Tuesday, 30 October 2012

ClimateGate - Hacker or leaker?

From an anonymous contributor

Climategate Whistleblower.

It was probably a whistleblower that released files from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA)? If so then the information is admissible in court and we will get greater detail on the greatest deception in history.

Phil Jones, former Director of the CRU knew the potential damage and legal implications of the file’s content. Jones told the police the files were from CRU, and claimed a crime was committed. Ludicrously, he said the information had no value because it was criminally obtained.

Why an Insider?


Major clues suggest the leaks were from an insider. A few emails were sent to a British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) reporter Paul Hudson on October 12, weeks before full release. This indicates someone trying to draw attention, but Hudson did nothing. He knew of the wrath and reach of Michael Mann. As a CRU member noted on October 26 2003,  Anyway, there's going to be a lot of noise on this one, and knowing Mann's very thin skin I am afraid he will react strongly, unless he has learned (as I hope he has) from the past...."   He didn’t as his later reactions showed.

An October 11 2009 email from Narasimha Rao to Stephen Schneider says, You may be aware of this already. Paul Hudson, BBC's reporter on climate change, on Friday wrote that there's been no warming since 1998, and that pacific oscillations will force cooling for the next 20-30 years.” Mann became aware and on the 12th wrote, “extremely disappointing to see something like this appear on BBC. Its (sic) particularly odd, since climate is usually Richard Black's beat at BBC (and he does a great job). From what I can tell, this guy was formerly a weather person at the Met Office. We may do something about this on RealClimate, but meanwhile it might be appropriate for the Met Office to have a say about this, I might ask Richard Black what's up here?” This is Mann at his nasty bullying best.

When Hudson did nothing the person(s) released the entire file to the world. Hudson’s failure was disappointing because he had credibility as a BBC weather presenter and former Met Office employee. The Copenhagen conference was probably the concern because the files showed the scientific basis for climate policies was falsified.

Knowledge and Access to the University Computer System


Whoever released the files knew which were significant and had access to the UEA computer system. 


Canadian network engineer Lance Levsen after detailed analysis showed convincingly the source was someone within the university. He concluded, “For the hacker to have collected all of this information s/he would have required extraordinary capabilities…to crack an Administrative file server to get to the emails and crack numerous workstations, desktops, and servers to get the documents.”

Strong Candidate


There are several internal candidates including Keith Briffa. Emails show his conflicts within the group. On October 5th 2009 Wigley wrote to Jones, It is distressing to read that American Stinker item. But Keith does seem to have got himself into a mess. As I pointed out in emails, Yamal is insignificant…….I presume they went thru papers to see if Yamal was cited, a pretty foolproof method if you ask me. Perhaps these things can be explained clearly and concisely -- but I am not sure Keith is able to do this as he is too close to the issue and probably quite pissed of (sic). I think Keith needs to be very, very careful in how he handles this. I'd be willing to check over anything he puts together.  Jones forwarded the email to Briffa.

Briffa’s dislike of Mann goes back a long way. On 17th June 2002 Briffa wrote to Dr Edward Cook about a letter involving Esper and Michael Mann, “I have just read this lettter - and I think it is crap. I am sick to death of Mann stating his reconstruction represents the tropical area just because it contains a few (poorly temperature representative) tropical series. He is just as capable of regressing these data again any other "target" series, such as the increasing trend of self-opinionated verbage (sic) he has produced over the last few years, and ... (better say no more)”Cook responds; “We both know the probable flaws in Mike's recon (reconstruction), particularly as it relates to the tropical stuff…. It is puzzling to me that a guy as bright as Mike would be so unwilling to evaluate his own work a bit more objectively.”

On 22nd September 1999 Briffa again confronted Mann in a long email that included the comment, “I believe that the recent warmth was probably matched about 1000 years ago.” Treasonous words for Mann’s hockey stick paper that claimed no medieval warm period existed. Mann appeared to back off. He wrote, “Walked into this hornet's nest this morning! Keith and Phil have both raised some very good points.” In reality he puts Briffa down again. “SO(sic) I think we're in the position to say/resolve somewhat more than, frankly, than Keith does, about the temperature history of the past millennium. And the issues I've spelled out all have to be dealt with in the chapter.” One cynical comment from Mann says, “And I certainly don't want to abuse my lead authorship by advocating my own work.” It’s a classic example of Mann’s dishonesty, because he abused it in the IPCC 2001 Science Report and Summary for Policy Makers.

