Friday, 30 August 2013

Senate Voting for NO CARBON TAX Climate Sceptics Party

All Political Parties put in their party preference voting tickets which can be found on the Australian Electoral Commission website. I sincerely urge for a No. 1 Vote for the NO CARBON TAX Climate Sceptics party to help rid Australia of the Green Madness of the falsified Catastrophic Global Warming Hypothesis.

Under the preference system, we at the NO CARBON TAX Climate Sceptics (NCTCS) had to do preference deals with other parties to improve our chances. If you agree with our party's preference distribution, the easiest way is to place 1 above the line (Or for your own below the line preference order see later in this post.)

Queensland: Group AE  (see all parties preferenced at aec-election)
NSW:          Group B      (see all parties preferencesd at aec-election)
Vic:            Group J       (see all parties preferenced at aec-election)
Tas:           Group Q       (see all parties preferenced at aec-election)
SA:            Group R       (see all parties preferenced at aec-election)
WA:          Group O       (see all parties preferenced at aec-election)

See all our candidates at the link above  Candidates for election 2013

                               +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  

As a guide, our friend, politically unaligned Viv Forbes, in a recent Carbon Sense Newletter (link) wrote:

Election Day – “Put every Labor/Green candidate last”.

Two facts stand out as guiding beacons in this election:
  1. It was Labor PM Kevin Rudd, supported by the Greens, who gleefully committed all Australians to the costly, unnecessary and now totally discredited Kyoto Agreement (Dec 2007). And it was Senator Penny Wong, a minister in both Rudd governments, who pushed her costly complex and now discredited Emissions Trading Scheme through the same parliament in 2009.
  2. It was Labor PM Julia Gillard leading a Labor/Green coalition in July 2011 who introduced the now discredited carbon tax.

Therefore the first rule for anyone supporting a return to Carbon Sense is this:

Put every Labor/Green Candidate last.

Three other facts are relevant:

  1. There is only one party in this election totally focussed on the abolition of the whole mess of laws, taxes, subsidies, mandates and grants supporting the whole global warming industry – the NO CARBON TAX Climate Sceptics Party. Leon Ashby leads that party and is leading their Senate Team in South Australia. Leon has a chance of winning a Senate Seat, so please vote for him in South Australia, and send his party some funds to print election posters. See:
  2. The National Party, particularly Barnaby Joyce and Ron Boswell, have been effective and outspoken critics of most of the global warming tax agenda. Support them.
  3. The Liberal Party has a split personality. Dr Denis Jensen and several others are opposed to the carbon tax industry. But Malcolm Turnbull and Greg Hunt are climate alarmists and would probably be ministers in a new Coalition government. They and other Liberals support damaging, wasteful and unnecessary policies such as Renewable Energy Targets and Carbon Capture and Storage. This prevents us from an uncritical endorsement of the LNP. Do not vote for warmist Liberals – our Parliament would be better without them.

The Senate ballot paper will be daunting. The easy option is to follow the how-to-vote from the LNP and you will help them, warts and all. At least that should tip the carbon-taxing ALP/Green coalition out of office.

We do not recommend that option. Use the power of the preferential voting system to send a real message to Parliament. Look carefully at all parties and candidates on offer and rank them, starting with number 1, and numbering all squares. Take care – you must number every square for your vote to be valid. Even if your number 1 does not get elected, the votes that go their way will be noted, and your vote will flow onto your number 2, and so on until someone accumulates a winning margin. Your vote is never wasted and never goes to someone you detest.

We have not tried to investigate all candidates or all parties, especially as there are so many new parties. So when you start numbering, stick to those you know to be opposed to the silly war on carbon dioxide, the gas of life. Make sure you do NOT number any ALP/Green candidate before you number all the known climate sceptics AND the LNP. Put all Greens dead last. If none of the good minor candidates get enough votes or preferences to win, at least your vote will not accidentally help a Green to get elected.

