a further drop of 0.3-0.5 pH unit, according to Caldeira and Wickett (2003, 2005). So what do these projections portend for the productivity of the world's marine algae?

What was done
In a study of two such green marine algae (Stichococcus cylindricus and Stichococcus minor), Moazami-Goudarzi and Colman measured their growth rates while growing them in artificial seawater - as per Berges et al. (2001) - within 125-ml Erlenmeyer flasks at pH values of 5.0, 6.0, 7.0, 8.2, 9.0 and 9.5, as well as at a variety of salinity levels (25, 50, 100, 200 and 470 mM).

What it means
With Moazami-Goudarzi and Colman determining that S. minor and S. cylindricus "were able to tolerate a broad range of pH from pH 5.0 to 9.5," as well as the broad range of salinities they investigated, it would appear that even the worst nightmare of the world's climate alarmists would not be a great impediment to the continued wellbeing of these two green marine algae, even without the positive influence of evolutionary forces that would likely come into play over the timespan involved in the seawater transformations envisioned by Caldeira and Wickett.

Moazami-Goudarzi, M. and Colman, B. 2012. Changes in carbon uptake mechanisms in two green marine algae by reduced seawater pH. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 413: 94-99.

Rio+20 - Gabfest Failure -we need for Oil,Gas, Coal

See also previous post They Came, They Talked, They Failed.

The Nation Review's blog has an opinion piece on a similar theme, Oil, Gas and coal provide energy that works, energy that lifts people out of poverty:-
The expensive U.N. gabfest and attempted power grab known as Rio+20 finally collapsed. Two days before Rio+20 ended in disarray, CFACT held a press conference to explain why failure was the best, the only, the most decent option for rich and poor countries alike.
“Failure in Rio would be good for the world’s poor,” director Marc Morano said. “Failure is the only option if you truly care about the environment or poor people. Carbon-based energy has been one of the greatest liberators of mankind in the history of the planet.”
Even the great environmentalist James Lovelock agrees. “Sustainable development is meaningless drivel,” he said recently.
Real sustainability is oil, gas, and coal,” Morano added. “It is energy that works, energy that lifts people out of poverty.”
h/t ClimateDepot

Tuesday, 26 June 2012

Tim Ball on OSU and Nicholas Drapela

Professor Nicholas Drapela
Previously, NCTCS blog posted a letter from Dr Gordon Fulks under the heading - Sacked Without Sense (link) about the dismissal by Oregon State University of Professor Nick Drapela.

Tom Harris of the International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC) has posted the following interview with Climatologist Tim Ball  talking of this matter.

Although he was given no reason, it is widely believed that Professor Drapela was fired because of his scepticism of man made global warming (AGW.)

Dr Ball talks of Professor Drapela's ratings which can be found HERE.

Huffington Post:
Nicholas Drapela, an Oregon State University faculty member and vocal critic of climate change, was fired without explanation from his job, KVAL reports.
On May 29, Drapela received a call in his office from the department chair, who read him a prepared statement and informed Drapela that he would need to return his office key.
The university did not inform Drapela why he was being fired. His requests for such an explanation have all been denied, according to The Daily Caller -- raising speculation that we was fired due to his controversial view that climate change is not a man-made phenomenon....

Young and Naive PM

Larry Pickering's latest.

As Larry calls it, the "(Bruce) Wilson Affair" has been written about on NCTCS blog here, here, here.

Andrew Bolt has written of it, as has Larry more than once (eg HERE).

Andrew Bolt:
Gillard is involved because she helped Wilson set up bank accounts which he used for his schemes, but Gillard insists she acted lawfully, did not know what Wilson was doing with those accounts, and did not profit from them. She was “young and naive”, she has said, being only in her mid 30s and the partner of law firm Slater and Gordon. 
Barnaby Joyce spoke of it in Parliament HERE.
Certainly. The Prime Minister's office said that they should look at what people did in their younger days. I imagine that means that under their guidelines we can ask serious questions about what people did in their mid-30s, when they were a partner at Slater and Gordon. One would presume that a person who has been made a partner in Slater and Gordon was a person of some competency. I presume that Slater and Gordon know enough about the law not to appoint imbeciles or fools but are appointing people who are capable.
In Victorian Parliament, on 12 October 1995, the Minister for Industry and Employment said:

I understand the AWU is still receiving bills for strange items ordered by Mr Wilson. All attempts thus far to find him have come to nothing. What did Mr Wilson do when he found out that his actions had been discovered? The first thing he did was to seek legal advice from the union's solicitors, none other than Slater and Gordon. From whom did he receive that advice? One Julia Gillard.

