Thursday, 11 July 2013

ANTS-ropogenic Global Warming? Nope - retraction!

Ants are good citizens, they place group interests first.
Clarence Day 

It appears that scientists who study ants also put group interests first, eg the interests of alarmist scientists, at least if we use the example of Srour et al.  

In a paper in Insect Science, Srour et al, in their abstract, wrote:
Here we show the possible effects of global warming on the diversity of ants in the Wurmberg Mountain (Harz Mountains), Germany.
We found that the ants of the Harz Mountains react as expected to changes in altitude. That said, some species, specifically low-altitude thermophilic ones, show signs of expanding into higher altitudes, a possible reaction to climate warming. Diversity of ants across an altitudinal gradient in and outside a pine forest in the Harz Mountains,  Germany  (link)
Marc SrourGermano Leão Demolin LeiteTorsten WapplerTeja Tscharntke,Christoph Scherber
Insect Science 01/2012; DOI:10.1111/j.1744-7917.2012.01521

However, the paper has now been retracted.  As reported by Retraction Watch (link)  -

But as the retraction notice indicates, those results are fraught:
The following article from Insect Science, ‘Diversity of ants across an altitudinal gradient in and outside a spruce forest in the Harz Mountains, Germany’ by Marc Srour, Germano Leão Demolin Leite, Torsten Wappler, Teja Tscharntke and Christoph Scherber, published online on 2 August 2012 in Wiley Online Library (, has been retracted by agreement between the authors, the journal Editor in Chief, Le Kang, and Wiley Publishing Asia Pty Ltd. The retraction has been agreed due to concerns having been raised about the validity of the species richness values derived by the authors, and regarding the validity of the species determinations.
"Once bitten" comes to mind.

Zero Emissions Foolishness

"Carbon Sense"Common sense on carbon, food, energy and climate.
We are in a battle for public opinion.
If every recipient sends this email to five more, we will play our part in changing public opinion. 

Zero Emissions Foolishness
by Viv Forbes

a pdf print-ready copy of this newsletter with all illustrations in place can be downloaded from:

The Australian Climate Commission says Australia needs to reduce emissions “to nearly zero by 2050”.

Such a reduction can only be achieved if the Climate Commission has a secret plan to use nuclear power or for a massive expansion of hydro power.

If they do not have such a plan, their “nearly zero” emissions target would force the shut down of most of the energy, transport and industrial infrastructure developed since James Watt invented the steam engine.

Imagine Australia with “zero emissions” – which means zero production of carbon dioxide from human activities and industries.

This would mean zero usage of coal, oil, petrol, diesel or gas, zero production of cement or steel and the shut-down of 92% of Australia’s electricity generators.

Sunbeams and sea breezes cannot supply 24/7 electricity - the only feasible non-carbon options for Australian grid power are nuclear or hydro. Has the Climate Commission joined the nuclear power lobby? Or do they have a secret plan for big hydro developments on the Snowy, the Franklin and the Tully-Millstream?

And how do we keep our diesel-fuelled transport fleet operating? Using big, big batteries and even more nuclear or hydro power to recharge them at every roadhouse in the outback? (But once they eliminate our grazing animals and their emissions, we will not need road trains.)

And how do we keep planes operating? Are they suggesting that we divert most of our sugar production to producing power alcohol? 

For cement and steel we could of course try to catch and bury every molecule of carbon dioxide produced, but in reality the costs involved in such stupidity would force closure of these industries, and cement and steel would be imported from more sensible nations.

Some zealots would even like to see the end of our vast herds of cattle, sheep and goats, replacing them with kangaroos.

Unless the Climate Commission can show us a realistic plan for “zero emissions”, with cost benefit analyses, we know it is just more hot emissions from academic zealots.

They must put up, or shut up.

For those who can’t believe the Climate commission said something so stupid, see here:

Carbon Credit Farming is Unsustainable

The carbon farming caper is supported by all political parties. Under it, landowners can sell “carbon credits” if they can prove that they have reduced carbon dioxide by capturing it as humus in soil, or by planting forests, or by allowing re-growth of woody weeds, or by reducing feral animal emissions (shooting camels) or even by promising solemnly to NOT clear specified parcels of forest.

NONE of these processes are sustainable in the long run.

There is a limit to the amount of humus or trees that can be based on one hectare of top-soil.