Here is our rough ranking of parties whose climate policies we know something about:

1.    OPPOSED TO THE CARBON TAX and THE EMISSIONS TRADING SCHEME and hostile to most of the wasteful climate industry bureaucracy:
NO CARBON TAX Climate Sceptics Party
LDP – Liberal Democratic Party
DLP – Democratic Labor Party
Family First
One Nation
2.    OPPOSED TO THE CARBON TAX and THE EMISSIONS TRADING SCHEME but supporting some other pet scheme that will benefit their supporters at our expense (like “Direct Action”):
National Party
Liberal Party

3.    NOT SURE of these, but probably hostile to at least some of the carbon tax climate agenda:
Katters Australia Party
Shooters and Fishers
Fishing and Lifestyle
Motoring Enthusiasts
Building Australia
Country Alliance
Australian Christians
4.    PUT ALL THE REST LATER, in whatever order you like, unless you know that their policies on carbon are sensible. Make sure every Green candidate, every climate zealot and every global warming alarmist in every party is at the bottom of your numbered preference list and is sent to the wilderness.

Don’t waste time or energy arguing with dedicated greens or sending them material. They must all be replaced. Throw our Carbon Sense seeds in fertile fields, not in the barren desert.

+  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  

Great New Senate Preference Allocating Aid

More advice from a friend:

Case Smit, Co-Founder of the Galileo Movement, has advised us of a great new aid for allocating your own preferences in the Senate.
I’ve just used the facility on  to rank my personal preferences on the Senate paper; it works beautifully and I recommend that you broadcast this web site to everyone you think might like to put the NO CARBON TAX Climate Sceptics Party high up on the ballot. 

Without this assistance, almost nobody would be game to through the ballot paper below the line.

Good luck,

Thanks Case! I tried it and it works well. You can even adjust it, tweek it if you want.

Cluey Voter makes it easy to vote "below the line" to really make your vote count.     

Wednesday, 28 August 2013


by IPCC Expert Reviewer Vincent Gray 
AUGUST  28th 2013


Living organisms are dependent on a whole series of chemical reactions whose rate is dependent on temperature. To maintain life, the whole organism must be surrounded by an environment which keeps the temperature of the organism within the limits necessary for its continuity. The environment must also make possible the provision of the necessary inputs  such as food and  shelter and the disposal of outputs.

The environment required to support life can be divided in a series of levels, reminiscent of the “Circles” of Dante’s “Inferno”. Humans have developed a whole series of these levels to make it possible to survive  the very varied external conditions which it is able to endure.

  • THE FIRST LEVEL may be termed the INTIMATE. It consists of mainly insulated layers of CLOTHING  whose details are adjustable to  circumstances.
  • THE SECOND LEVEL may be termed DOMESTIC. It consists of sheltered regions which reduce the effects of the outside climate and make possible essential functions of human life, such as food preparation and consumption, sleep. reproduction and leisure. Often  heating or cooling may be supplied.
  • THE THIRD LEVEL is PUBLIC. This enables public activity, work, administration and production of goods. It might include means of transport including cars and ships
  • THE FOURTH LEVEL is MUNICIPAL  and is concerned with buildings, cities, roads, water, electricity, gas supply, sewage disposal, clean air.
  • THE FIFTH LEVEL is PRODUCTIVE. This includes all the places providing food, raising animals, growing plants and timber for building, mining of minerals, fishing regions.
  • THE SIXTH LEVEL comprises those regions which are currently not needed for the other five, where there are no permanent residences, food building materials or mineral supply.

The first five levels of the environment are essential for the maintenance of human settlement. The sixth is only required for recreation and exploration . Yet it is the only level that is promoted by “Environmentalists” They are hardly interested at all in the first five levels which are the only really important ones for human progress.

“Protection”  of this sixth level is heavily dependent on the effectiveness and efficiency of the first five: on the expenditure which is left after its essential maintenance.

Environmentalists”  display extreme concern for the non human organisms of the sixth level, but this interest is grossly uneven. Large easily visible organisms are regarded as important whereas small invisible organisms are neglected. This lack of balance prevents effective “protection” of any of them
The “protection” which is demanded of the sixth level often has the effect of harming it. The use of good agricultural land to accommodate windmills, biofuels, or solar panels,  means that in order to produce enough food it is necessary to drain wetlands, clear reserves or demolish native forests. Imposition of expensive energy costs from “renewables” means that budgets for sixth-level environmental protection has to be reduced.

All levels of the environment undergo continuous change from climate and from  technology. The concept of an “ecosystem” as static, unchanging and “pristine” is false. So is the idea that there could be such a condition as “”sustainability”.