I am informed that Ms Gillard is no longer with Slater and Gordon due to commitments as an ALP Senate candidate. That may not be the only reason she is no longer working at Slater and Gordon.
.....another article, from the Sydney Morning Herald of Tuesday, 30 July 1996, by Murray Hogarth:

Between 1992 and 1995, about $370,000 flowed through two Perth-based accounts - operated in the name of the "AWU Workplace Reform Association Inc" - which, until last month, had never been heard of in the AWU's national offices in Sydney.

We have to find out who set these accounts up.

We have to find out whether the person who set these accounts up had told the Australian Workers Union that they were setting up these accounts. We have to find minutes to prove that the accounts that were being set up were under the instruction and the auspices of the Australian Workers Union and not set up outside. Any competent solicitor would start asking those questions. So who is setting these up? What is the purpose of these accounts? What is the source of these funds? What is the application of these funds? That is what a person who was competent would ask. Most certainly it is what a partner of a law firm would ask. They would definitely be the questions that a partner of a law firm would ask, especially if they were the ones drawing up the accounts. 
We KNOW who set the accounts up!

Peter Hartcher writing for Fairfax media:
Speaking in Parliament on Thursday, (former attorney-general, Robert) McClelland revived memories of old allegations of union corruption involving Gillard's former partner, Bruce Wilson. The pair lived together in Melbourne in Gillard's pre-parliamentary career when she was a labour lawyer with Slater & Gordon and Wilson was Victorian secretary of the Australian Workers Union.
Speaking of the need to strengthen protections against union corruption such as the case of the Health Services Union, McClelland referred repeatedly to the allegations against Wilson
Gillard's then-partner was accused in the Victorian Parliament in 2001 of misappropriating about $500,000 of union money, including $102,000 spent on home renovations. Gillard has repeatedly denied benefiting from the money and rejected any other involvement.
Julia Gillard had criminal allegations made against her in 1995 when she was accused of helping her boyfriend steal over $1,000,000 from the Australian Workers Union (AWU) and helping him spend the money on such things as her personal home renovations and dresses.
Julia Gillard has never denied helping him rip off the $1,000,000 plus dollars, what she has done is denied doing it knowingly. Her part was helping set up an account called the “AWU Members Welfare Association No 1 Account” and possibly other accounts that the money was laundered through when she was a lawyer working for Slater and Gordon who were the solicitors representing the Australian Workers Union.

Our Prime Minister set up accounts that allegedly siphoned off union funds to her then lover. She has responded that she (34 and a partner in a law firm) was young and naive.

Does the Labor Party care about the misuse of funds of Union members?

Antarctic Ice Shelves NOT melting

Fimbul Ice Shelf: Image - DLR
Should we rely on computer models or examine real world data? Well, according to a study by a team from the Norwegian Polar Institute and released  by the American Geophysical Union (AGU) and published in Geophysical Research Letters, the models have been shown to be (surprise, surprise!) wrong.

The Register reports:
Twenty-year-old models which have suggested serious ice loss in the eastern Antarctic have been compared with reality for the first time - and found to be wrong, so much so that it now appears that no ice is being lost at all.
From the AGU Press release:
From the “seal data”, the scientists accumulated enough knowledge concerning the area’s water circulation and how it changes over the seasons to construct the most complete picture of what and how the Fimbul Ice Shelf is melting from the bottom up.

It turns out that past studies, which were based on computer models without any direct data for comparison or guidance, overestimate the water temperatures and extent of melting beneath the Fimbul Ice Shelf. This has led to the misconception, Hattermann said, that the ice shelf is losing mass at a faster rate than it is gaining mass, leading to an overall loss of mass. The model results were in contrast to the available data from satellite observations, which are supported by the new measurements.