And once all feral animals have been shot there are no more carbon credits to be earned there (unless the landowner is also breeding them secretly in the back paddock).

And even in the corrupt carbon market for hot air, only one payment can be legally claimed for promising to NOT clear a parcel of land (and one bushfire will reverse all that in one afternoon).

The whole concept is unsustainable, it encourages corruption, and most of the benefits will go to the big B’s - Bureaucracies, Bankers and Brokers.

African farmers are saying “No” to land-grabbing carbon credit speculators.

Australia should do the same.

For those interested to read more:

Carbon Credit Land grab in Uganda:

Africans to UN: “We don't want your carbon farming.”  See here:

Henbury Station, Australia’s big carbon farming experiment goes bust:

PS If you were so silly as to want a sustainable long-term method to lock away the sparse carbon resources of the atmosphere using “carbon farming”, the ONLY way to do it is to harvest regular crops of trees, pastures, cereals and grazing animals. Then use these carbon-rich products to build homes and feed families, thus creating long-term storage of the carbon in buildings as timber, or in human bodies as flesh and bone.

Finally, when these carbon carriers reach the end of their life, bury the old timber and the dead bodies in deep holes so that the carbon never gets back into the biosphere. Such burial should attract carbon credit payments.

Such a scheme will methodically remove carbon dioxide, the gas of life, from the carbon cycle – a sure way to starve life on Earth.

It is the road to biocide, but that seems to be what the Deep Greens want.

Let’s hope they starve first.

On the Consensus:

"In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual."
Galileo Galilei, 1564 –1642

Weather Forecasting
As of lunchtime yesterday, the Met Office wasn’t at all sure how Britain’s weather would turn out today. According to a spokesman, some of its computer models were predicting ‘a rather miserable day for some southern areas’. Others, however, suggested it would be ‘fine and bright’.
‘Sometimes the atmosphere can provide a real challenge for forecasters,’ the spokesman admitted wearily.

(But those who have trouble forecasting the weather for next weekend, want us to believe their same models can forecast global climate  100  years hence.)
David Rose

Silencing the Sceptics – The New Dark Age in Academia

Bob Carter is one of those scientists that the Climatists would like to silence. His output of rational books, articles and lectures on the pseudo-science supporting the man-made global warming is remarkable. And unable to combat his arguments, the alarmists and their friends in government, academia and the media seek to silence him by ignoring his arguments or trying to destroy his support base.

What looks like another chapter in this unspoken war, James Cook University, North Queensland has blackballed Professor Carter because, as Jo Nova says:

“The only reasons given were that the staff of the School of Earth and Environmental Studies had discussed the issue (without any consultation with Carter) and decided that his views on climate change did not fit well within the School’s own teaching and research activities. Apparently it took up too much time to defend Carter against outside complaints about his public writings and lectures on climate change.”

Undeterred by all this, Bob Carter and friends have just released a new book:

Taxing Air – Facts and Fallacies in Climate Change

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 it is so then climate change surely is one of the great moral challenges of our time.

But is it possible that 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 scientific illustrations, and accompanied by Spooner's brilliantly wry and telling cartoons, Taxing Air answers - without the spin, evasions or propaganda that pollutes most official writing on climate change - every question you have about global warming but have been too intimidated by the oppressive 'consensus' to ask.

To buy the book, or read more about it see:

And on Facebook:

Anything but Green

The phony election campaign is nearly over. The real campaign has commenced.

There is only one rule – judge every candidate (not just the party label) and put the green zealots and climate alarmists in every party LAST.

Viv Forbes

“Carbon Sense” is an independent newsletter produced for the Carbon Sense Coalition, an Australian based organisation which opposes waste of resources, opposes pollution, and promotes the rational use of all energy resources including carbon energy.  

Literary, financial or other contributions to help our cause are welcomed. We get no government grants and unlike many of our opponents, we do not pose as a charity and in fact pay GST and income tax on our operations. We live on subscriptions alone.

For more information visit our web site at
If you would like to keep Carbon Sense operating, send subscriptions to 
Carbon Sense Pty Ltd, by post to the address below, or direct deposit to:
Acct No: 553 077 331
BSB: 334-040
Please spread “Carbon Sense” around.
Authorised by: Viv Forbes, Chairman, MS 23, Rosewood   Qld   4340   Australia. Phone 0754 640 533
To Unsubscribe send a reply with “Unsubscribe” in the subject line.