“Resources” are thought to be “depleted” yet the character and nature of the substances we need to survive change unexpectedly all the time.  Coal, oil and nuclear energy did not exist as “resources” until the possibility that they could be useful came into existence. A new technology such as “fracking” has suddenly changed  “resources” of oil and the mining of ocean clathrates might change it all again.
The whole environmentalist movement has been conned into believing that emissions of carbon dioxide harm the climate. There is no evidence for this claim, which is merely asserted by self-styled “experts. The fact that global temperatures have not changed for 17 years despite a continuing increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide proves that the two are not related.

All levels of the human environment need  constant attention ,improvement and protection. It is a gross distortion to concentrate exclusively on the sixth level, the least important,  at the expense of all the others.


Vincent Gray

NO CARBON TAX Climate Sceptics party speaks to

Bill Koutalianos, President of the NO CARBON TAX Climate Sceptics  and NSW No 1 Senate candidate speaks to first time on the Virgin Voters Website explaining why the should consider vote No 1 in the senate for the NO CARBON TAX Climate Sceptics.

Coalition still believe the Climate Change Hoax

Well meaning but misguided.
Liberals believe in the AGW hoax.
Tony Abbott might have said once that climate change is crap however, a month after making that statement,  he said that his statement was a bit of hyperbole, that it is not his considered position.  

"I think that climate change is real and I think that man does make a contribution” (back-up mp3)

If Mr Abbott really believed that "climate change is crap," would he appoint a  AGW hoax true believer as his climate change minister? 

Greg Hunt, the shadow minister for climate change, environment and water is a believer in the falsified man-made climate change hypothesis. Greg is most likely to be the Minister for Climate Change if an Abbott government is elected on September 8th.

He has continuously bowed to the AGW hoax over the years.  Some examples....

Lateline Interview Oct 19, 2009 (link)

GREG HUNT Yes. There's a big difference between inaction, which is unacceptable, and bad action. . …….we offer 150 million tonnes of savings per annum of CO2. So the real thing, greenhouse emissions, through agricultural offsets. I hope that both sides can join us in supporting saving 150 million tonnes per annum through including farm offsets.

Yes. There's a big difference between inaction, which is unacceptable, and bad action.

Inaction AND bad action are BOTH unacceptable; both waste money on a falsified CAGW hypothesis.
Lateline interview Feb 18 2010: (link)

TONY JONES Professor Garnaut told us last night that your direct action policy on climate change is delusional. It reminds him of central planning that took place in the old Soviet Union, your response to those comments. 

GREG HUNT Well, I understand he also focussed on the Government's $40 million free gifts to the biggest polluters, and called that an abomination. He took a swipe at both sides.  (my emphasis)

Note that Greg Hunt refers to emissions of vital-to-life carbon dioxide as pollution. 
In the interview Hunt continued:
What we propose, what Tony Abbott proposes, what I believe in, is this a idea of direct action, reduce emissions, clean up our farms, work on our power stations, clean up the coalmine gas, rather than cycle the money through the big polluters and leave 4.2 million Australian families worse off.

In April this year Andrew Bolt asks Greg Hunt the question: (link)
Well talking about figures, I’m still wondering what it’s all for. Professor Roger Jones, right, he’s an Australian and he’s a warmist, he reckons the cut in emissions that you and Labor both plan work out best at a cut in temperature of four thousandth of one degree by 2100, four thousandth of one degree, he is right isn’t he?
Greg Hunt gave several evasive non-answers and so Andrew tried for a fourth time noting that Hunt’s plan was 
“three billion over four years, you must have thought what am I getting as a consequence of that about four thousandth of one degree?”
Another non answer.

Can you explain to me why, and I always ask the question of you whenever I see you as you know…

You do.

And I always try to ask that of the Government when they don’t come into the studio anyway. But why is that I don’t get an answer anyway on that? I mean it’s quite a, scientists have got the figure, and they put it out there, this is the difference you will make and you guys never tell us, yes or no.

The answer is we will make a difference of 155 million tonnes…

No in temperature.

Acting alone the difference is minimal but…

Everyone watching us now has just seen me asking you the question a couple of times and everyone watching this now has seen you dodge it and they will say he’s not answering it.

That’s what really strikes me, why do politicians never answer the very basic question. For all this pain what is the gain in temperature?

And the cost of the oppositions' "climate change" policies? Well, according to Malcolm Turnbull, it would cost $18 million: (link)
MALCOLM Turnbull says Tony Abbott's direct action plan could cost taxpayers $18 billion a year by 2050, declaring it's only "fair dinkum" to admit the scheme will be funded by the budget.  