Wigley didn’t help. Here is the first part of a belittling email from Wigley to Briffa on 10 January 2006. Thanx for this. Interesting. However, I do not think your response is very good. Further, there are grammatical and text errors, and (shocking!!) you have spelled McKitrick wrong. This is a sure way to piss them off. Typical of Wigley’s patronizing way of talking to wayward CRU members. 

Conflict continued as Briffa expressed his concern. Mann made some overtures, but on April 29th 2007 Briffa responded, “I found myself questioning the whole process and being often frustrated at the formulaic way things had to be done – often wasting time and going down dead ends. I really thank you for taking the time to say these kind words. I tried hard to balance the needs of the science and the IPCC, which were not always the same.” What damning commentary about what the CRU and the IPCC were doing?

Briffa may have worked with the Information Officer at the University who was under pressure for Freedom of Information (FOI) requests. In September we learned Briffa was ill. Did this give him time to think about what was happening? Maybe, but his treatment by Mann and the sinking ship was an impetus. Whatever the answer any reading of the emails show they were anything but normal correspondence between colleagues. 

(The above was sent anonymously to NCTCS. If the originator wants it removed, that wish will be honoured.)

$10K Challenge - Nary a Nibble!

The alarmists are amazing.

They maintain that they are right.

They maintain that they have the data.

How is it then, that for two years (well since Nov 8th, 2010) there has been a challenge issued by Peter Laux on Denis Rancourt's Climate Guy blog (link):  (also posted on this blog HERE)
"$10,000 (AUS) for a conclusive argument based on empirical facts that increasing atmospheric CO2 from fossil fuel burning drives global climate warming.”
Two years and nothing of relevance  or, as Peter put it today:
'nary a nibble from the "Science for the Unsettled" crew.'

Monday, 29 October 2012

Alan Jones and the Facts about CO2

Closer than Karoly.
Jones and the Facts about CO2.
Recently Alan Jones was subject to an adverse finding by ACMA. The finding was that Jones had not adequately presented the facts about how much CO2 Australia contributes to the atmospheric total.

What ACMA found was that Jones’s statement about the % of CO2 produced by Australia was his opinion and not, as implied when he made it, a scientific fact.

Jones’s opinion was that Australia produced 1/100,000th of the CO2 in the atmosphere. Jones also failed to produce any research to substantiate this opinion presented as ‘scientific fact’.

That is Jones’s error; not that his estimation of the CO2 contributed by Australia to the atmospheric bulk total of CO2 was necessarily wrong but that he presented it as a scientific fact.

The complainant to ACMA was not identified but there was a flurry of pro-AGW disapproval of Jones’s comments at the time from the usual subjects like Karoly who has a record of getting the sums wrong in a way far more egregious than Jones’s ‘error’.

Apparently, according to Karoly, the correct contribution of Australia to the total atmospheric concentration of CO2 is 0.45%.

According to Walter Stark, “Karoly’s figure may be derived by assuming that the purported rise of CO2 from the 280 ppm preindustrial level to current levels is due to anthropogenic emissions. This then puts the anthropogenic contribution at about 30% of current levels and Australia’s 1.5% share of global anthropogenic emissions then becomes responsible for about 0.45 % of total atmospheric CO2.”

Professor Murry Salby’s work makes that assumption that anthropogenic CO2 is responsible for the increase in CO2 problematic. But even if we allow that assumption Karoly’s figure of 0.45% is doubtful.

The bulk atmospheric CO2 is increasing by about 1.5ppm PA or about 4Gt; then there is the annual flux which is the movements into and out of the atmosphere which are described here.

Currently the atmospheric bulk is about 3000Gt; the annual flux is 218.2Gt [from Figure 7.3, AR4].

The amount of human sourced CO2, ACO2, in that annual flux is 8Gt, or about 3.67% of the FLUX.

