Wednesday, 26 June 2013

Obama's drama lacks karma

Two faces of POTUS
To Australians it's deja vu all over again.

Australian Prime Minister (at time of writing) Julia Gillard promised, prior to the last election, that there would be no carbon (dioxide) tax under the government that she led. After the election, it was an entirely matter. Much was heard of carbon pollution.

During the last US election campaign, President Obama kept mum about "carbon pollution" and "carbon taxes." However, during his second inauguration address, he called for new action to “respond to the threat of climate change.” His case for man-made global warming was exceptionally flimsy.

Then we had the alarmists calling on Obama to act on the falsified hypothesis of man's CO2 emissions causing alarming warming.

Al Gore is urging President Obama to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants, a step the White House has not publicly embraced to date. (Link)
POTUS Obama has responded with "President Obama's Plan to Cut Carbon Pollution"

As reported by the Australian Today:
US President Barack Obama has laid out a broad new plan to fight climate change, using executive powers to get around "flat earth" science deniers who have blocked action in Congress. 
Mr Obama called for new restrictions on existing and new power plants to curb carbon emissions, pledged to push new generation clean energy sources and to lead a fresh global effort to stem global warming. 
Officials say the plan will allow the US to meet a goal of cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 17 per cent below 2005 levels by 2020, a pledge Mr Obama made at the inconclusive Copenhagen summit in 2009.

The President even resorted to describe the realists with the highly offensive term of "deniers."
Mr Obama said he had no patience for climate change deniers, including many in Congress, who dispute the science holding that carbon dioxide emissions contribute to a dangerously warming planet. 
"We don't have time for a meeting of the Flat Earth Society," he said. 
"Sticking your head in the sand might make you feel safer, but it is not going to protect you from the coming storm."
But who are the true "deniers?' Who are the ones sticking their head in the sands?

Depending on which set of their data for global temperatures is used, there has now been no significant warming for 17 to 23 years. Meanwhile atmospheric CO2 keeps rising.

Obama says that the "deniers" "dispute the science holding that carbon dioxide emissions contribute to a dangerously warming planet."  There is no science showing that carbon dioxide emissions contribute to a dangerous warming planet. There is no dangerous warming planet.

Why is it that the alarmists are getting more feral as more and more scientists are showing up the hoax?

Graphic from Warning Signs.

The president's address has caused a flood of opinions:

From Alan Caruba's Warning Signs:
Beware! Media Will Support Obama's Climate Lies 
Call it the audacity of deceit. At the heart of the President’s speech is his reference to “carbon pollution.” 
It has no scientific basis. You will not read that in Wednesday’s newspapers, nor hear it on radio and television unless you are tuned to conservative media.
 - - - - - -

The claim that carbon dioxide (CO2) is a pollutant is absurd insofar as it is, next to oxygen, the second most vital gas for life on planet Earth. It is responsible for the growth of all vegetation, including crops vital to feeding humanity and the livestock on which they depend as a food source.

From Myron Ebell of the CEI:

Obama’s all-pain, no-gain agenda will cost jobs, drive up prices and have little effect on global emissions,” said Myron Ebell, director of CEI’s Center for Energy and Environment. “It is undemocratic, bordering on authoritarian. 
“It confirms the Obama administration’s all-out war on coal, calls for more negotiations on a treaty the Senate will never ratify and displays an alarming lack of knowledge about the state of climate science.

From Anthony Watts (WUWT)
The President’s Climate Action Plan – the good, the bad, and the ugly (with full documents)
Multiple citations of the crazy idea that carbon dioxide is “carbon pollution”, when it is essential to almost all life on Earth.
The phrase “carbon pollution” is mentioned 21 times.
Equating carbon dioxide to mercury and arsenic, which is just nuts.
From Donna Laframboise's No Frakking Consensus.

Obama Dresses CO2 in a Big Bad Wolf Costume

The term “carbon pollution” is one of the most odious slogans ever dreamed up by environmentalists. If the president has now officially adopted it, our opinion of him cannot remain the same. 
As any high school student knows, carbon is represented by a C on the periodic table. We are carbon-based life forms; carbon is within us and all around us. 
Anti-global-warming activists are, in fact, concerned about something else – carbondioxide. Comprised of one molecule of carbon and two molecules of oxygen (a separate and distinct element on the periodic table), CO2 is a greenhouse gas. 
Computer models with dubious track records suggest that human-generated CO2 could spark dangerous climate change. Activists, therefore, think we should slash our CO2 emissions. 
From The Heartland Institute:

James Taylor:
“The president’s restrictions are unnecessary, futile, and economically punishing. The restrictions are unnecessary because global temperatures have remained flat for the past 15 years, proving alarmist climate models predict far too much warming and have no basis in reality. Moreover, U.S. carbon dioxide emissions are already falling dramatically without the punitive measures the president is proposing. 
“The restrictions are futile because new growth in Chinese emissions will render all U.S. carbon dioxide cuts moot within a few short months. And even if Chinese emissions growth did not wipe out U.S. cuts, those U.S. cuts would have no measurable impact on global temperatures. The restrictions are economically punishing because they will drive up energy prices throughout the U.S. economy, which will stifle job creation and additionally drive existing businesses and jobs overseas. 
“In short, the president’s restrictions are economically ruinous while providing no appreciable benefit.”
Senior Fellow for Environment Policy
The Heartland Institute
- - - - - - - - -
“With clear evidence that the planet has not warmed in the past 15 years while carbon dioxide has increased, we know reducing emissions of CO2 will have only one impact: to increase the cost of American energy. Obviously this is Mr. Obama’s intent, and while it will thrill his anti-capitalist environmental supporters, it will hopefully wake up the general public to the fact that he does not have their best interests at heart in creating more radical environmental regulations.”
Science Director
The Heartland Institute

                                             - - - - - - - - -
“In discussing the rationale for his climate change and energy plan, President Obama claims that carbon dioxide, or CO2, ‘causes climate change and threatens public health’ and that ‘cutting carbon pollution will help keep our air and water clean and protect our kids.’ Unfortunately, President Obama’s statements could not be further from the truth. Far from being a ‘pollutant,’ carbon dioxide is the elixir of life.”
Senior Fellow, Environment
The Heartland Institute
Co-editor, Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change

Is the Moon made out of Cheese?

by Anthony Cox

Tom Cruise’s latest blockbuster is called Oblivion. In it an alien conquers Earth by destroying the Moon and unleashing catastrophic climate change. So the Moon is seen as the dominant factor in climate. Until Oblivion Hollywood has been firmly in the man-made climate change [AGW] corner. Of course Hollywood has plenty of money but little credibility.

AGW science probably has as much money as Hollywood to spend, the question is does it have more credibility.

Stephan Lewandowsky is a leading AGW scientist and advocate. Like Cruise Lewandowsky recently had a major project involving the Moon. Lewandowsky’s paper is called:

This paper is a bad paper. It has been subject to sustained and cogent criticism but the paper’s defects are aptly summed up by the inherent contradiction between its thesis and reality. Lewandowsky’s position is that sceptics are susceptible to conspiracy theories and so could be expected to subscribe to other conspiracies such as the Moon landing being a fake.

There have been 12 humans who have stood on the Moon. Along with the great and recently departed Neil Armstrong, the first who stood on the man was “Buzz” Aldrin. Buzz thinks the climate has been changing for billions of years and today’s climate is no different.  Buzz has a PhD from MIT which ranks him above Lewandowsky in the academic rankings. Likewise the last astronaut to stand on the Moon was Harrison Schmitt. Schmitt thinks natural causes dominate any human effect on climate and that AGW support is political because people are scared they would lose their funding. Schmitt has a PhD from Harvard, so he too outranks Lewandowsky.

So, we have on the one side Lewandowsky saying sceptics are likely not to believe in the Moon landings and on the other side we have two celebrated astronauts with impeccable qualifications and experience, who have actually been on the Moon and who are sceptics. In fact so many of the ex-astronauts and NASA staff who worked on the Apollo missions are sceptics they have formed their own project to oppose the misinformation about AGW.

AGW science not only thinks Moon astronauts didn’t go to the Moon. In a recent talk Lewandowsky’s collaborator, blogger John Cook described the effect humanity has on the climate as being comparable to the Hiroshima atomic bomb. And not just one bomb but 4 bombs going off every second. This orgy of destruction was first raised by the father of all AGW exaggerators, the regularly arrested James Hansen. Hansen had previously said Earth was going to become like Venus, but when that undesirable scenario did not resonate then introduced atomic bombs into the predictions about the fate of the Earth. Hansen said AGW is “…equivalent to exploding 400,000 Hiroshima atomic bombs per day 365 days per year. That’s how much extra energy Earth is gaining each day.”

Energy professor Mike Sandiford also contributed to the general gloom by standardising the Hiroshima effect and calling it the Hiro. So everyone could now calculate their destructive impact on the climate by expressing it in Hiros; as in I had a great last night, it was an 11 Hiro occasion. Or when Buzz Aldrin was walking on the Moon he used about 9 Hiros.