Costing the opposition's policy at a carbon price of $15 a tonne, a figure supplied by Coalition environment spokesman Greg Hunt, Mr Turnbull said the plan would cost $2.1 billion a year to achieve a 5 per cent cut in emissions by 2020.
Cutting emissions by 80 per cent by 2050, as urged by scientists, would be a “formidable” objective, he said.

“If that were to be achieved by the government buying offsets or otherwise directly paying for abatement the cost would be enormous - at $15 a tonne it would amount to an $18 billion annual cost to the budget,” Mr Turnbull said.
Keep BOTH the bastards honest.  

Vote against this Green Insanity.

In the Senate Vote 1 for the 

NO CARBON TAX Climate Sceptics.

Sunday, 25 August 2013

Rudd, Abbott and Eloquence

Eloquence, what is it?  The Dictionary has a three-legged definition;
eloquence [ˈɛləkwəns]n 
1. ease in using language to best effect
2. powerful and effective language
3. the quality of being persuasive or moving.

Why am I looking at this word? Well a friend recently wrote that, of the two Australian party leaders looking to be Prime Minister after the next election, the incumbent Kevin Rudd was the more eloquent.

That got me thinking. As treasurer of the NO CARBON TAX Climate Sceptics (NCTCS) and as such, theoretically I am not for either of the main combatants. However, as NCTCS is strongly anti-Green and Anti-socialist/communist, so we could be described as centre-right.

When my mate, we’ll call him Derr (name changed to protect an innocent in politics) said Mr Rudd was the more eloquent, I replied with:-

Even Fairfax journalists are asking “will this guy ever shut up......?”
"In trying to dominate the nightly news bulletins, the Prime Minister is talking for longer than the news itself." (link) 
And Derr answered:- 
Mr Rudd is an eloquent speaker. If he needs a little longer to convey a message, so be it.
I countered with:
Eloquent with the kids, or at least he thinks he is! 
From that link, what about - "Rudd is also becoming increasingly fluent in his use of ''daglish'' Is talking like a dag eloquent? What about:- He is frequently referring to his home town as ''Bris'' (despite the fact it also means ''male circumcision ceremony''  What about "Boat people have become ''folks on boats'' Really?  Sheesh! I really don't think that falsely trying to pander to school kids with "daglish" is eloquent.

Derr came straight back with: 
You know as well as I do that diminutives are acceptable parlance in Australian speech (even though I, personally, find them rather gauche). 
So, I introduced a satirical piece from Mike Carlton (I am not sure if Derr realised that it WAS satire.)
Hey Derr, I have found the source of Kevvie's programmatic eloquenicity; he get's it from school kids and his childlike staffers: (link) ''Do we want you guys to have a great education? Yes we do!" he bellows.  "Do we want you to get a fair crack of the stick? Yes we do!" He flips the familiar winglet of silver hair back off his forehead. There are puzzled looks, a few sniggers. Fair crack of the stick? It turns out he means fair crack of the whip The idiom clunks, like that famous shake of the sauce bottle, as if Kevin had somehow learnt Australian As A Second Language Later I hear him tell a staffer "don't come the king prawn with me, mate''."I think it's 'raw prawn', Kevin," I say helpfully.He stares at me for a moment, rather crossly, but then whips out a small notebook and carefully jots it down. Raw prawn. (link) You're right, Derr. He is eloquent. 
Note that I agreed??? But Derr came back with:
Dear, dear, Geoffrey, you do get carried away don't you? As commented before, he does use some vernacular expressions but this does not make him any the less eloquent. One dismisses these remarks as Rudd idiosyncarcies. I am prepared to accept these as being preferable alternatives to Abbott's 'slow deliveries without much substance'.

So back to our definition:
eloquence  1. ease in using language to best effect2. powerful and effective language3. the quality of being persuasive or moving. 

Regarding the two debates the leaders have had so far, it is generally agreed that TA won the first even though the PM cheated and used unallowed notes. 

The second debate could be a narrow win for KR but TA won the following discussion with his (planned?) "will this guy ever shut up?" And KR lost the rest of the discussion with his lack of regard for a fellow being in Lily Fontana.