How much of that flux actually stays in the air and adds to the atmospheric bulk? The answer is given by the US Department of Energy [DOE]; see Table 3 on page 22 of the PDF.

From this we can see that 98.5% of ALL annual emissions of CO2/ACO2 are reabsorbed and about 1.5% of the flux or about 4Gt is added to the atmospheric bulk.

In 2009 Australia was 16th of the world’s nations CO2 emitters, emitting 374 million tonnes or about 1.28% of ACO2.

So, there are all the facts; who is closer to the truth; Jones or Karoly?

1.5% of all CO2, both natural and ACO2, is retained annually to add to the atmospheric bulk.

Of that 1.5% addition, annually, the ACO2 component is 3.67%; so ALL of nations’ contributions is 3.67/100 x 1.5/100 = 0.000552.

Australia’s annual emissions are 1.28% of the global ACO2; so 0.000552 x 1.28/100 = far less than what Karoly said and even less than what Jones said.

So, both Jones and Karoly are wrong but Jones is closer to the truth.

This of course hasn’t stopped more of the usual subjects, like the ubiquitous John Byatt, from congratulating the finding against Jones and arguing against any revelation that their precious AGW is not happening.

It is evident that nothing will convince the believers of AGW that their belief is wrong. In this respect they are like religious fundamentalists. Australia allows for freedom of religion. The question is should the government financially support the religion of AGW and strive to make it the official Australian religion in contradiction of the Constitutional safeguards?

Sunday, 28 October 2012

Wind and Solar are Worse than Coal

"Carbon Sense" 
Common sense on carbon, food, energy and climate.

Wind and Solar are Worse than Coal
and cause the waste of gas.

by Viv Forbes

We are told we must replace coal powered electricity with wind and solar, 
because of the “dangerous carbon dioxide” produced when coal is burnt. 
But a bit of investigation shows that carbon dioxide is a benefit to the biosphere, 
whereas wind and solar do real damage to the environment and the economy.

28 October 2012.

A pdf print-ready copy of this article can be downloaded from:

James Hansen, an outspoken world climate alarmist says: “Coal-fired power plants are factories of death”. The Australian Greens want a fast end to coal mining in Australia, and support a swift expansion of wind and solar power. As the Greens are part of the coalition which governs Australia, the electricity industry is now being coerced by carbon taxes and green subsidies and mandates to replace efficient and reliable coal-powered electricity with costly and unreliable wind and solar plants.

All of this paranoia is driven by climatist claims that carbon dioxide causes environmental harm by triggering dangerous global warming. Let’s look at whether coal energy or green energy does more harm to the environment.

There is absolutely no proof that carbon dioxide causes any measurable changes to climate. In fact, the evidence indicates that changes in atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide are a result, not a cause, of variations in global temperatures.

Moreover, burning coal in clean modern power stations has definite benefits for the biosphere – it puts food and drink for all life back into the atmosphere. The major coal combustion products are – nitrogen plant food from the air (69%), carbon dioxide plant food from the coal (21%) and water vapour, the liquid for life, from the coal (7%). The other 3% comprises mainly inert atmospheric gases from the air and an ash residue of trace minerals from the coal. The green bogey-man, carbon dioxide, is the gas of life and a free gift from coal combustion to the biosphere. More carbon dioxide has proven benefits in making plants grow faster in good weather and helping them survive better in droughts or frosts. More carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is insurance for the biosphere no matter what climate change is in store for us.

Green energy, however, can affect local climate and does cause environmental damage.

Wind turbines work by extracting kinetic energy from the wind. To extract significant energy in any particular location, there needs to be an almost impenetrable thicket of these whirling scythes.

Trapping the Energy from the Wind

This has three adverse consequences - it changes the local climate, takes a terrible toll on birds and bats, and the throbbing noise pollutes the local environment.