Received 27 March 2012; accepted 25 May 2012.
Citation: Hattermann, T., O. A. Nøst, J. M. Lilly, and L. H. Smedsrud (2012), Two years of oceanic observations below the Fimbul Ice Shelf, Antarctica, Geophys. Res. Lett., doi:10.1029/2012GL051012, in press.

Monday, 25 June 2012

RIO+20 - Vincent Gray's Newsletter

by Vincent Gray

JUNE 25th 2012
Monckton baggage label

For 20 years we have been subjected to the tyranny of the "Earth Summit" conference in Rio de Janeiro which took place from 3-13 June 1992. Since then we have been subjected to a World dictatorship where we have been forced to conserve, skimp and save,  stop building power stations, invest in uneconomic windmills, save whales rather than people and endure a whole rasp of unnecessary,  expensive  restrictions of our lives. Ordinary weather has been replaced by "climate change" where everything is blamed on our main energy sources coal and oil, and we have even restricted hydro dams and nuclear power. All in a mad rush to achieve the impossible goal of "sustainability".  We have all been cringing at the further restrictions on our lives implied by the latest bonanza, the 20th Anniversary Conference in Rio de Janeiro which has now ended. We can now breathe a sigh of relief, not that it is all over, but that it is on its way down, to be hopefully replaced. eventually by the common sense which used to keep us going.

I have devoted over 20 years trying to undo the harm of the last "Summit" and I cannot match the comment on the latest one which has now been published by my friend and colleague in global protest, Lord Christopher Monckton, so here is his report.,


To the Gaia-worshipers in Rio, all is symbolic of the new religion

From Christopher Monckton of Brenchley in Rio de Janeiro

Symbolism! Dontcha just love it? Even the three-letter abbreviations for the world’s airports convey a resonant message for the goofy Gaia-worshipers here in Rio de Janeiro for the conference on “sustainable development” (whatever that may mean). Flights still follow the old colonial patterns, so it is easier to fly to Rio (GIG) from Madrid (MAD) than from London. Entertainingly, the bag-tag on my suitcase (see above) bore the legend MAD GIG –a deftly synoptic description of the leftfest on Brazil’s once-fashionable coast.

The intended triumph of the new religion over the old was symbolized by a light-emitting diode system costing hundreds of thousands of dollars that has turned the normal floodlighting of the towering statue of Christ the Redeemer an unpleasant, lurid green, so that He looks like a giant jelly-bean. Fortunately, Divine intervention (or perhaps the Gore effect) has smothered the volcanic pinnacle on which the statue stands in unseasonably dense cloud and pouring rain, rendering this crude but costly sacrilege altogether invisible. Chalk up ten points to the old religion. God is not mocked.

Soldiers with sub-machine-guns and – for some reason – elephant guns are guarding this extravagantly expensive and contemptibly childish propaganda gesture to make sure no one symbolically reasserts the triumph of the Resurrection by cutting off the unnatural green glow and replacing it with the traditional, glorious white. 
The rubbish that litters the streets and even the once-pristine beaches of Copacabana and Ipanema is surely a symbol for the garbage that will soon emerge from the negotiations. One can be confident that it will be garbage, because this year, for the first time, the UN has gone to unprecedented lengths to make sure that no one gets daily-updated versions of the central negotiating text. If somebody hides something, it is because somebody has something to hide.
In a maneuver symbolic of the intended global dictatorship that is the ever-more-openly declared ambition of the world-government wannabes of the UN and of a governing class that has grown impatient of democracy and contemptuous of the mere people, the supposedly “transparent” pointy-heads’ conference has been ruthlessly divided into three entirely separate pointy-heads’ conferences.

First, symbolic of the grim Communism that will be the ideological mainspring of the exciting, shiny, new dictatorship for which the UN longs, and for which its senior strategists planned at a meeting this time last year at which Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon called for suggestions to put an end to national sovereignty (and hence to democracy), the exhibition area which in earlier UN conferences was adjacent to the main hall where the plenary negotiating sessions took place was set up several miles away in a tent city revealingly called the “People’s Congress”.