This of course is patent nonsense. A detailed critique of the Hiro has been done by Watts. Watts compares Cook’s 4 Hiros per second to what the Sun does which is 1000 Hiros per second. And that is if one accepts the premise of the Hiro. But what Cook and his predecessors in the Hiro blast-chain don’t consider is that human activity is incremental and does not consist of continuous bomb blasts. They also don’t consider that AGW is wrong, a conclusion which now has the support of overwhelming evidence.

But, for AGW science it’s still Hiros all round and given the warfare context who better to comment than a retired military man. At the latest Climate Commission end of the world gathering former Defence Force chief Admiral Chris Barrie said that due to AGW “There’s a one in two chance that by 2100 there’ll be no human beings left on this planet.”

This is grim news unless of course he was referring to the possibility that all of humanity will immigrate to the Moon just to prove Lewandowsky wrong. Unfortunately given the stern demeanors of both Admiral Barrie and his Climate Commissioner buddy Will Steffen it is more likely he meant all that stands between humanity and extinction is the toss of the coin.

This is delirious alarmism, especially coming from a military man who could be expected to have a more mature and informed perspective. More than anything this sort of extreme hyperbole has undermined AGW science. It is as though AGW scientists know their science is weak so they overcompensate by ramping up the threatened consequences.

Since AGW started nearly every imaginable catastrophe including more lawyers has been predicted to happen due to AGW. The cry of Wolf has been so loud and constant that people have seen through the lies.

The way AGW science is going it would not be a surprise if Wallace and Gromit’s trip to the Moon is revealed to have been a conspiracy. Cheese anyone?

Tuesday, 25 June 2013

Important Advance in Climate Science Teaching

Tom Harris

Executive Director  of the International Climate Science Coalition Tom Harris has issued this press release:



Teaching students how science works in the real world and how to come to their own evidence-based conclusions is more important than telling them who is right in controversial fields such as climate change 

Ottawa, Canada, June 24, 2013:  "As the ‘official science’ of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) falls into disrepute, educators face an increasingly difficult decision when teaching climate science in middle and high schools," said Tom Harris, executive director of the Ottawa-based International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC).
"Should they act as if the science of climate change were somehow ‘settled’, as asserted by activists, and so create lesson plans based solely on IPCC material approved by school boards and provincial and state governments? Or should they also expose students to the politically incorrect but important perspectives of leading experts who conclude that climate change is mostly due to natural variability?"

ICSC Chief Science Advisor Professor Bob Carter, of James Cook University in Australia explains:
"There is now a third option, one that allows teachers to remain true to their profession, while also avoiding conflict with those to whom they report. Using ICSC lesson plans, educators can help students understand how science really works in a complex and rapidly evolving field, allowing them to discover for themselves that, at the frontier, science is a body of debate, not a body of established facts."
"The ICSC lesson plan guides young people to see critical thinking in action, driving the controversy in scientifically healthy ways, as competing hypotheses are proposed, criticized, and defended, according to the principles of the scientific method," said Professor Carter. "Throughout the lessons, teachers will guide students to think critically, to ask difficult questions, and seek answers to those questions. Students will learn to think, explore, and research."

Tom Harris gives some background: "ICSC’s lesson plans are being prepared in collaboration with top American education researchers following the Virginia Department of Education Standards of Learning that "the teaching puts the emphasis on the student seeking answers for themselves and helps them become creative problem solvers."

ICSC’s first climate science lesson plan is now complete and ready for use by middle school and high school science teachers at: . Feedback from educators, students, administrators, scientists, and parents is most welcome. Teachers are invited to contact ICSC if they would like to be put on the distribution list for the rest of the lesson plans in the series as they are completed.

Educators and climate scientists have reviewed ICSC’s teaching strategy and our first lesson plan.

Here are samples of their comments:

Alex Harris, teacher—Science Department, Fellowes High School, Pembroke, Ontario, Canada:
"Students are introduced to an evolving body of scholarly research that seeks to broaden their understanding of debate amongst experts, the role of empirical research in achieving scientific consensus, and healthy skepticism; all are invaluable components of the process of scientific inquiry. Students are asked to question and reflect upon their personal beliefs and evidence used in establishing those beliefs. The materials used in the lesson are designed to stimulate the students' own thought processes and foster an appreciation for the process of scientific inquiry. This lesson is easy to implement and would be appropriate for learners in middle school through junior high school. Educators, exercise caution - this activity is sure to generate a lot of questions from curious minds!"