A wall of wind turbines acts like a mini coastal range – slowing the wind and making it rise over the obstacles. Whenever air rises over a range, it cools and tends to drop its moisture as rain. As it goes down the other side it tends to warm up, lowering its relative humidity. This is why the apparently insignificant coastal range from Cooktown to Cooma is naturally covered with thick scrub and the land in the rain shadow behind the coastal range is dry. Wind towers inevitably have a similar effect on climate, creating new rain shadows in the areas robbed of wind. The effect is magnified if turbines are placed along the ridgeline.
How to increase the Height of the Wind & Rain Barrier – The Hallet Wind Farm in South Australia 2012

To add to the environmental risk, some turbine motors have caught fire in high winds, causing bushfires in this more vulnerable rain shadow area.

Nothing like a good fire to clean up the Environment

Stand-alone solar farms also cause environmental damage. Solar, like wind, is a very dilute form of energy that requires a huge area of collectors to harvest significant energy. Green plants need that same solar energy on their leaves to grow, but solar collectors shade the ground and steal their energy, creating even greater deserts than wind towers. This is not a problem in real deserts, but the massive populations needing electricity seldom live near deserts – they flock to the warm green coasts. Solar panels on roofs are expensive feel-good status symbols. They production seldom recovers their real costs.

Peak production from solar panels in Australia occurs at noon.
Peak annual demand on the power grid occurs in mid-winter at 6.30pm, after the sun goes down.
Therefore in winter, solar panels on roofs are about as much use as an ashtray on a motorcycle.

In addition, both wind and solar need far bigger networks of maintenance access roads, fire breaks and transmission lines than coal. The existing environment is destroyed by dozers and graders and the disturbed land is covered by roads and concrete, or re-colonised by aggressive weeds.

Tehachapi Pass Wind Farms - 5,000 turbines cover virtually every ridgeline in the mountain pass between the Mojave Desert and California’s Central Valley.

Finally, both wind and solar farms produce zero or negligible power for at least 60% of the time. Thus they need 100% backup to avoid power failures. These backup facilities sterilise more land, and often need to be on “spinning reserve” in order to be instantly ready when clouds hide the sun or the wind fails at a time of peak demand. This additional construction causes more environmental harm and massively increases the cost of green electricity.

Wind Power means investing in Two Sets of Generators, with Two Land Footprints, in order to guarantee the Same Supply

Cartoon Credit: Steve Hunter http://www.stevehunterillustrations.com.au/

In this way both wind and solar energy affect far more land per unit of energy generated than a compact coal mine and its nearby linked power station.

Finally, what about gas? The carbon tax and the green war on coal and carbon dioxide have artificially boosted gas in preference to coal for generating electricity. This is generally a misallocation of resources. Gas is a very useful carbon fuel, but is generally too valuable to burn for generating electricity. It also needs to be gathered from a far bigger area than coal, creating more surface disturbance for a network of wells, pipelines, roads and waste water containment dams. In a sensible world, industrial electricity would be generated mainly by low-cost hydro, geothermal, coal or nuclear, with some gas for variable peak loads. Gas is more useful as fuel for mobile equipment, it provides a cleaner transport fuel in cities than petrol or diesel, and is invaluable for petrochemicals, fertilisers and plastics. Gas is surely being wasted providing backup for the token wind and solar plants being built.

They complained about the coal mine,
So we gave them 500 gas wells.

They complained about the gas wells,
So we gave them 5,000 wind turbines.

But then the wind failed, and their lights went out,
And now they wish they had stuck with the coal mine.
Viv Forbes

The conclusions are obvious – political force-feeding of wind and solar energy does more harm to the natural environment than coal, affects the local climate, hits consumers with unnecessary costs and threatens industry with power failures.

Solar is sensible for domestic hot water, powering small remote facilities and re-charging portable batteries. Wind power is sometimes useful for pumping water and generating power in remote locations. Consumers should be free to choose and pay for whatever energy they prefer, for whatever reason. However, wind and solar both produce costly intermittent power and should never be subsidised or mandated as a primary source of industrial electricity.