Secondly, as a symbol of the permanent imprisonment of just about everybody that Ban Ki-Moon’s corrupt, totalitarian world government will bring about, the non-government organizations accredited to the UN were corralled in the filthy, soulless, crumbling Rio Centro conference center, where hundreds of armed, sharp-suited UN goons kept them determinedly away from the vast concrete bunker where the actual negotiations were taking place.

Thirdly, to symbolize the total separation of the governing class from the governed that will become the norm as the UN takes power, the governmental delegates, traveling in a thousand-strong fleet of gas-guzzling, carbon-emitting limousines escorted by secret police on Harley-clone motorcycles, have been kept in near-total isolation from the non-government organizations and from the mere people.

“Secondary passes” allowing limited access to the plenary sessions are handed out only to those whom the UN can absolutely rely upon not to raise any questions at all about what is going on. The world’s mainstream news media have access, of course: these days they can be trusted to treat all the works of the UN with incurious, unquestioning, head-banging acquiescence.

After I had dined with a direct descendant of the Emperor of Brazil at a fashionable restaurant a couple of nights ago, a cavalcade (or cortege) drew up at the porte-cochere. First came a clattering Harley clone; then two SUVs full of UN goons; then a black VIP limo containing the dictator of Rwanda and his minders, then several more wagonloads of goons, then two more motor-cycles. One of the goons quite unnecessarily shoved me aside with a curse, symbolic of the New World Order where They give the orders and we get pushed around. Fortunately I can hit back. I shall cross the dictator off my Christmas-card list. So there.

So, what are They up to at this conference? The pre-conference draft of the negotiating text contained all the usual meaningless drivel about “sustainable development”, women’s rights and gender equality, rights of indigenous people to enjoy racial discrimination in their favor (there were several baffled Red Indians (er, sorry, “Native Americans”) wearing traditional feathered headdresses stumbling around the drafty concrete chambers of the conference center), the need to cut the world’s population down to size, and other traditional demands of the hard Left.

One of a series of badly-drawn but prominently-displayed posters by propagandized children showed the Sun dressed as a doctor diagnosing the Earth’s disease: “I’m afraid you’ve got humans.” In the UK it is illegal to indoctrinate children in this way, which is how we were able to defeat Al Gore in the High Court five years ago on the ground that his sci-fi comedy horror movie was political propaganda and not science.

So why the obsessive secrecy? Why are the national negotiators kept away from the non-government organizations that have always had access to them until now? Why are the updated negotiating texts not made available? One reason stands out. The UN knows perfectly well that if the people knew what was being inserted into the generally anodyne negotiating text they would not stand for it.

An example. Last year, at the Durban climate conference, I obtained a copy of the negotiating text, summarized it, and posted up the summary at WattsUpWithThat. A couple of days later WordPress, which hosts half a million blog postings every day, got in touch to say that that posting had attracted more hits than any other that day. Why were people so interested? Because not one of the thousands of journalists in Durban had bothered to report what was actually in the negotiating text.

My report revealed that the climate conference was proposing to grant Mother Earth the right to sue any Western nation in a new International Climate Court, and to cut CO2 concentration by half, extinguishing most plant and animal species on Earth. The disastrous publicity arising from these revelations led the UN to abandon fully half of the Durban negotiating text within 24 hours of my revealing its contents.

The UN was determined not to suffer this humiliation again. So it has ensured that the pre-conference draft contains so little of interest that even Greenpeace has condemned the UN for not going far enough. Instead, all the really damaging material has been kept secret. No doubt it will be inserted into the text during the negotiations. It will then be presented as a fait accompli after the usual all-night session, and the world’s media will dutifully congratulate the negotiators on a job well done.

A senior UN official to whom I spoke said that the organization had now become so corrupt that a number of sexual and financial scandals had occurred at the headquarters building in New York. The UN, he said, was hushing them up by not reporting them to the police authorities in New York as protocol demanded. He said that the revelation of the contents of the updated Durban negotiating texts had led to a major rethink within the UN, which had decided to set up the elaborate pantomime that I have described, preventing any but a carefully-selected few from getting alongside the negotiators.

“Transparency?” he snorted. “Not under Ban Ki-Moon. Everything is now hidden – and the UN has a great deal to hide. But don’t quote my name – these people are vindictive.”