Lee C. Gerhard, PhD, Senior Scientist Emeritus, University of Kansas, past director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey, U.S.A.:
Encouraging students to challenge science-based "beliefs" by studying the actual debates among the experts is an excellent way to approach critical pathway thinking. Helping students develop analytical skills can be extremely helpful to them in their future endeavors, and to be educated voters. We live in a highly schooled but poorly educated society, where beliefs outweigh data. This lesson plan will help address that problem." 

Tad Murty, PhD, Professor, University of Ottawa, Previously Senior Research Scientist for Fisheries and Oceans Canada and former director of Australia's National Tidal Facility and professor of earth sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide, Ottawa, Canada:
Any course that challenges the students to think critically and use their own observational power to make deductions is extremely important because it provides opportunities for their mental development. With climate change being among the contemporary topics of global interest, this course is very timely.”

Don J. Easterbrook, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Geology, Western Washington University, Bellingham, Washington, U.S.A.:
“The new ICSC lesson plan for middle and high schools is an excellent approach to teach students how to acquire data on their own and use it to come to their own conclusions.  It thus teaches them not only the facts about certain topics but shows them a methodology that can be used for other topics.” 

Ross Hays, Meteorologist, NASA Columbia Scientific Balloon Facility, Palestine, Texas, U.S.A.:
"This looks like a great program that will let the students use their minds and make decisions of what seems to be the most logical theory on climate change as the planet continues to cycle between ice ages and warm periods with man’s written history minute compared to these time lines of climatology."

Brian Pratt, PhD, Professor of Geology (Sedimentology and Paleontology), University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada
"It is apparent to all educators, be it in music or science or literature, that once the student has been provided with background and given guidance, students learn the most by exploring a subject for themselves. This way, students are able to discover the essence of a subject and its relationship to others, and by doing so learn how to ask questions that will lead to insight and advances. This kind of approach, challenging as it is, helps induce intellectual rigour, and enables students to understand what scholarship is all about.”

Sunday, 23 June 2013

Cook's Crook Rooks

Like most languages, the Australian language has some unique slang phrases. After reading the following linked piece, two come to mind.
Crook - bad, inferior;(link);Rooks – Know it all (link) (“He thinks he’s a bit of a Rooks, but he couldn’t tip the winner to save himself”)
So the title above refers to (John) Cook's bad, inferior know it all misinformation.

A piece in the Australian: (link)

Climate change like atom bomb: scientists

THE planet has been building up temperatures at the rate of four Hiroshima bombs of heat every second, and it's all our fault, say climate scientists.     
Ole Humlum's Climate4You May 2013
The 5 major global  temperature sources averaged.
Does that look like 4 atom bomb/second?

Can it be true? Has science told us that the global temperature has been statistically level for - from17 to 23 years? (link) and (link) and (Link)
Humans are emitting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than any other time in history, says John Cook, Climate Communication Fellow from the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland.
Well, John, where is the proof that CO2 causes warming. Science has established that temperature rise causes warming and not the other way around.
"All these heat-trapping greenhouse gases in our atmosphere mean ... our planet has been building up heat at the rate of about four Hiroshima bombs every second - consider that going continuously for several decades."
Several decades? IS that 20 years, John? Read that last link above, Two extracts:
The Met Office, one of the top cheerleaders for the man-made climate change camp, said global temperatures are likely to be lower than it forecast in December 2011.
Dr Benny Peiser said: “These figures show that in all likelihood we will have had no warming in the past 20 years.
Twenty Years, Cookie. Is that close to two decades?

Mr Cook said:
Warmer air holds more water, so Australia will experience heavier rainfall in wetter areas, while dry regions are becoming drier. 
Hang on there, Cookie, didn't Australia's $180,000 part time Panasonic Climate Commissioner Tim Flannery say that global warming was draining our dams?
"Even the rain that falls isn't actually going to fill our dams and river systems," (link)
Is that one of Flannery's Crook Rooks?  Or is all your talk at the Climate Action Summit in fact Cook's Crook Rooks?

John, I am NOT a climate scientist, but then again, neither are you:

The (UN)SkepticalScience website itself has a bio of Cook which includes this line: “He is not a climate scientist.”
Did you get your "atom bomb" idiocy from Stanford? (Link) Because that was all shot down in flames HERE.

(Shooting down an atom bomb in flames? Sorry for the mixed metaphors!)