So does KR have the parts of the definition to be called eloquent?
  • Ease in using language – Is it his natural language or is it forced?
  • Powerful and Effective Language – His repeated “CUT-CUT-CUT’ was powerful, was it effective?
  • Quality of being persuasive – Well polling seems to show that he has failed on this point…. 

But there is only one poll that counts. That will show how eloquent the two leaders have been.

Here's a clip showing our PM's ease in using language, powerful and effective language, the quality of being persuasive or moving. 

Friday, 23 August 2013

Hide the decline - No, Hide the Evidence

Cartoons by Josh's Judith Curry
Professor Judith Curry in a post titled Scientists and motivated reasoning wrote
One of my colleagues was thinking about publishing a paper that challenges the IPCC interpretation of the previous pause during the 1940s to 1970′s.  My colleague sent a .ppt presentation on this topic to three  colleagues, each of whom is a very respected senior scientist and none of whom have been particularly vocal advocates on the subject of climate change (names are withheld to protect the guilty/innocent).  Each of these scientists strongly encouraged my colleague NOT to publish this paper, since it would only provide fodder for the skeptics.  (my emphasis)
James M Taylor, the managing editor of Environment & Climate News, addressed this in an item Headed 'Respected Senior Scientists' Urge Suppressing Climate Evidence.'
Curry began her article by quoting the following hypothetical scenario from a science ethics article: 
Imagine the following scenario. An atmospheric scientist makes a discovery that seems to challenge a particular model of sea level increase due to global warming. She expects her discovery will be refined through further research, and that, in the end, it will not refute the mainstream view. In the meantime, she wants to avoid giving ammunition to climate skeptics, so she postpones publication.” 

The author of the science ethics article gave an appalling opinion of what the scientist should do. 
The good cause which allegedly motivates much of the research puts the researcher in a special position. It allows them to dispense with essential standards of professional conduct,” the author wrote.
Of the strong encouragement not to publish, Taylor writes:
The Scientific Method requires us to test and challenge our own theories. The Scientific Method requires us to not only test and challenge our own theories, but to encourage others to similarly challenge our theories. Instead, global warming alarmists – even those described as “respected” and not “particularly vocal advocates” on the issue – advocate suppressing scientific studies and hiding scientific evidence whenever it conflicts with their own speculative theories. The fact that all three “respected” and seemingly non-activist scientists sought to suppress scientific evidence is particularly damning to the alarmist cause. 
Those people who pursue sound science respect and advocate critical inquiry and the Scientific Method. Those people who seek to suppress critical inquiry and scientific evidence engage in nothing short of anti-science. 
Kevin Trenberth urged us to hide the decline, now "very respected senior scientists" are urging suppression of scientific papers "damning to the alarmists' cause."

And THEY call us DENIERS?

 Remember these Climategate Quotes:

Phil Jones:
“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temperatures to each series for the last 20 years (i.e. from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”
Hide the decline; hide contrary evidence.

Michael Mann:
“It would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “Medieval Warm Period”
See Also Jonathan Overpeck's similar desire to hide the Medieval Warm Period (Link)

Phil Jones:
“Mike Mann refuses to talk to these people and I can understand why. They are just trying to find if we’ve done anything wrong.”  
Isn't that the idea behind peer-review, Phil? 

Phil Jones:
“If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn’t being political, it is being selfish.”
Here's a thought. Why not revert to the time when Science really meant Science and we can go back to respecting scientists?

Thursday, 22 August 2013

Climate Reductio ad Absurdum

Republished from Alan Caruba's Warning Signs (Link)

By Alan Caruba

Recently, three researchers at the University of California, Berkeley, had a study published that claimed that a “substantial” correlation between violence and climate change could be made.

They cited sixty studies from around the world that, according to a BBC World Service article, demonstrated that “even small changes in temperature or rainfall correlated with a rise in assaults, rapes, and murders, as well as group conflicts and war.”

Apparently they missed the data on World War II’s Battle of the Bulge or the siege of Stalingrad, both of which were fought in freezing weather. Earlier, Napoleon ran into a similar problem when he wanted to conquer Russia.

We have now reached a point in the Great Global Warming Hoax where pure absurdity is the norm for claims made on behalf of a warming cycle that ended around 1996.

In a Washington Times January 17 commentary, Patrick J. Michaels, director of the Cato Institute’s Center for the Study of Science, wrote, “My greener friends are increasingly troubled by the lack of a rise in recent global surface temperatures. Using monthly data measured as the departure from long-term averages, there’s been no significant warming trend since the fall of 1996. In other words, we are now in our 17th year of flat temperatures.”