As I said at a press conference here, the UN has outlived its usefulness and should now be brought to an end. Everything it does could be better done, at far less political and financial cost, by individual nations cutting out the predatory UN middlemen.

The UN has had its day. Time to abolish it, in an act symbolic of the freedom and democracy that we, the people, intend to keep for ourselves whether the dictators-in-waiting and their fawning lickspittles in the mainstream news media like it or not.

Share and Enjoy:
Vincent Gray
Wellington 6035

"It's not what you don't know that fools you. It's what you do know that ain't so."
Josh Billings

Sustainability is impossible. There are only two directions; forward and backward.

Alarmists Awaken

Gaia: Image Wikipedia
This year we have seen the originator of the Gaia hypothesis, James Lovelock,  realise that the alarmists' position was untenable.
“The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn’t happened,” Lovelock said.
“The climate is doing its usual tricks. There’s nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now,” he said.
“The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time… it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising -- carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that,” he added. (msnbc link)
He was followed by a former hero of the environment movement, Fritz Varenholt publishing a book "highly critical of the global warming consensus." Fritz examined the "science" after reading Andrew Montford's book, The Hockey Stick Illusion.

For the UK Telegraph, Herr Vahrenholt writes:
For many years, I was an active supporter of the IPCC and its CO2 theory. Recent experience with the UN's climate panel, however, forced me to reassess my position. In February 2010, I was invited as a reviewer for the IPCC report on renewable energy. I realised that the drafting of the report was done in anything but a scientific manner. The report was littered with errors and a member of Greenpeace edited the final version. These developments shocked me. I thought, if such things can happen in this report, then they might happen in other IPCC reports too.

Good practice requires double-checking the facts. After all, geoscientists have checked the pre-industrial climate, over the past 10,000 years: this isolates natural climate drivers. According to the IPCC, natural factors hardly play any role in today's climate so we would expect a rather flat and boring climate history.
Far from it: real, hard data from ice cores, dripstones, tree rings and ocean or lake sediment cores reveal significant temperature changes of more than 1°C, with warm and cold phases alternating in a 1,000-year cycle. These include the Minoan Warm Period 3,000 years ago and the Roman Warm Period 2,000 years ago. During the Medieval Warm Phase around 1,000 years ago, Greenland was colonised and grapes for wine grew in England. The Little Ice Age lasted from the 15th to the 19th century. All these fluctuations occurred before man-made CO2.

Alarmists repent before it is too late.....

Sunday, 24 June 2012

Rio+20: They came, they talked, they failed.

At Rio+20, the push for world governance has had another failure.

According to Barbara Stocking, chief executive of Oxfam (from USNews):
"Rio will go down as the hoax summit. They came, they talked, but they failed to act,"
From China Post:
“Rio+20 has been a failure of epic proportions,” said Greenpeace's executive director, Kumi Naidoo.
And the Sydney Morning Herald:
The meeting was never intended to reach a binding agreement, but the deal it did reach was so watered down that many activists and some ministers were openly questioning whether it was worth the massive effort of bringing 45,381 participants and almost 100 world leaders to Brazil.
The agreement committed to develop the new sustainable development goals for both developed and developing countries, but did not specify what themes they should cover.
For all the blustering about how they are doing all this for the developing world, the African Farmers are not convinced.
FANRPAN(Food, Agriculture and Natural Resources Policy Analysis Network) chair Sindiso Ngwenya of Zambia gave an incisive presentation, pointing out that agriculture is the key to reducing poverty and ensuring food security in Africa. “We call upon the world to assist us,” he said, “not by treating us as beggars, but by treating us as equals.”
Ngwenya criticised many First World attempts to use climate change, biodiversity and sustainable development arguments to prevent African agriculture from advancing. “If you are using implements that were there before Christ, how much chance do you have?” he wanted to know.

h/t Paul

Saturday, 23 June 2012

The Long and Costly War on Carbon

Carbon Sense
by Viv Forbes assisted by volunteer editors.

24 June 2012.

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

The Australian government claims that next month's tax on carbon dioxide cannot be blamed for today's soaring costs of living.