Further Reading: 

James Hansen, one of the world’s leading climate alarmists and leader of the war on coal says: “Coal is the single greatest threat to civilisation and all life on our planet. The trains carrying coal to power plants are death trains. Coal-fired power plants are factories of death.” See:

“The Greens have said very clearly: no new coalmines, no extension of existing coalmines; let's invest in renewables - the technology exists," Senator Milne. See:

Last weekend as blizzards swept across Europe, and over three hundred people died, Russia's main gas-company, Gazprom, was unable to meet demand. Did anyone even think of deploying our wind turbines to make good the energy shortfall from Russia?
Of course not. We all know that windmills are a self-indulgent and sanctimonious luxury whose purpose is to make us feel good. Had Europe genuinely depended on green energy on Friday, by Sunday thousands would be dead from frostbite and exposure, and the EU would have suffered an economic body blow to match that of Japan's tsunami a year ago. See:

Lies, Damn Lies and Green Statistics. Almost all predictions about the expansion and cost of German wind turbines and solar panels have turned out to be wrong – at least by a factor of two, sometimes by a factor of five. --Daniel Wentzel, Die Welt, 20 October 2012:

Large-scale exploitation of wind energy will inevitably leave an imprint in the atmosphere.  Although the winds will not die, sucking that much energy out of the atmosphere may change precipitation and turbulence and have a climate effect as big as a doubling of the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere. See: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21028063.300-wind-and-wave-energies-are-not-renewable-after-all.html

Spanish wind farms kill 6 to 18 million birds & bats a year. See:

Maryland wind farm ranks as the most deadly to birds and bats in USA. See:

The only sustainable population of whooping cranes in the wild is declining, concurrently with the invasion of their migration route, the Central Flyway, by over 2,000 wind turbines and their power lines. Nearly one hundred of these critically-endangered birds were lost this year. See:

Residents as far as 10km from the nearest wind turbine are affected by infra-sound and low frequency noise from the turbine. Unable to live in their homes, and unable to sell them, they become homeless “wind farm refugees”. See:http://waubrafoundation.com.au/Wind_Turbine_Acoustic_Pollution_Assessment_Requirements.pdf

Peak production from solar panels in Australia occurs at noon. Peak annual demand on the power grid occurs at 6.30pm in mid-winter, after the sun goes down. Therefore solar panels contribute ZERO to supplying peak demand. See:

The cost of renewable energy for Australia is explained here:

The products of combustion of all carbon fuels are normal and natural components of the atmosphere, and essential nutrients for all life. This paper looks at the compositions of solid carbon fuels, the process of coal combustion, the exhaust products produced, and the benefits and pollution potential of those exhaust products. See:

An increase of 300ppm in carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere (currently about 395ppm) would cause an increased growth in food plants of about 40% and trees of about 70%. See:

CO2 is essential for life. More CO2 will do much good and no harm. If it is allowed to increase at the current rate it will feed the world’s coming peak population without needing more land, seed, cultivation or water. For a beautifully illustrated article on the many benefits of carbon dioxide for the all life see:

About the Author:

Viv Forbes understands rain shadows – he lives in one. He and his wife Judy live on a farm just west of the coastal ranges, and spend most of their time and energy there. They also have first-hand experience with the intermittent power of windmills and solar pumps for pumping stock water, and have replaced most of them on their property with reliable air pumps operating on compressed air produced by coal-based mains power. They use solar chargers to run electric fences (cattle and sheep sleep at night), and a solar panel on the bonnet of one tractor to keep its battery charged. But for the heavy lifting like running cities, trains, lifts, hospitals, factories and refineries, reliable coal-powered mains electricity is needed.

Viv worked as a coal geologist for several years, helping to unravel the climate history written in the rocks in the huge coal basins of Queensland. He also explored for oil and gas and is still a non-executive director and shareholder of a small coal exploration company (which incidentally will benefit if high electricity costs in Australia drive our heavy industries to China and India). He thus understands the Grand Carbon Cycle, from the ancient carbon-rich atmospheres of the Permian and Jurassic Eras, to the massive ancient forests, to the extensive coal seams, to the electricity generated as that coal is burnt, to the welcome release of the ancient carbon dioxide back into the atmosphere, rejuvenating today’s biosphere.

With a bit of luck and a lot of Carbon Sense, he believes we may help Earth to return to the moist, verdant, warm, life-supporting environments that prevailed when those great forests grew.