Citing the usual scientific data involved, Michaels wrote, “It’s a pretty good bet that we are going to go nearly a quarter of a century without warming.”

Much of the kind of idiotic “scientific research” with which the public has been inundated for decades has been the result of the pursuit of funding that involves “professional advancement”, noted Michaels, and which is “particularly dependent upon a certain view”—proving that global warming is real despite all the evidence to the contrary. Claiming that it is causing a rise of violence around the world is idiotic.

Commenting on the Cal-Berkeley study, James M. Taylor, the Heartland Institute’s editor of Environment & Climate News, noted that the three researchers “claim to apply expert principles of ‘archaeology, criminology, economics, geography, history, political science, and psychology’ in their paper” despite the fact that they ”share the same limited background in economics” to claim such expertise.

Over at, editor Marc Morano said, “Instead of looking at temperature data or other climate metrics to prove or disprove man-made global warming, the global warming activists have now shifted the playing field so rape and murder statistics are now used as some sort of ‘proof’ of man-made global warming. Global warming science has truly morphed to modern witchcraft!”

The only place you will find “proof” of global warming these days is in computer models.

Too often they are those used by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and those at NASA, both government entities that are mindful that they better toe the party line if they want their budget requests fulfilled. Despite having the best satellites and computer models available, the National Weather Service would not guarantee its predictions more than three days out and surely not more than a week or two.

It is unfortunate that we have a President who keeps repeating the same false claims about “climate change”—the new name for global warming—despite the fact that they have been disputed and abandoned by thousands of scientists around the world. Worse, claims about “carbon pollution” are being used by the Environmental Protection Agency and other government departments to justify the war on coal in particular and hydrocarbon fuels in general.

Some elements of the press such as the BBC are unwilling to abandon the global warming hoax. This means that the search for new scary headlines with which to sell newspapers and magazines, or increase ratings on the evening news will lead to claims about dramatically rising sea levels or, as Michaels predicts, “acid oceans.”

It is all garbage and the real threat is the billions in taxpayer dollars that are being wasted on so-called “climate change” research or the tons of regulations being written to support the strangulation of the nation’s economy in the name of air and water pollution. We have clean air. We have clean water. We need jobs.

© Alan Caruba, 2013

Greens mining tax policy numbers questioned

Australian Mining reports:
 The costings of the Greens’ mining tax proposal for the election have been deemed to be able to be priced at “very low” reliability.
The party’s mining tax proposal is very similar to Kevin Rudd’s original controversial mining tax design. 
But the independent Parliamentary Budget Office, which was set up collaboratively by the Greens and Labor, cautioned the Greens’ predictions the mining tax will generate $20.8 billion are “extremely sensitive” to issues such as commodity prices fluctuations and the exchange rate. 
It also said there was no solid tax data that back the estimates, nor was there any solid indication on how taxpayers would receive the policy.
Read More at Australian Mining (link)

Lack of Warming Doesn't Matter - Trenberth's new view.

"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." 

This is an oft-quoted line by Kevin Trenberth as revealed in the ClimateGate emails.

It seems now, at least to Mr Trenberth a senior scientist in the climate analysis section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, temperature is not important to Global Warming.

From Bloomberg (discussing the forthcoming IPCC 5AR)
“There are other signs of warming that are abundantly clear,” Trenberth said in an interview. “Those are some of the messages that I think might end up coming out of this report. It’s really strong in areas other than just the global mean temperature or even regional temperatures around the world.” 
So, don't worry about the lack of warming, there are factors other than temperature that show the world is warming.....

Wednesday, 21 August 2013

Getting their Just Deserts!

National Geographic has an item by James Owen titled:

Sahara Desert Greening Due to Climate Change?

Desertification, drought, and despair—that's what global warming has in store for much of Africa. Or so we hear. 
Emerging evidence is painting a very different scenario, one in which rising temperatures could benefit millions of Africans in the driest parts of the continent. 
Scientists are now seeing signals that the Sahara desert and surrounding regions are greening due to increasing rainfall. 
If sustained, these rains could revitalize drought-ravaged regions, reclaiming them for farming communities. 
This desert-shrinking trend is supported by climate models, which predict a return to conditions that turned the Sahara into a lush savanna some 12,000 years ago.