This tax, however, is just their latest assault in the decades-long war on carbon that is already inflating the cost of everything.

For at least a decade, power companies have been obliged to source 10-15% of their power at inflated prices from costly and unreliable sources like wind and solar. And for every wind or solar plant built, a duplicate backup gas facility is needed, increasing the demand and price for backup gas, hitting other gas consumers. Moreover, the threat of more carbon taxes has deterred the construction of efficient new coal-burning power plants. Rising electricity costs feed into the cost of everything from public transport to building materials.

The climatists are also responsible for numerous policies pushing up the price of food. These include the ethanol/biofuel madness, the restrictions on the fishing industry, the Kyoto scrub clearing bans, the spread of carbon-credit forests over farming and grazing land, the never ending war on irrigators, and the virtual ban on building new water-supply dams.

Then we have all the hidden costs of the climate industry. Thousands of our smartest graduates are lured into well-paid dead-end desk jobs in the overheads industry devoted to climate red tape, while real entrepreneurs are unable to find workers to develop our continent of under-utilised resources. There is an overpaid bureaucracy devoted to climate "research", alternate energy, international junkets, Kyoto give-aways, and administration, auditing, enforcement, accounting, law and propaganda for their empire of climate taxes and subsidies.

Finally we have income tax implications from all the money being flung around to bribe people to accept their carbon tax? Every Australian will get these bills somewhere, sometime. And who pays for the hundreds of millions poured down subsidy rat-holes like carbon capture, solar panels, pink bats and the IPCC?

Australia's crippling carbon tax is but the latest symptom of the costly Climate Madness infecting the well-fed elite of the western world.

When the consumers of Australia realise the extent to which they have been conned and needlessly pauperised, the electoral retribution will be swift.

See more:

Carbon Price Propaganda Taxes the Truth

Calling it "A Price on Carbon" is two more lies:

Firstly, a tax is a compulsory levy on production, consumption, income or expenditure.

A price is the amount voluntarily offered, paid or received for real goods or services.

Therefore the "Price on Carbon" is a tax.

Secondly, carbon is a solid element rarely found isolated in nature. Diamonds and graphite are examples. Carbon is usually combined with other elements forming coal, oil, gas, plants, animals and all foods they eat.

Any form of carbon when burnt or digested produces a colourless harmless natural gaseous plant food called carbon dioxide. This gas is what they will tax.

Therefore what is being imposed on Australia is not a "price on carbon", it is a "tax on carbon dioxide".

Both deceptions are deliberate. What is the Commissioner for Deceptive Advertising doing?

Sawmills to Save the Planet?

Climate alarmists demand that we fill the land with forests in order to combat global warming.

That is not a sustainable policy.

Trees only extract carbon dioxide while they are growing strongly. Once the forest is choc-a-bloc with mature trees, there is no net removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Trees, branches and leaves fall and decay, others replace them.

For carbon-extraction forestry to be sustainable, the trees must be logged, milled and put into long-term storage by conversion into poles and posts, beams and girders, floors and furniture, slabs and sleepers. These will lock up the carbon for decades, even hundreds of years, by which time the climate will have moved on naturally and the green hysteria will be shrieking about something else.

With good forest management, loggers and millers will rejuvenate the forest, produce valuable timber products and restore our once-great forestry industry – creating a real green industry out of a green subsidy industry.

Moreover, if forests are planted around coal-burning power stations, the trees will grow faster in the plant-friendly carbon dioxide being produced by the power plant.

Using sawmills to lock up carbon is much more sensible than the zero-benefit high-cost schemes to pump carbon dioxide underground.

Species Extinction is Nothing New

As the global warming bubble deflates, another scare is being inflated – species extinction. Naturally the professional alarmists present this as a brand new threat, but with the same old guilty party – western industry.

However, species extinction, like climate change, is the way of the world. Those environmental groups who exaggerate the extent of modern extinctions are just illustrating their ignorance of the history of species extinctions on Earth.