The UN, Agenda 21 and the erosion of land ownership rights:

Brisbane presentation on UN Agenda 21 & ICLEI by historian Amy McGrath
Australians, Americans and Europeans are increasingly concerned about UN Agenda 21 and its confusing regulatory maze and alphabet jumble of agencies such as ICLEI. Independent research repeatedly reveals UN campaigns removing personal property rights and restricting resource use, residency and movement within communities.

The UN's campaigns are falsely camouflaged as environmental action under two misleading tags: biodiversity and sustainability. These feed off UN Agenda 21's third leg: bogus scary climate change (formerly global warming). Arbitrary regulations bypass parliaments by using taxpayer-funded agencies to replace freedom of choice with state control.

Sydney author and historian Amy McGrath OAM will be visiting Brisbane on Friday, November 2nd and has kindly made herself available to discuss this serious threat to Australians.

Amy will reveal UN Agenda 21's octopus-like tentacles spreading over local councils through the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives. ICLEI is a UN agency based in Bonn, Germany.

Amy will:
- share research into UN Agenda 21 and stealthy ICLEI implementation tactics;
- discuss how to unravel and undo local council regulations and revoke UN treaties;
- Discuss how to protect freedom and protect national sovereignty in Australia.

This is part of global governance with total state ownership compressing people into regulated zones after banning private property. It's underway in western democracies at huge human and economic cost. It has already removed some Australian residents' property rights. Horrified with her findings, Amy and friends have formed the Alliance for Property Rights.

Australia is signatory to over 7,000 UN treaties. These range from the Lima Declaration destroying agriculture and manufacturing to seemingly innocent yet restrictive ordinances controlling water, land, farming and food. Is Australia technically becoming a UN colony?

Subject to numbers, attendees will receive a free copy of Amy's book Wolves in Sheep's Clothing. It's a fine compilation of writings exposing UN Agenda 21 and global governance destroying Australian sovereignty and political systems.

Please forward this to interested friends and join us in learning how to stop the UN's hidden Revolution by Regulation. 

Date and Time: Friday, November 2nd, 2012, 2:00pm. Followed by discussion for those interested. Theatre booked until 5:00pm.

Venue: Tribal Theatre, 346 George Street, between Ann & Turbot Streets, Brisbane city.
Formerly Dendy Theatre.

All Welcome. Price: $5 to cover cost of venue. Students and pensioners: gold coin donation.

Killing the Earth to Save it.

For those interested in the man-made global warming debate, a good book to read is: “Killing the Earth to Save it,” by James Delingpole. There is a wealth of information revealed in the book and how we are being conned.

The Last Word

Wind and solar can never change the way the sun shines or the way the wind blows. Even if we discover or construct (at great cost), massive electricity storage systems, these green energy options will always be inferior in all ways to well-designed coal, gas, nuclear, hydro or geothermal generators for industrial power supplies. It is thus sad in the extreme that the energy policies of the alternative government are little better than the policies that are failing so spectacularly in Europe.

Can you believe that the policy of Australia’s alternative government supports “Action on Climate Change” including the creation of a $2.55 billion Emissions Reduction Fund, additional funding for one million solar homes by 2020, clean energy hubs, solar towns, solar schools, geothermal projects, carbon farming, studies into algal synthesis and the planting of 20 million trees? Their promises include:

   Spending over one billion dollars on a “Solar Continent Policy”.
   A million Solar Roofs policy.
   $100 million for at least 25 Solar Towns and 100 solar schools.
   $50 million to create a minimum of 25 new Geothermal Towns and Tidal Towns.
   Plus a new green army and massive expansion of the green bureaucracy.

Looks like, no matter who you vote for, the Greens win.

Authorised by:
Viv Forbes
Rosevale    Qld    Australia

“Carbon Sense” is a newsletter produced by the Carbon Sense Coalition, an Australian based organisation which opposes waste of resources, opposes pollution, and promotes the rational and sustainable use of carbon energy and carbon food.
Please spread “Carbon Sense” around.
For more information visit our web site at www.carbon-sense.com
Literary, financial or other contributions to help our cause are welcomed.
Chairman Viv Forbes MS 23, Rosewood   Qld   4340   Australia.   info@carbon-sense.com
To Unsubscribe send a reply with “Unsubscribe” in the subject line.