Wikipedia tells us that 12,000 years ago was during the last Ice Age:
The last glacial period, popularly known as the Ice Age, was the most recent glacial period within the current ice age occurring during the last years of the Pleistocene, from approximately 110,000 to 10,000 years ago 
Wikipedia also informs us that during the last Ice Age the Sahara was a larger desert:
During the last glacial period, the Sahara was even bigger than it is today, extending south beyond its current boundaries.[17] The end of the glacial period brought more rain to the Sahara, from about 8000 BC to 6000 BC, perhaps because of low pressure areas over the collapsing ice sheets to the north. 
Once the ice sheets were gone, the northern Sahara dried out.
Be that as it may, do they acknowledge the "demon" gas food, Carbon Dioxide? Atmospheric Plant food, Carbon dioxide has been increasing.....
Image: Prof Ole Humlum's Climate4You
Why, oh Why, can't the Alarmist media admit that the theory of catastrophic man-made global warming has been falsified and admit that carbon dioxide is not a dangerous pollutant but in fact is a beneficial help to man and to all plant life.
See Also:

NO CARBON TAX Senate Candidate for New South Wales.

A message from NCTCS President and No 1 Senate Candidate for NSW Bill Koutalianos to the Young Voters (and us older citizens too)

Hi, I`m Bill Koutalianos from the NO CARBON TAX Climate Sceptics party.

Satellite data indicates global warming plateaued over 15 years ago. This is at odds with the man-made global warming theory. If you're unaware of this, it's no surprise. Much of the media have deemed ‘the climate debate is over’, whilst overlooking the latest data & a fair bit of foul play that's come to light. Remarkably, our three major parties seem blind to it too. Many scientists reject AGW theory & it's even been called 'the worst scientific scandal in history'.

Neither Labor's uncapped ETS carbon price, nor the Coalition's policy, nor the RET, will change the temperature of the planet. It's a waste of billions of dollars & it's young people starting their careers today, that will bear the brunt of these policies over their working lives.

Rising energy prices force up the price of everything. We've seen the detrimental impacts of EU climate & green energy policies on youth unemployment in Greece & Spain.

We should expect better of our leaders & institutions.  CO2 is plant food. It greens the planet & helps crops grow faster. It's not the white steam coming out of power stations, nor the black pollutant it's been painted as.

We've been gradually losing our rights & freedoms for years & joining an EU ETS is going to make matters worse. 

We need to revitalise Australia, reject socialist green bureaucracy, reject dodgy trading schemes, stand up for our democracy & the integrity of science.

I hope you will vote for us in the Senate. 

And more from Virgin Voters:

The NO CARBON TAX Climate Sceptics Party feels alleged man-made global warming or climate change is a “great moral challenge of our time”, due to the politicisation of science.
We see evidence of politics hijacking science in numerous climate related scandals, and accumulating daily.
It should also be a particularly relevant issue for younger Australians, who’ll be paying unjustified higher energy costs, for the rest of their lives.
It’s extraordinary none of our major parties seem overly concerned about this, which led us to form our party with the ambition of rectifying it.
Climate has always changed naturally and we know there’s no scientist in the world that has evidence CO2 will cause dangerous global warming which effectively means we are over reacting to exaggerated hype rather than a real threat.
We’re not just against the carbon tax or emissions trading scheme, but against the need to reduce CO2 emissions in any way that damages our economy.
CO2 is plant food and the more there is in the air, the more food we can grow.
Our policies are based on true science as opposed to politicised science, we are pro small business, we are for minimal government and we are against the extreme green religion.
We hope you will consider voting for us in the Senate.

Tuesday, 20 August 2013

The Best Chance to Remove the Greens from the Sth Australian Senate

“Leon Ashby is the best chance to remove the Greens from the SA Senate”
Leon Ashby
2002 Centenary Medal recipient for services to
Conservation and the Environment

In support of NCTCS Senate Candidate
 Leon Ashby

Hello Supporters and Readers,

"Leon Ashby needs your help to secure a seat in the Senate."

This email is an unashamed request for a few funds to assist electing NO CARBON TAX Climate Sceptics Candidate Leon Ashby to the Senate in SA. 

We believe his chances are remarkably good as explained below.