It was not carbon dioxide that entombed millions of mammoths, rhinos and other animals in mucky ice from Iceland to Alaska. It was not steam engines that wiped out the dinosaurs and 75% of other species who had dominated the Earth for 180 million years. There were no humans to blame for the Great Permian Extinction when over 90% of all life on Earth was destroyed – animals, plants, trees, fish, plankton even algae disappeared suddenly. And it was not European settlers who wiped out the dinosaurs, diprotodonts, giant kangaroos and other mega-fauna that once roamed outback Australia.

Sadly, history shows that it is the destiny of most species to be destroyed by periodic natural calamities or competition from other species. Earth's history is a moving picture, not a still life. No species has an assured place on Earth. Some species can adapt and survive – those unable to adapt are removed from the gene pool.

Earth's periodic species extinctions are usually associated with widespread glaciation, volcanism, earth movements and solar disruptions. Most geological eras have closed with such calamitous events. Random and more localised species extinctions are caused by rogue comets. But global warming and abundant carbon dioxide have never featured as causes of mass extinctions.

Because of Earth's long turbulent history, most species surviving today are not "fragile". Every one of them, including humans, is descended from a long line of survivors going back to the beginnings of life on Earth. And because of the adaptability of life, the Earth today supports more species than ever before.

Man has thrived because of his adaptability, resourcefulness and more recently, his use of science and technology. We cannot now return to a cave-man or hunter-gatherer existence. Without the freedom to explore, develop and utilise our land oceans and minerals, most humans would not survive.

Species extinction events are not new, are not caused by burning carbon fuels, and will probably occur again. We will need all of our freedom, ingenuity, technology and reliable energy resources to survive.

Let us not hasten our own species extinction by starving ourselves of food and energy with foolish demonization of carbon, the natural building block of all life forms."

For supporting information see:

It's the Sun, Stupid

The Role of Natural changes in solar radiation and its effects on clouds and global temperature.

More Green Jobs Created – in China

In August 2011, SILEX Solar, the only solar panel manufacturer in Australia, underwent restructuring and stopped producing photovoltaic cells at its Olympic Park facility, outsourcing the work to China. In November 2011, it suspended its manufacturing operations and fired the majority of its staff.


Rio – 50,000 People Flock to another UN Flop

This was the latest UN Talk-fest that has morphed from "Global Warming", to "Climate Change" to "Sustainable Development" and now "Species Extinction". Naturally they all got there on sailing clippers and bicycles, and spend their nights camped out, drinking natural river water, and roasting local pigeons on forked sticks over wood fires.

But don't trust them. Their decisions are hidden. Non-government delegates were not allowed to see their draft proposals that most politicians will sign.

See what Jo Nova has to say about it all:

Ian Plimer comes to Brisbane

Professor Ian Plimer will be the Special Event guest speaker at the at the Brisbane Mining Club lunch on Thursday 19th July 2012. His topic is:

"Human-Induced Global Warming: Why I am sceptical."

Bookings are essential - and tickets may sell fast. To reserve a seat or table, see:

Individual bookings are $176.00 (includes GST). Proceeds from this event will be donated to the Royal Flying Doctor Service, Queensland.

The Carbon Tax Explained

 The Galileo Movement is launching a Carbon Tax Poster Campaign to coincide with the introduction of the Carbon Tax.

The campaign will consist of distributing the poster below to shops and business in your local area and asking them to display it prominently in their windows or notice boards.

To see poster:

You can ask The Galileo Movement to post 1-5 copies to you or print them off yourself. To get involved or get more information send an email to:

The Last Word -
Turn up the Heat on The Liberals too.
(or join the No Carbon Tax Climate Sceptics -ed)

We all know that Gillard and the Greens are imposing this carbon tax on us. But the Liberals are not blameless either. Unless we put the heat on them and on every candidate, they will not repeal the big hidden carbon tax "The Renewable Energy Targets". This sneaky tax is what is currently pushing up power costs and if pursued will eventually lead us into brownouts. A few Liberals and most Nationals understand that the whole Climate Tax Industry has no justification and must be repealed before irreversible damage is done. But Greg Hunt needs to be replaced in the Environment portfolio and Malcolm Turnbull must be kept out of any portfolio involving energy or the environment.

They all need to know that opposition to this massive stupidity will never cease.

Please help us spread the word.

Authorised by:
Viv Forbes

“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.