See also: Donna Lafromboise's No Frakking Consensus (Link)
See also: Bolt on another of Cook's Crook Rooks (Link)

Saturday, 22 June 2013



by IPCC Expert reviewer Vincent Gray

Earth Radiation Budget Experiment Satellite
Photo: WUWT
JUNE 22nd 2013

The greatest difficulty facing the promoters of the theory that human emissions of carbon dioxide cause dangerous global warming is the inconvenient truth that it is impossible to measure the average temperature of the earth’s surface by any known technology. Without this information it is not possible to claim global warming.

In order to fake this claim the “Mean Global Surface Temperature Anomaly Record” (MGSTAR) was fabricated from temperature measurements made at meteorological weather stations.

It did not matter that
  • There is no standardized method for making these observations;
  • They are unrepresentative of the earth’s surface, and worse  the further back you go;
  • Their locations are mainly close to cities;
  • Only maximum and minimum temperatures are measured;
  • The number and location of stations changes daily.

Despite these disabilities, which would have killed the idea in the days when genuine scientists controlled the scientific journals, the public have been persuaded that this dubious procedure is a genuine guide to global temperature change. They even seem to accept that a change in it over a century of a few decimals of a degree is cause for alarm.

John Christy and Roy Spencer in 1979 at the University of Huntsville, Alabama established an alternative procedure for plotting global temperature anomalies in the lower troposphere by using the changes in the microwave spectrum of oxygen recorded by satellites on Microwave Sounder Units (MSUs). This overcame several of the disadvantages of the MGSTAR method.

It is almost truly global, not confined to cities. Although it misses the Arctic, this is also true of the MGSTAR. There have been some problems of calibration and reliability but they are far less than the problems of the  MSGTAR record. They are therefore more reliable.

From the beginning the two records have disagreed with one another. This created such panic that the supporters of the IPCC set up an alternative facility to monitor the results at Remote Sensing Systems under the aegis of NASA and in the capable hands of Frank Wentz, an IPCC supporter. It was confidently believed that the “errors” of Christy and Spencer would soon be removed. To their profound disappointment this has not happened, The RSS version of the Lower Troposphere global temperature anomaly record is essentially the same as that still provided by the University of Huntsville. It is also almost the same as the measurements made by radiosonde balloons over the same period.

The MSU record has now been going for 34 years. Spencer has recently published a comparison between temperature predictions made by a large number of IPCC climate models and their projected future and the temperature record as shown by the MSUs and the balloons.

It is surely obvious that all the models are wrong and that their projections are nonsensical.
I might also add that the central line is  also meaningless.


Murry Salby is  Professor of Environmental Science at Macquarie Univerity where he has an impressive research programme to be seen at

He has published a book “Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate”.

He has recently expounded his views on the climate in two Youtube presentations. I have found that it was necessary to see both of them several times before I got a clear idea of what he is claiming. The first one, at
was a presentation at the Sydney Institute on 2nd August 2011.

He begins by showing the paleo record based on ice cores and shows that there is a close correlation between carbon dioxide and temperature, with temperature coming first. The same applies to methane.
He then attaches it to the more recent CO2 record and plots the Carbon13 figures, which declined over the whole period. Since plant material prefers C12 this means that the additional CO2 comes from plant material. The IPCC claims that the additional plant material must come from combustion of fossil fuels, so this is their “Smoking Gun” that the increase in CO2 is caused by human-derived emissions.
But the extra plant-derived CO2 could be natural. Salby sets out to show that this is true. He shows a satellite map of natural sources of CO2 which come more from the tropics than from temperate regions (but only 6% more).

He then provides data and graphs which show that the additional CO2 results from what happens during a temperature fluctuation, using the satellite (MSU) temperature record since 1978. He shows that the CO2 which is released by a temperature increase is always greater than the CO2 absorbed when the temperature falls, providing a  net increase in  the atmosphere.

The CO2 increase is from natural sources. It is not related to temperature, but to the behaviour of temperature fluctuations.

The second Youtube presentation  at
took place at Hamburg 18th April 2013.

It starts with an attempt to clear up the discrepancy of the first presentation, where, carbon dioxide was related to temperature for the ice core proxies and where carbon dioxide was related to a difference between emissions and absorption during a temperature fluctuation for the recent measurements.
He does this by questioning the reliability of the ice core measurements, something that my late friend Zbigniew Jaborowski questioned in 1997.

He points out that the snow that traps air from the atmosphere and then solidifies irons out the fluctuations in temperature which are the real source of CO2 increase, and that some diffusion of the gases must happen when they are buried. By a rather elaborate set of mathematical calculations he restores the fluctuation effect from the ice cores and shows that it is compatible with his other calculations from recent measurements.