The funds are to print as many Posters as possible to spread around SA during the two weeks prior to the election. Posters cost around $15 each. We would like to print over 100 if possible. (e.g. Raise $1500 or more)

First a big thank you to everyone who has given funds to get our 12 candidates nominated. It cost us $24,000.

Secondly a huge thank you to the other parties who have preferenced NCTCS high in SA - We are humbled by your confidence in us.

There are 12 parties who have preferenced Leon either first or virtual first in SA.

The media has missed this point so far, so do not be surprised if you have not read about it - YET

There are three "humps" for Leon to get over to get elected.

The first hump is to poll highly enough to start accumulating the votes of the other micro parties. 

We believe he needs 5,000 votes to do this. Last election he received 4,600 votes.
Publicity is the crucial thing here - Posters - interviews and people passing on information with emails

 “Leon Ashby is the best chance to remove the Greens from the SA Senate” is the message to get out.

The second hump is the toughest - when preference distribution reaches around the 4% mark.

There's a significant number of small groups going to the Sex party and we believe their total will be around 4%.

Family First gets a very strong primary and has two early preferences so they will have around 4%. 

The Greens might have about 8%  and the Liberals will have over half a third quota.

If the accumulated "Leon" vote is above the accumulated "Sex" vote OR the accumulated "Family First" vote he gets the majority of both of them (some of the Sex party feeders split off to the Greens, but Sex party themselves come to Leon along with the LDP and smokers rights party.

The third hump is not much of a hump, when it is down to three - the Greens, the Liberals, and Leon.

The Greens are preferencing Leon above the Liberals and the Liberals are preferencing Leon above the Greens. This means that as long as he is above one of them, he gets elected.

We think the odds of this are really good, as it's a little bit of a zero sum game between the Liberals and the Greens - The higher the Liberal vote is, the lower the ALP surplus going to the Greens and vice versa. And remember that mathematically the number of votes left in this last distribution must be 2 quotas minus one vote - so 28.6%.

Provided Leon has 9% of the vote or more, then one of the other two must be below him. 

So if you can spare $20 or $100 to help maximise the primary vote for Leon, please donate by cheque to 9 Britton Place, McKellar ACT 2617 

or direct deposit into

Westpac Climate Sceptics Account
BSB 035612
acc no 239469  

Donations to NCTCS - an AEC Registered Political Party - are Tax Deductible.

Please call or text 0435423636 or email us to let us know how much you have donated so we know how many posters we can order by noon Thursday.

Many Thanks,

The NO CARBON TAX Climate Sceptics Team.

Authorised by Bill Koutalianos 1C Marshall St, Petersham, Sydney

Sunday, 18 August 2013

A vote for the Greens is a vote against Australia.

It’s not easy being Green.

A vote for the Greens is a vote against Australia.

Conservative Prime Minister Candidate Tony Abbott recently said that the Liberals would preference the Greens party last (link), whilst Kevin Rudd’s Labor Party will give its second preferences to the Greens in every territory and state except Queensland. (link)

Labor sources said that they feared the move will be a boon to the Coalition who will be able to argue that a vote for Labor is a vote for the Greens.

Actually a vote for the Greens is a vote against Australian sovereignty. The Greens party believes in one world government not a self-governing Australia.

Although the Greens on their “Constitutional reform and democracy” policy page say:
Parliament should serve the best interest of all Australians, not just those who can afford to buy influence.
This is in direct conflict with their Global Governance policy where they declare, against the best interest of all Australians, that (link)
The system of global governance must be reinvigorated to advance global peace and security, justice, human rights, poverty alleviation, health and environmental sustainability.
This is straight from the Marxist  (communist) Manifesto: (link)
The necessary consequence of this was political centralization. Independent, or but loosely connected provinces, with separate interests, laws, governments, and systems of taxation, became lumped together into one nation, with one government, one code of laws, one national class interest, one frontier, and one customs tariff. 

Think about Australia in a world government. According to Wikipedia, world population is estimated to be over 7 billion. (Wikipedia

Australia’s population, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, is around 23 million; that is a third of 1% of the world population, a mere 0.33%. 

Each Australian vote would be countered by the votes of more than 300 non-Australians. How democratic would that be for Australians?

Why do the Australian Greens hate Australia?

A survey of ABC journalists about their political attitudes revealed that more than 40% were Greens supporters, more than four times the support the minor party enjoys in the wider population. (link)

Why do "our" ABC and the Australian Greens hate Australia?