He then extends his calculations of CO2 from temperature fluctuations by using the instrumental record. When he allows for its low reliability as you go back in the record (only 8% of the earth in 1860) he derives an impressive agreement between carbon dioxide increases and the calculated natural additions derived from temperature fluctuations over his entire range.

He shows that for the MSU record, carbon dioxide is completely unrelated to temperature,
We already know from the first part of this newsletter that climate models based on the assumption that carbon dioxide increases influence global temperature are fundamentally wrong so it does not matter much whether it comes from human-related emissions or from natural sources.

I vociferously object to science by Youtube. In the old days any new theory from a recognised academic would be welcomed by the journals, but nowadays  any disagreement with the IPCC orthodoxy  would have difficulty finding a place in a scientific journal.

All the same, this material from Salby needs to be properly documented before it could be considered seriously.

Vincent Gray
Wellington 6035
New Zealand

Friday, 21 June 2013

Taxing Air

Taxing air 
Facts and fallacies about climate change
ISBN: 9780646902180                                                                by Bob Carter & John Spooner 
Full colour paperback, 288 pp                                                      with Bill Kininmonth, Martin Feil, 
Distributed by Dennis Jones                                                        Stewart Franks, Bryan Leyland
RRP: $30.00
Pub date: 1 July 2013

In this accessible and beautifully produced full colour book The Age's brilliant political cartoonist John Spooner and leading environmental scientist Professor Bob Carter combine with colleagues to answer a series of critical and highly controversial questions about the politics and science of climate change.

Are human industrial carbon dioxide emissions causing dangerous global warming? If so, then climate change would indeed represent one of the great moral challenges of our time.

But is it possible that instead the so-called consensus science around global warming - produced by lavishly funded research institutes, and with its own international political lobby organization, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - is wrong?

Could it be that the emperor has no clothes?

Accessible, clearly written and illustrated with simple scientifc illustrations, and accompanied by Spooner's wry and telling cartoons, Taxing Air answers — without the spin, evasions or propaganda that pollutes most offcial writing on climate change — every question you have about global warming but have been too intimidated by the oppressive ‘consensus’ to ask.

All you ever wanted to know about the

science and politics of global warming but were afraid to ask.

'I could not put Taxing Air down ... Responding to vested interests, western politicians have already wasted trillions of dollars to frighten people with lies about industrial carbon dioxide emissions.
In fact, today’s global temperature lies well within life’s limits – indeed, the present-day is cooler than much of previous geological time.The gas of life rather than a pollutant, atmospheric carbon dioxide has nurtured all the forms of organism on planet Earth for many hundreds of mil- lions of years, as is so clearly explained in this beautifully written and illustrated book.'
Professor David Bellamy, OBE, President, Conservation Foundation, UK; 
Trustee, World Land Trust (1992-2002)
'Taxing Air is an outstanding contribution to the growing literature that examines and calls to account the climate alarmism of the past two decades. ... it provides an accurate, easily understood explanation of the many scientific and technical issues that comprise today’s climate science.
Equally important, it examines the history and exposes the duplicity of some of the individuals and organisations who have vested interests in creating and maintaining horrific visions of an imagined global warming future. The book would make a splendid gift to certain members of the climate science establishment.'
Dr. Art Raiche, CSIRO chief research scientist (retired)

To buy a copy go to


Just 8,000 years ago, there was virtually 
no summer sea-ice in the Arctic Ocean

Sea-level rise is natural, and declining in rate 

Australian rainfall has not decreased over the last 100 years 

A previous Australian drought lasted 69 years

By catchment management, the Murray-Darling Basin now 
contains almost 3 times as much water as it held naturally

Global air temperature has not increased for the last 16 years, despite an 8% increase in CO2
Global ocean temperature is also steady or cooling slightly

Australian territory absorbs up to

20 times the amount of CO2 that we emit

The CO2 tax will cost about $1,000/person/year; and rising

The result of reducing Australian CO2 emissions by 5% 
by 2020 will be a theoretical (and unmeasurable) 
cooling of between 0.0007O and 0.00007O C by 2100

No scientist can tell you whether the world will be 
warmer or cooler than today in 2020

Just a selection of the fascinating facts provided in answer to more 
than 100 basic questions about global warming and climate change 
that are covered in the book.

Persons ordering prior to that date at
and prior to bookstore availability, will receive a 
personally signed copy of the book